What Is "Catholic Truth" Regarding Protestants?

[AnubistheJackal]

“You should take that attitude with respect to technology. Why is it acceptable to rely on the foundations of science and math to advance society, but not theology?”

Because one can be established and proven absolutely and the other relies on the fancies and fantasies of man. The difference is that theists perpetually confuse which one of the two the former statement applies.

This isn’t a difficult discernment to make.

 

[RedSoxFan]

So what are you AnubistheJackal? Aethiest or Agnostic?

 

[Love_is_Patient]

I really do not understand why Protestants get upset about what the Pope or the Catholic church says or believe about Protestant Churches. They mean nothing to us, They just meanless words from people that think too much of themselves.
As for ecumenism, Baptist have alway shunned those so called great eumenism movement like the World Council of Churches and the American Council of Churches.

If we’re “people who think too much of themselves” with our “meaningless words” why in the world do you both with us and post so much? Just a polite question.

Hope you’re having a blessed day.

 

[AnubistheJackal]

So what are you AnubistheJackal? Aethiest or Agnostic?

Depends on the day.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Depends on the day.

So your not exactly sure what you even believe then. One allows for a possibility that God exists. One does not allow for the existence of God. Why do you change depending on the day?

 

[AnubistheJackal]

The same reason on one day you want a pepperoni pizza and the next a steak dinner.

The question of the existence of god increasingly strikes me as equally relevant.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Because one can be established and proven absolutely and the other relies on the fancies and fantasies of man.

How sad and limiting your view is. Is string theory real or a fantasy? Plate techtonics? Do you know that oxygen is in the air, or do you accept the words in the science book? Newton made certain observations about the universe, and wrote about them in a book. There are as many if not more testimonials about the truth of Christ as there are about the flat earth theory.

The difference is that theists perpetually confuse which one of the two the former statement applies.

I am not confused about my world or reality. Unless you prove everything yourself by physical experimentation, you take as much if not more on faith in science as a theist does in God.

This isn’t a difficult discernment to make.

You seem to have trouble making the discernment being unable to choose between atheism and agnosticism. Will you make your decision by it “feeling right” or by reading some words in a book?

 

[AnubistheJackal]

“Is string theory real or a fantasy? Plate techtonics? Do you know that oxygen is in the air, or do you accept the words in the science book? Newton made certain observations about the universe, and wrote about them in a book. There are as many if not more testimonials about the truth of Christ as there are about the flat earth theory.”

Wow. I don’t know what else to say but wow.

Let’s try to take this one by one.

String is demonstrable mathematically.

We can actually observe plate tectonics in process.

We know that oxygen is in the air by the very fact we are alive.

Newton made mathematical, repeatable observations about the physical world and put them in a book, yes. This is in no way parallel to the unfalsifiable, existential, magical claims set forth in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

“I am not confused about my world or reality. Unless you prove everything yourself by physical experimentation, you take as much if not more on faith in science as a theist does in God.”

Wrong.

Examining scientific information and accepting it based upon prior empirical knowledge is NOT the same as blindly accepting folklore that has NEVER been proved.

Try again.

“You seem to have trouble making the discernment being unable to choose between atheism and agnosticism. Will you make your decision by it “feeling right” or by reading some words in a book?”

I’m fully aware of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

I simply pointed out the difference between the two and the question itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant to me.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Wow. I don’t know what else to say but wow.

Wow, to be sure, but not for the same reason.

Let’s try to take this one by one.

String is demonstrable mathematically.

We can actually observe plate tectonics in process.

We know that oxygen is in the air by the very fact we are alive.

Proving or disproving what about the existance of God?

Newton made mathematical, repeatable observations about the physical world and put them in a book, yes. This is in no way parallel to the unfalsifiable, existential, magical claims set forth in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

Unfalsifiable? I suppose you mean biblical stories are misrepresented? I just want to be clear; I misspell all the time and might be guilty of making up a word or two. There are many, many parallels.

Wrong.

Examining scientific information and accepting it based upon prior empirical knowledge is NOT the same as blindly accepting folklore that has NEVER been proved.

Try again.

No, I’m not wrong. I have never acepted anything, or followed anyone blindly in my life. Notable exceptions; My parents until I was about 8, and a girl …or two. I have both, eyes to see and ears to hear. There is too much that is tangible about what you think is fable.

I’m fully aware of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

I simply pointed out the difference between the two and the question itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant to me.

For a person or group to claim their moral compass is derived from an admitted insecure and human imagination

But, to answer your question, pagan truths and “rationality” originated from the exact same place as your more familiar religion of Paulian Christianity – the insecurity and imagination of man.

with a personal conviction whimsically controlled by base emotions

The same reason on one day you want a pepperoni pizza and the next a steak dinner.

The question of the existence of god increasingly strikes me as equally relevant.

does not give one the aire of being trustworthy. Or maybe that is just me.

I think if you are fortunate enough to have a basic, modern education the level of irrationality seems to drop. Higher education seems to raise the level of irrationality. Knowing how things work in both the macro and micro spheres has absolutely no bearing on the existence of God. I accept the Big Bang, billions of years, the likelihood of other civilizations…all but human evolution specifically if not all life. I think life was Created pretty much as we know of it. Dawkins goes to great philosophical lengths to prove one side of the coin. I think the very same evidence offers as much proof in favor as against the existence of God.

Prove the untrustworthiness of the Gospels eyewitness testimony with the same criteria of any first century writing. Prove the non-existent Jesus or the conviction instilled upon those who call Him God. Prove your great-great-great-grandfather.

I apologize to the OP for hijacking his thread.
I think the Truth about Protestants is they have left the building. Not too far away, but outside.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Let’s try to take this one by one.

String is demonstrable mathematically.

And I can prove that Winston Churchill is a carrot with mathematics, so what.

We can actually observe plate tectonics in process.

And I can actually observe the marvels of God’s creation as often as I like.

We know that oxygen is in the air by the very fact we are alive.

How do you know we need oxygen to live? Unless you are a biologist who has personally done the experiments to prove this, you are relying on someone else’s word. If you are a biologist, then you aren’t a chemist or an environmental scientist who has conduct personal tests to see that there is indeed oxygen in the air - as opposed to some other process that would convert one chemical to another.

Newton made mathematical, repeatable observations about the physical world and put them in a book, yes. This is in no way parallel to the unfalsifiable, existential, magical claims set forth in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

What are you saying with this?

Examining scientific information and accepting it based upon prior empirical knowledge is NOT the same as blindly accepting folklore that has NEVER been proved.

Obviously someone who doesn’t know what faith is. We can see the handiwork of God in creation, we can see His goodness in everyday life - and we can observe this as long as some other external variable crops up.

I’m fully aware of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

I simply pointed out the difference between the two and the question itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant to me.

How very sad to hear.

 

[Proletarian]

I was compelled to join this forum out of sheer bewilderment that educated individuals in the 21st century still argue in such absolutist terms on such magical issues.

Neither you, nor your Protestant cohorts unbending opinions bear any relevancy on even the slightest of truths.

I would suggest the best thing to do is get your head out of a book of 2,000 year old Hebrew folk lore, stop arguing about ridiculous and unnfalsifiable, non-empirical nonsense such as sola fide or sola scriptura and try applying a wee bit of rationality to your lives.

My, my, listen to the intellectual. Sounds like someone’s been reading too much Foucault and not enough St. Paul.

 

[AnubistheJackal]

Oxygen, plate tectonics and string theory say nothing about the existence of god. That great question is one that is currently beyond science.

Unfalsifiable? I suppose you mean biblical stories are misrepresented? I just want to be clear; I misspell all the time and might be guilty of making up a word or two. There are many, many parallels.

I’m not even speaking about the relative historical accuracies vs. inaccuracies in the Bible. I’m referring to the unfalsifiable claims it makes on the divinity of the Christ god.

This is what separates it from the writings of Newton and every other scientist worth their salt.

No, I’m not wrong. I have never acepted anything, or followed anyone blindly in my life. Notable exceptions; My parents until I was about 8, and a girl …or two. I have both, eyes to see and ears to hear. There is too much that is tangible about what you think is fable.

I haven’t a clue what that means, but I’ll take your word for it.

“For a person or group to claim their moral compass is derived from an admitted insecure and human imagination”

My moral distinctions are not derived from insecurity and imagination - that’s the difference between me and theists.

Dawkins goes to great philosophical lengths to prove one side of the coin I think the very same evidence offers as much proof in favor as against the existence of God.
.

I’ve read Dawkin’s works. Which one of his arguments can be used to support the existence of god?

Prove the untrustworthiness of the Gospels eyewitness testimony with the same criteria of any first century writing. Prove the non-existent Jesus or the conviction instilled upon those who call Him God. Prove your great-great-great-grandfather.

Do you realize how many logical fallacies was contained in that single paragraph?

 

[AnubistheJackal]

And I can prove that Winston Churchill is a carrot with mathematics, so what.

You could, eh? How?

And I can actually observe the marvels of God’s creation as often as I like.

Your observations are subjective and non quantifiable. The measurement of tectonic shift is objective and quantifiable.

How do you know we need oxygen to live? Unless you are a biologist who has personally done the experiments to prove this, you are relying on someone else’s word. If you are a biologist, then you aren’t a chemist or an environmental scientist who has conduct personal tests to see that there is indeed oxygen in the air - as opposed to some other process that would convert one chemical to another.

Um, most people who took Biology 101 Lab in college did almost exactly this. We did experiments in genetic variation, mutation, photosynthesis, the Kreb’s Cycle and more.

But even if I didn’t, all that would be completely false. Good scientists explain and detail how they arrived at the conclusions they did and religionists can offer no such alternative but their own subjective experience.

 

[AnubistheJackal]

My, my, listen to the intellectual. Sounds like someone’s been reading too much Foucault and not enough St. Paul.

Why would I waste my time reading Paul?

 

[Protestant101]

I really do not understand why Protestants get upset about what the Pope or the Catholic church says or believe about Protestant Churches. They mean nothing to us, They just meanless words from people that think too much of themselves.
As for ecumenism, Baptist have alway shunned those so called great eumenism movement like the World Council of Churches and the American Council of Churches.

Baptists, inherently take place in “ecumenism” (the Catholic version) by adopting unbiblical beliefs which the rest of the “crowd” adopts. There is no difference between a number of your beliefs, and those of the Catholic faith.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Oxygen, plate tectonics and string theory say nothing about the existence of god. That great question is one that is currently beyond science.

Dawkins doesn’t this so.

I’m not even speaking about the relative historical accuracies vs. inaccuracies in the Bible. I’m referring to the unfalsifiable claims it makes on the divinity of the Christ god.

I believe the testimony to be valid.

This is what separates it from the writings of Newton and every other scientist worth their salt.

Newton could always drop another apple. Others believed the testimony of the Gospels since Christ lived and died, and rose from the dead. There are many kinds of truth.

I haven’t a clue what that means, but I’ll take your word for it.

Other than a pertinent veiled Scripture reference I believe not on faith alone. I like facts and logic to support my belief. They overwhelmingly do.

My moral distinctions are not derived from insecurity and imagination - that’s the difference between me and theists.

But you said it did derive from that and that it can change from day to day which why I quoted you. I found that remarkable to be honest. Most theists derive it from reason among other things, as do atheists, theists just give credit where credit is due.

I’ve read Dawkin’s works. Which one of his arguments can be used to support the existence of god?

Any scientific evidence. It is his conclusions behind the evidence that are inaccurate and fancifull.

Do you realize how many logical fallacies was contained in that single paragraph?

None. It means the same criteria you might use to prove the existance and character of you great/3 grandfather should be used to test the validity of Christ (anyone) and what is written about him, and by whom. Whether or not your relative might be notable or not, the process is the same. Why should anyone believe what you say about your own father much less your great…grandfather …much less yourself?

I believe the witness testimony.

 

[mercygate]

I wonder if Anubis knows that the man who codified the human genome is a born again Christian?

 

[AnubistheJackal]

Dawkins doesn’t this so.

In The God Delusion he specifically states the question of whether or not god exists is currently outside science but doesn’t exclude said question from the scrunity of the scientific method.

But you said it did derive from that and that it can change from day to day which why I quoted you. I found that remarkable to be honest. Most theists derive it from reason among other things, as do atheists, theists just give credit where credit is due.[/qoute]

None. It means the same criteria you might use to prove the existance and character of you great/3 grandfather should be used to test the validity of Christ (anyone) and what is written about him, and by whom. Whether or not your relative might be notable or not, the process is the same. Why should anyone believe what you say about your own father much less your great…grandfather …much less yourself?

It certainly does not. Not for the least of which reasons there are an abundance of primary sources.

I’m not disputing whether or not Christ existed. I’m disputing the realiability of the second, third and fourth hand accounts of his actions. Arguably the most famous Christian, Paul, likely never met Jesus yet still quotes him.

 

[AnubistheJackal]

I wonder if Anubis knows that the man who codified the human genome is a born again Christian?

I fail to see how that’s relevant.

 

[mercygate]

I fail to see how that’s relevant.

Presumably his understanding of scientific method and his ability to “reason” should represent a credential of some sort.