P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
If you don’t see the difference I cannot help you.
If you could present actual evidence, which I COULD verify for myself (if I wanted to), it would be a whole different ballgame.
- Status
If you could present actual evidence, which I COULD verify for myself (if I wanted to), it would be a whole different ballgame.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But we do have a model, a microcosm, of this: your own life.
You have the power to create your own self utopia.
And yet…we know that you are not the best version of yourself.
And if you wish to propose that you are, I suggest that you let us have a conversation with your wife to see if she concurs.
Will she assert that you have never been snarky, rude, thoughtless, selfish, prideful, inconsiderate, forgetful, lame, dull, discourteous?
(Apologies if your wife has passed on. I only know that you have mentioned a wife. At any rate, the proposition remains and the point stands: I am 100% certain that were we to be able to have a heart to heart with your wife we would know that there were times when you could have been a better person to her.)
And it remains to be said that I, too, can always be a holier person.
But the Christian paradigm has an answer for this.
Your atheistic answer to this is…what, exactly?
And the point still stands: you can make demands of God to make a better world when you have made yourself the creation that you want to be, (wife’s (name removed by moderator)ut a requirement
).
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Never be too sure of your airline pilot!!!
foxnews.com/travel/2013/02/01/10-terrible-airline-pilots-hope-to-never-fly-with/
P
PRmerger
Guest
But you don’t, ever, actually examine the evidence that the pilot actually has her license.
EVER.
QED.
And it’s curious that you said “if I wanted to”.
Why wouldn’t you want to?
That’s a very, very, very important question you need to consider, PA.
The answer is…
amusingly…
because you accept the testimonial of others.
So thank you for that parenthetical.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
For the vey same reason that I accept the word of my auto-mechanic that he actually put the necessary amount of oil into the engine. It would be a waste of time.Why wouldn’t you want to?
Of course I do, but NOT indiscriminately. Only if their assertion CAN be verified by me (even if I don’t take the time and effort). It seems to me that this monumental difference eludes you. After all I already stated this, but you keep on harping the same old…
Why don’t you take a moment of your time and answer what I asked you? Why is it that in capital cases no “hearsay” evidence is admitted? You might learn a lot from contemplating this question.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Because…you accept his testimonial.
QED.
No one–not a single adult who’s not mentally incapacitated–lives without accepting the testimonial of others.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I think that you have a very serious comprehension problem. Look at my post directly above yours, and read it a few hundred times. Maybe you will understand the sentence: “Of course I do, but not indiscriminately”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Wow! Thanks for that.
So there you go, PA.
Mental illness. Forgery. Megalomania. Drugs (meth, no less!). Alcohol. Someone who can’t do mental math. Texting while flying.
Yipes!
It appears that your trust in “proper protocols” is rather contrary to facts.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep.
Annnndddddd…that puts you right there with us Believers, PA.
:clapping::yup::extrahappy:
P
PRmerger
Guest
I will if you answer the question I asked of you first. It’s customary to do that here.
Here’s my question to you, made on Nov 26, '15, 8:27 am:
Could you show me where you addressed this question?
To refresh your memory, you made a very certain assertion–all of the writers of the NT were “in on” the story. They were, as you put it, not “independent parties”:
So evidence for your assertion, please!
And when you have addressed my question, posed to you first, I will answer yours.
That’s just the established way to do things here.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And then after you answer that question I posed above (2 days ago), you still need to address my other question to you, posed before this.
So, again, it’s customary and polite to answer the questions asked of you BEFORE you accuse others of not addressing your questions.
Otherwise, it makes it appears as if you’re reserving for yourself the right to do what you object to in others.
To wit:
Thanks.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
How many of those flights crashed?
Sorry, I have to decline the “honor”. Your comprehension skills are still lacking. Read the next part a few hundred times, or until it sinks in:
I ONLY accept testimonials if I CAN verify them personally (even if I don’t do it). In other words, I have no blind faith in testimonials.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok, PA.
I think you haven’t been able to learn from your prior banning.
That’s a shame.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Well, if you keep misinterpreting my posts, it is hard to reach other conclusion.
The truth is that I am getting tired of seeing the irrelevant responses. My reason to be here was and is to LEARN. Not about Catholicism, since I am very much aware of the teachings of the church.
Rather I am curious about the attempts to reconcile reality with those teachings. In other words, the practice of “doublethink” is what fascinates me. How can otherwise sane and smart people discard their rationality when it comes to certain subjects.
Maybe I will come back, maybe not.
But I wish you all the best. And hope that rationality will eventually conquer the blind faith that is exhibited so frequently.
G
guanophore
Guest
The manuscripts were authenticated around the known world at the time they were written, compared with the personal testimony of those who were present, and in the next generation, with the witness of those who heard their testimony. The documents were carefully preserved, promulgated, and eventually canonized by those who had custody of them. The procedural method used to decide which documents were canonized was very strict.
No, Pallas. There are many reasons that people are not Christians. Your refusal to accept the available evidence is actually characteristic of only a very small minority of people.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, people don’t get upset about things that are not important to them, so that says something about you.
Catholics don’t have a problem with rationality and faith. It was Catholics that preserved the literature of the Western Civilization, created colleges, created the scientific method, and intiated all manner of rational inquiry. The fact that our beliefs live in harmony with our intellects brings a fullness to our lives that we do not experience when one is lacking.
It is sad that you are not able to experience this fullness of meaning and purpose in life, and that you are limited to your “logic”, which has been demonstrated in this thread to be deficient in some ways.
You have a hardness of heart and are not open to the experience of the Divine that is trying to penetrate your soul.
We will pray for you.
B
Ben_Quincy
Guest
Discuss the topic, not each other.
Stay on topic.
Stay on topic.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
CHRISTINE77;13465525:
This is where I was going. Atheists believe that this world is all there is. Pallas wants to create a perfect world. But she can’t escape the fact that there is death in this world.Only Christ can abolish the finality of death!
Atheism certainly cannot abolish it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
And the atheistic paradigm has no answer to the question as to why the world is not the way he wants it to be.
In fact, there is no answer as to why the atheist is not the way he himself wishes he could be (or as his wife wishes he could be
)
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I never mentioned a “perfect” world, only one without human violence. Why don’t you argue against what I actually said?
- Status