Refuting the "Geography" Argument from non-believers (if you were born in...then you would be a ....)

[scottm]

I never assumed that, nor did I mention anything about “cause” and “effect”. If the solar system had turned out differently (and you didn’t mention how that could be. 93 million miles from the sun is the magic number—we don’t see life on venus or mars…) that would have been an equally random process with the same ratio of probability.

Your subjective assessment of existence is extraneous. If you don’t like the term “lucky”, fine…then we got “unlucky”…it doesn’t make a difference, you still haven’t explained how “it” (existence) isn’t random.

And your statement #2 is what? And your point here about randomness is what? So the sun was XX million miles away instead. Big deal. There’s nothing to be drawn from that, there’s no conclusion, there’s nothing to be said about it, UNLESS YOU PRESUPPOSE THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE UNIVERSE WAS TO CREATE YOU.

If you were not the desired outcome of the solar system being the way it is, then your present life is utterly irrelevant to the question of how and why the solar system got to be the way it is. And then your statement #2 bears no weight. And it doesn’t matter if how random anything is.

Do you get it now?

antiTheist:

That’s more or less the geography argument, yes, though I wouldn’t draw the conclusion “THAT is why you (specifically) are a Christian!” and I certainly wouldn’t argue that it demonstrates that gods do not exist. Anyone who would seriously use the argument to draw those conclusions is making a pretty glaring logical error.

There was a bit more discussion after that initial post, but thank you anyway.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

And your statement #2 is what? And your point here about randomness is what? So the sun was XX million miles away instead. Big deal. There’s nothing to be drawn from that, there’s no conclusion, there’s nothing to be said about it, UNLESS YOU PRESUPPOSE THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE UNIVERSE WAS TO CREATE YOU.

If you were not the desired outcome of the solar system being the way it is, then your present life is utterly irrelevant to the question of how and why the solar system got to be the way it is. And then your statement #2 bears no weight. And it doesn’t matter if how random anything is.

Do you get it now?

No I don’t. Does anyone else reading this thread understand what scott is trying to say? I would really like to understand your point.

If the earth was NOT 93 million miles from the sun (closer or farther away), then there would be no life on the planet called “earth” and no one around to label that planet “e-a-r-t-h”. Is this what you are trying to describe? A universe without life? How would that universe, devoid of a creator or Aristotles’ “unmoved mover”, be any less random than a universe that does contain life?

 

[scottm]

Actually, I don’t know anyone who believes the universe is random. I don’t think it’s random myself. Everyone I’ve ever talked with is pretty certain that the universe follows very explicit physical laws.

Honestly, I’ve lost track of where we were going with this, and I mean you no disrespect in saying that.

 

[AntiTheist]

No I don’t. Does anyone else reading this thread understand what scott is trying to say? I would really like to understand your point.

Scott is saying that in order to consider the outcome of the universe “lucky,” you have to evaluate it from the point of view of it being the desired outcome from the beginning – which assumes the point that you want to make.

Maybe this analogy will help you figure it out:

What are the odds of being dealt a perfect Bridge hand (ace through king, all of the same suit)? I don’t know what the number is, but it’s a big one: one in many millions or billions or something huge like that.

Now: what are the odds of being dealt any other combination of cards (jack of clubs, three of diamonds, seven of clubs, two of spades, queen of diamonds, etc.)? The odds of any other particular combination of cards being dealt are exactly the same.

In other words, any combination of cards is equally improbable. The only reason that we look at a perfect Bridge hand and say, “Wow, I got lucky!” is that we have a pre-determined idea of what we want the outcome to be.

Similarly, any other configuration of the universe would have been just as improbable as the universe we got. Maybe that other universe would have life, or maybe it would have different kinds of life, or maybe it would have different kinds of life in different places, or maybe it would have had no life at all.

In that universe, maybe there would have been a galactic race of Slime Lords that arose and said, “Look! We’re the perfect distance from our star for our kind of life to arise! This is evidence that the universe is designed and that we Slime Lords are the chosen people of god.”

It’s an argument from misunderstanding probability.

 

[AntiTheist]

And as far as “random” goes, you guys are using two different definitions of “random.”

“Random” can mean “totally unpredictable,” and in that sense, no one thinks the universe is random. It obviously works according to predictable, regular laws. [Ironically, it’s actually people who believe in miracles who think that the laws of the universe could be reversed by god at any second – it’s they who actually believe in a random universe]

But “random” can also colloquially mean “not directed by a plan, not a teleology.” It’s in this sense that (most) atheists think the universe is “random.”

We could say that lightning just randomly struck a tree and made it fall (“random” in the second sense) – and yet the physical processes that made all of that happen are all well known, regular, and predictable (not “random” in the first sense).

 

[scottm]

Ya, what he said.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

If people were led to religion primarily, or even significantly by reason, we would expect to see a bit more ardor among the faithful, even allowing for the usual human frailties of sloth, cultural rot etc.

The problem is not reason, for even someone as wrong as Marx is quite reasonable. It is the choice of primitives that is important, and this choice precedes reason. If you obtain your primitives from Descartes, Kant, and Russell (as many Westerners do) you will place your faith in the human mind rather than divinity. If you read people like St. Paul, Erasmus, Tertullian, Augustine, Pascal and Kiekergard you will be equipped with an entirely different set of primitives. One must compare the quality of these primitives to determine which are correct.

We could say that lightning just randomly struck a tree and made it fall (“random” in the second sense) – and yet the physical processes that made all of that happen are all well known, regular, and predictable (not “random” in the first sense).

But isn’t it odd to postulate a universe that has laws (not random in a natural sense) but no teleological order (random in an ontological sense). Such a universe is much harder to explain than one that is ordered in both ways.

 

[dskysmine]

+1 to what wanstronian said.
I’ve spent a decade discussing religion with atheists all around the world. I can’t recall any of them saying that.

Check what Antitheist just said…

Agreed.
Now find me the Mayan jungle people of the time and place of Mel Gibson’s movie who were Catholic. I don’t think there were any. I belive there were none, in spite of their “freedom.” They were just as free as you and I today, the same as us, but none of them chose Catholicism. None of them did.

Why do you suppose that is? Could the reason be that Catholicsm was not part of their culture?

I am unaware of a single Buddhist in the whole of Italy in, say, 20 BC. Not even one Buddhist. But there were a whole bunch of Jupiter fanatics. Why is that? Did every single Roman in that era exericise his or her personal freedom to reject Buddhism in favor of Jupiter-ism?

No, I think the Romans chose from what was in their culture, and Buddhism wasn’t one of the choices.
The Mayans chose from what was in their culture, and Christianity wasn’t one of the choices.
With the pasasge of time things change, and we today stand tall and proud in the belief that all those ancestors were wrong, but what will happen 1000 years from now? Will our descendants think us wrong? We think that Christianity will last forever because, from our perspective, it is “ultimate truth.” But the Mayans thought that about their religion, and the Romans of theirs.

Put yourself in their shoes. The geography argument from the point of view of an atheist is about recognizing that religions are saturated with subjectivity. From the point of view of Christians, it is about recognizing that there are other ways to heaven besides the Sinner’s Prayer.

I never said that people are “free” to choose Catholicism whenever and wherever… I said that the argument doesn’t tell us anything about the “truthfulness” of any religion. It just states that humans are influenced… and we never argued against that! The problem is the assumption that if the truth wasn’t always known then it musn’t be true… which is a big fallacy.

When people didn’t have the resources and the knowledge of science we have now they did things that they did not know would hurt them. Heck, even nowadays people do drugs thinking they can overcome the adiction through sheer will. It doesn’t make the fact that drugs cause adiction false… That is the problem with the argument and you can’t see it.

You assume that “if God exists he would have or should have revealed himself anywhere and everywhere”. You assume too much. You are not God. You assume that you know what is good and what is bad, which makes the rest of us “bad” according to your point of view. But according to “subjective morality” we can’t be “bad” or “good” according to your morality because we have other “subjective morality”… Do you see where this is going? That would entail that no one is right and no one is wrong and subjective morality doesn’t make sense… Which in turn makes your argument about being “wrong” or “right” an absurd.

“Your culture” is the key word. Your culture. Now, here, when you’re alive. But what about the culture of the other guy, in the other time and the other place? That difference is the whole point! The other guy, exposed to other and different things, will make a different choice. Were you living in the Mel Gibson movie you would not ever be a Roman Catholic. That’s so obvious.

We already said that we cannot “live” or “be” from other eras… it wouldn’t be “us”… The maximum you can state about it is that people at that time couldn’t be Catholic and we don’t argue against that, but it doesn’t serve any purpose or does it? It just serves your purpose to declare that: “God is unjust not to have allowed them to know the truth”. Which, of course only serves the purpose of declaring that “you are right” and everyone else is wrong… but it just assumes that your definition of Justice is the correct one and you can’t base it in anything but your point of view.

Understood?

 

[scottm]

You assume that “if God exists he would have or should have revealed himself anywhere and everywhere”. You assume too much. You are not God.

You are not God either, but if we’re trying to be logical in our thoughts then we’re allowed to impose logic on the characteristics attributed to God. But yes, that will be the next statement. Now you’re doing the Geography Argument correctly!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we both agree that a whole bunch of people are damned by birth because they were born in a time and place where God was not revealed. I’m going with that now, so if that’s not your position you have to correct me.

God is posited as “wanting all people to be saved” (Bible verse quote). And he is posited as being all-powerful and all-knowing and the very essence of love. Put all those descriptions together and you would expect everyone to be born into a place where Catholicism, or some version of Christianity, would be available. But we just said that didn’t happen.

Yes of course the other guy will object to that, and for a very clear reason: it is contrary to love. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,” right? Love? Except that God didn’t love some of the people enough. The consequence is damnation.

Isn’t it? If the consequence is not damnation then we have to stop the Geography Argument right now.

You assume that you know what is good and what is bad, which makes the rest of us “bad” according to your point of view. But according to “subjective morality” we can’t be “bad” or “good” according to your morality because we have other “subjective morality”… Do you see where this is going? That would entail that no one is right and no one is wrong and subjective morality doesn’t make sense… Which in turn makes your argument about being “wrong” or “right” an absurd.

Be careful here. Put yourself in the other guy’s shoes. We’re talking about a God who put people in a place where those people can never become Catholic (or any other flavor of Christianity). The consequence for them is damnation. You can’t jump ahead and say “that’s okay – it’s objectively good” without addressing how those people’s guaranteed damnation fits into moral goodness.

We already said that we cannot “live” or “be” from other eras… it wouldn’t be “us”… The maximum you can state about it is that people at that time couldn’t be Catholic and we don’t argue against that, but it doesn’t serve any purpose or does it? It just serves your purpose to declare that: “God is unjust not to have allowed them to know the truth”. Which, of course only serves the purpose of declaring that “you are right” and everyone else is wrong… but it just assumes that your definition of Justice is the correct one and you can’t base it in anything but your point of view.

I think I just explained this. If I didn’t, I’ll try again.
But you really have to learn to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes.

Play with it. What will your Catholic response be?

 

[dskysmine]

You are not God either, but if we’re trying to be logical in our thoughts then we’re allowed to impose logic on the characteristics attributed to God. But yes, that will be the next statement. Now you’re doing the Geography Argument correctly!

Logic yes… but not a “flawed” logic that assumes that it is “good” for God to reveal Himself as He once did in order to satisfy your desire.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we both agree that a whole bunch of people are damned by birth because they were born in a time and place where God was not revealed. I’m going with that now, so if that’s not your position you have to correct me.

I don’t assume to know that God only revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. It was certainly the greatest Revelation and the example He set was certainly what He saw fit to reveal Himself fully but it is seen through the OT, for example, that the prophets before Jesus were indeed saved. God reveals Himself in many different ways. There are people with special personal experiences from which they tell us they experienced God.

I am not one to say that “everyone outside the Catholic Church will go to Hell”, and even the Catholic Church doesn’t say so (at least in those words exactly). In good logic, people who freely deny Jesus and with Him the Catholic Church will go directly to Hell. Now we can argue what “freely denial” is, because people who had never been in contact with the Church are less likely to know Jesus but that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit did not intervene in their lives or that they are never to “see” Jesus. Jesus is the “Word”. Words can reach us through many ways…

God is posited as “wanting all people to be saved” (Bible verse quote). And he is posited as being all-powerful and all-knowing and the very essence of love. Put all those descriptions together and you would expect everyone to be born into a place where Catholicism, or some version of Christianity, would be available. But we just said that didn’t happen.

You assume that only saints escape hell… and the Catholic Church does not state it…

Yes of course the other guy will object to that, and for a very clear reason: it is contrary to love. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,” right? Love? Except that God didn’t love some of the people enough. The consequence is damnation.

Isn’t it? If the consequence is not damnation then we have to stop the Geography Argument right now.

You are assuming that everyone never had any experience with God, which I think is too big an assumption. People experience the world very differently, but the truth cannot be subjective… How can you assert that God didn’t reveal Himself in other ways?

Be careful here. Put yourself in the other guy’s shoes. We’re talking about a God who put people in a place where those people can never become Catholic (or any other flavor of Christianity). The consequence for them is damnation. You can’t jump ahead and say “that’s okay – it’s objectively good” without addressing how those people’s guaranteed damnation fits into moral goodness.

Same as above…

I think I just explained this. If I didn’t, I’ll try again.
But you really have to learn to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes.

Play with it. What will your Catholic response be?

My “Catholic” response is that you don’t know Catholic teachings very well, and that’s why you think this argument has any credibility.

 

[scottm]

Logic yes… but not a “flawed” logic that assumes that it is “good” for God to reveal Himself as He once did in order to satisfy your desire.

Desire?! Dude, you have got to put yourself into the non-Catholic’s shoes! Show some compassion for one conversation already! We’re not talking about desire in the sense that I prefer vanilla ice cream over strawberry ice cream. We’re talking about whether or not your next door neighbor is going to burn in hell ! Have compassion for people. Hell is a bad place.

Sheeesh!!

I don’t assume to know that God only revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. It was certainly the greatest Revelation and the example He set was certainly what He saw fit to reveal Himself fully but it is seen through the OT, for example, that the prophets before Jesus were indeed saved. God reveals Himself in many different ways. There are people with special personal experiences from which they tell us they experienced God.
…
In good logic, people who freely deny Jesus and with Him the Catholic Church will go directly to Hell. Now we can argue what “freely denial” is, because people who had never been in contact with the Church are less likely to know Jesus but that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit did not intervene in their lives or that they are never to “see” Jesus. Jesus is the “Word”. Words can reach us through many ways.

Alright, how about Moslems? How about Hindus? How about Buddhists? How about the Mayans?

Yes or no answer: Can they get to heaven through their religions?
I only want one word, yes or no.

That is what the Geography Argument is about. If you say yes they can get to heaven through their religions, then the Geography Argument is finished, and the atheist will conclude that your God is showing love to people with respect to this matter. You’ll probably then talk about how a person can say his religion is better than other religions, and the rightness of proselytzing, but that’s an entirely different conversation. If instead you say no they cannot get to heaven through their religions, then the Geography Argument is finished and the atheist will conclude that God does not show love to all people. And then you’ll talk about the attributes of God, and how love fits with hell. But either way the Geography Argument is finished, and you’ll move on to something else.

You assume that only saints escape hell… and the Catholic Church does not state it.

Actually it does, because that’s a tautology. Everyone in heaven is a saint, by definition. Everyone else is in hell and by definition they are not saints.

You are assuming that everyone never had any experience with God, which I think is too big an assumption. People experience the world very differently, but the truth cannot be subjective. How can you assert that God didn’t reveal Himself in other ways?

Where have you been?!?! I’ve said over and over again, the point of the Geography Argument is that one need not say the Sinner’s Prayer to get to heaven, that one need not go through Christianity (in any form) to get to Jesus. I’ve specifically brought up Islam, Buddhism, and the Mayan religions.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I can see this is boiling down to semantics, which was the source of my confusion. Keep in mind that my goal in this thread was to, at worst, “weaken” the geography line of reasoning. Also, I never meant to advocate the teleological proof to demonstrate the existence of God as in your “slime lord” example. I don’t see the earth being 93million miles from the sun as evidence of God. It is a sublime thought, but only after one accepts that God exists.

And as far as “random” goes, you guys are using two different definitions of “random.”

“Random” can mean “totally unpredictable,” and in that sense, no one thinks the universe is random. It obviously works according to predictable, regular laws. [Ironically, it’s actually people who believe in miracles who think that the laws of the universe could be reversed by god at any second – it’s they who actually believe in a random universe]

I don’t think “predictable” is the right adjective to ascribe to physical laws. The laws of thermodynamics, gravity, etc can only be said to be usually consistent; the laws themselves are not necessarily predictable. If the universe is truly random, then these “regular laws” could merely be an example of a repeating pattern that will inevitably emerge in an infinite series of events. For example, if you flip a coin for a year straight, you will almost be guaranteed to get 10 heads in a row. Keep in mind that the universe is around 14billion years old, and we have only been around for a few million years. We could have appeared while the “cosmic coin flipper” was turning out consistent results. We don’t know for sure, in a philosophical sense, that these “regular laws” are immutable or by any means universal. They could just be the result of repeated randomness under the appearance of regularity that don’t necessarily conform under all circumstances. Take for example, the behavior of particles on the quantum level.

You can describe the natural process by which lightning emerges and strikes a tree. But the “when” and “where” of this process still retains an element of randomness. It is not completely predictable, which is why you should avoid jogging in a lightning storm, even if the odds are very slim that you will actually get struck.

Even if the universe is NOT truly random, we still see the possibility of random events; such as lotteries, roulette wheels, random number generators, etc. A roulette wheel conforms to physical laws (gravity brings the ball to stop on a certain number), yet still produces consistently random results.

But “random” can also colloquially mean “not directed by a plan, not a teleology.” It’s in this sense that (most) atheists think the universe is “random.”

We could say that lightning just randomly struck a tree and made it fall (“random” in the second sense) – and yet the physical processes that made all of that happen are all well known, regular, and predictable (not “random” in the first sense).

I argued above that the lightning example could still be “random” in the first sense.

But yes, it was this second definition that I meant to use in my earlier post where I posed the dichotomy:

1. Either the universe is determined, or it is not determined.
2. If it is determined, then it is not random.
3. If it is not determined, then it is random.

I don’t see how there can be a third option. I also can’t see how theists can get away from at least some type of determinism. We are not “perfectly free”.This is consistent with scripture–Jesus predicted Peter would deny him three times before the cock crows. And he did. Jesus predicted that the second temple would be destroyed. And it was sacked by the Romans. The authors of gospel indicate that Jesus knew what people were going to ask him before they asked it. Human beings are partially determined by their DNA/genes inherited by their parents…yet there is a small element of randomness involved…genetic predispositions are not always passed down from father to son, and sometimes one son gets it but not the other. There is no real reason for any of this, not to mention “random” mutations of genes.

I just learn toward “soft-determinism” but I still have great difficulty justifying/understanding it all.

 

[LilyM]

Yes or no answer: Can they get to heaven through their religions?
I only want one word, yes or no.

Yes or no answer: Scottm, have you stopped beating your wife?
I only want one word, yes or no.

Your question, like mine, has a whole bunch of implications, presuppositions and parts to it that need to be unpacked - that’s not going to happen with a single yes or no answer.

And a yes or no answer isn’t appropriate for a multifaceted question such as HOW a person can be saved.

My answer would be - a person can only be saved THROUGH Christ, and through His body which is the Catholic Church. At the same time, someone who has no possibility of explicitly knowing either Christ or the Catholic Church can yet be saved through them.

In the same manner, I am sustained by the water flowing through my kitchen faucet which I drink, even if I do not know the source of that water, or the system through which it gets from source to kitchen faucet.

Using the same analogy, though, assuming that I AM aware of how my water is supplied - for example I know the identity of the water company - I am obligated in different ways by that knowledge. I must pay my bills for the water to the correct agency, for example. And if I know and yet refuse to pay my bills, or wilfully misdirect the payments to the credit of some other company, the water company can and will cut off my water supply, and has every right to do so.

Short answer - yes non-Catholics and non-Christians could and can get to heaven, if truly invincibly ignorant, but no, it won’t be and never has been through ***their ***religions, rather through (even in anticipation of) Christ and the Catholic Church.

 

[scottm]

My answer would be - a person can only be saved THROUGH Christ, and through His body which is the Catholic Church. At the same time, someone who has no possibility of explicitly knowing either Christ or the Catholic Church can yet be saved through them.

That’s a “yes” answer, thank you. The jury will disregard the rest of your response, especially since it’s wrong. The Eastern Orthodox Church beats the Catholics in every possible way.

Short answer - yes non-Catholics and non-Christians could and can get to heaven …, if truly invincibly ignorant, but no, it won’t be and never has been through ***their ***religions, rather through (even in anticipation of) Christ and the Catholic Church.

You’ve reached the end of the Geography Argument. Now you and the atheist would discuss why your religion is better than the [fill-in-the-blank] religion.

Thanks for playing.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

That’s a “yes” answer, thank you. The jury will disregard the rest of your response, especially since it’s wrong. The Eastern Orthodox Church beats the Catholics in every possible way.

You’ve reached the end of the Geography Argument. Now you and the atheist would discuss why your religion is better than the [fill-in-the-blank] religion.

Thanks for playing.

I’d actually say “No.”, but I don’t want to get into an argument with Lily:blush:
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, period. I think V2 overall was a good thing though, unlike most people who learn toward traditionalism, because it encourages evangelization.

That being said, speculating on the salvation of say, the people who existed in the Mayan civilization runs the risk of underestimating God’s mercy. Not to mention it is a completely pointless exercise, since the salvation of anyone reading this right now is in no way contingent on whether or not the Mayans went to hell.

Also my conception of the Justice of God isn’t an “all or nothing”…“damned or saved”…it is more like this. We see some of the greek philosophers in a place lacking complete joy but it isn’t heaven. Such people also are described by Dante as “not without all hope”. I really can’t make an educated guess and say that some of these ancient religions that involve human sacrifice allow for the adherents to achieve the beatific vision…

 

[dskysmine]

Desire?! Dude, you have got to put yourself into the non-Catholic’s shoes! Show some compassion for one conversation already! We’re not talking about desire in the sense that I prefer vanilla ice cream over strawberry ice cream. We’re talking about whether or not your next door neighbor is going to burn in hell ! Have compassion for people. Hell is a bad place.

Sheeesh!!

Desire yes… because you have no idea of how a Universe with a “God” you like would actually work in any way…
And by the way, I wasn’t merely talking about Hell… It seems perfectly in accordance with “your” type of Justice that people who did not know Christ (like people who lived before Him) could still know of God through other means, and you seem to forget that the Catholic Church teaches the existence of Purgatory.

Alright, how about Moslems? How about Hindus? How about Buddhists? How about the Mayans?

Yes or no answer: Can they get to heaven through their religions?
I only want one word, yes or no.

I already said that it is not “religious practice” that saves us. I could be a Catholic that goes to Sunday mass and abide by all the ten commandments and still not make it to heaven. Didn’t you see what Jesus told the rich young man?

That is what the Geography Argument is about. If you say yes they can get to heaven through their religions, then the Geography Argument is finished, and the atheist will conclude that your God is showing love to people with respect to this matter. You’ll probably then talk about how a person can say his religion is better than other religions, and the rightness of proselytzing, but that’s an entirely different conversation. If instead you say no they cannot get to heaven through their religions, then the Geography Argument is finished and the atheist will conclude that God does not show love to all people. And then you’ll talk about the attributes of God, and how love fits with hell. But either way the Geography Argument is finished, and you’ll move on to something else.

FIrst of all why use the word “proselytzism”?
It is modernly seen as a “bad” word for forcing conversions when it actually doesn’t mean so.
People are not islands. We communicate and we have a duty to communicate to others the truth and the way to happyness. It is not a matter of forcing people. We can argue for Catholicism and tell people what we believe in, they are free to choose to follow us or not.
Love cannot connive with evil. Love “fits” with hell because Hell is the place where “not-Love”, or “evil” lies. Just like we feel “cold” when the temperature reaches a certain degree when there’s less energy, we “feel bad” where Love does not change us. It can even be said that Love in Hell is what “burns” you because of the difference of states between us and God’s direct Love (I might be digressing here).

Actually it does, because that’s a tautology. Everyone in heaven is a saint, by definition. Everyone else is in hell and by definition they are not saints.

Or not… as I already mentioned…

Where have you been?!?! I’ve said over and over again, the point of the Geography Argument is that one need not say the Sinner’s Prayer to get to heaven, that one need not go through Christianity (in any form) to get to Jesus. I’ve specifically brought up Islam, Buddhism, and the Mayan religions.

I still think you are missing the point… it is not because of Islam and Buddhism that they can be saved, it it because of God. Just like inside the Catholic Church it is through God that we are saved… we are still sinners even if we are in the Catholic Church, the benefit of being in the Catholic Church is that we can more adequately know about God and the path He chose for us. That is why I am Catholic. I know I am a sinner, and I know that I want to follow the path to happyness and inside the Catholic Church, which is the Church He founded, I can in fact find what to do and how to do it.

I hope this wasn’t confusing…

 

[scottm]

I hope this wasn’t confusing…

Honestly, I don’t know who you are arguing against, or what the point you’re trying to make is. You don’t give me the impression of actually listening to anything I say.

 

[dskysmine]

Honestly, I don’t know who you are arguing against, or what the point you’re trying to make is. You don’t give me the impression of actually listening to anything I say.

What didn’t I respond to from your message?

 

[scottm]

What didn’t I respond to from your message?

You’ve had your ears shut the entire time I’ve been talking.

 

[dskysmine]

You’ve had your ears shut the entire time I’ve been talking.

If you can’t point the mistakes I made how can I correct them?