What Is "Catholic Truth" Regarding Protestants?

[AnubistheJackal]

You still fail to explain how the religious alignment of one person is relevant.

Scientists and highly educated persons are actually less likely to be Christian so what’s your point?

 

[Erich]

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.

Gee, and I thought it was phlogiston that everyone needed in order to live

 

[Verisimilitude]

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.

So Dawkins proposes a philosophical hypothosis using emperical data to disprove the liklihood of the existandce of God. Again, I think the data can just as easily support God as refute it, and the conclusions he draws are lacking substance.

The primordial soup that generated the first living microbe to evolve into a tree, a bird, a brontosaurus, and a human…makes no logical sense, and not much scientific sense. It is not surprising many life forms share similarities to one degree or another be it genetic or otherwise, it is also not surprising that adaptation explains most of the minor variances among species, but to conclude as Darwin and/or Dawkins has that the variation of life species, and the manner in which we now perceive it to have evolved or came to be is from random chance with exacting conditions is in my view a much larger leap of faith than to conclude God has manifested life in the many forms we know about over time.

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

That is a bit unclear to my statement.

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.

Good. I’ll respond to this in a bit.

 

[allischalmers]

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.

Protestant101
You are part right, there is no difference between a number of Baptist and Catholic beliefs, but there are great differences in some of our beliefs that make ecumenism between Regular Baptist and Catholics impossible.
As for the rest of your statement, I am 77 years old and I do not pull any punchs so simply said , you do not know what the c _ _ _ you are talking about

 

[strngrnrth]

I suggest we don’t feed this overgrown troll any more.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You could, eh? How?

Let a and b each be equal to 1. Since a and b are equal,

b^2 = ab

Since a equals itself, it is obvious that

a^2 = a^2

Subtract equation 1 from equation 2. This yields

a^2 - b^2 = a^2 - ab

We can factor both sides of the equation; a^2 - ab equals a(a-b). Likewise, a^2 - b^2 equals (a + b)(a - b). Substituting into equation 3, we get

(a + b)(a - b) = a(a - b)

Now divide both sides of the equation by (a - b) and we get

a + b = a

Subtract a from both sides and we get

b = 0

But we set b to 1 at the very beginning of this proof, so this means that

1 = 0

This is an important result. Going further, we know that Winston Churchill has one head. But one equals zero by equation 7, so that means that Winston has no head. Likewise, Churchill has zero leafy tops, therefore he has one leafy top. Multiplying both sides of equation 7 by 2, we see that

2 = 0

Churchill has two legs, therefore he has no legs. Churchill has two arms, therefore he has no arms. Now multiply equation 7 by Winston Churchill’s waist size in inches. This means that

(Winston’s waist size) = 0

This means that Winston Churchill tapers to a point. Now, what color is Winston Churchill? Take any beam of light that comes from him and select a photon. Multiply equation 7 by teh wavelength, and we see that

(Winston’s photon’s wavelength) = 0

But multiplying equation 7 by 640 nanometers, we see that

640 = 0

Combining equations 10 and 11, we see that

(Winston’s photon’s wavelength) = 640 nanometers

This means that this photon - or any other photon that comes from Mr. Churchill - is orange. Therefore Winston Churchill is a bright shade of orange.

To sum up, we have proved, mathematically, that Winston Churchill has no arms and no legs; instead of a head, he has a leafy top; he tapers to a point; and he is bright orange. Clearly, Winston Churchill is a carrot.

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

Are you blind? Can’t you see nature? Creation is not subjective, it is objective and viewable to anyone with eyes that work.

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.

What college did you go to? We never got to do such experiments.

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.

So how does one arrive at a conclusion? Here read this - Saint Athanasius details how he arrives at his conclusions.

AnubistheJackal:

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Scientists and highly educated persons are actually less likely to be Christian so what’s your point?

That is mostly because those people have been educated into imbecility.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Gee, and I thought it was phlogiston that everyone needed in order to live

Nah, phlogiston is used to flavor chicken.

 

[Catherine_S]

Hello,

Nah, phlogiston is used to flavor chicken.

!!
.

 

[mercygate]

I suggest we don’t feed this overgrown troll any more.

Pleae use the “quote” feature so we will know who you are referring to when you call somebody a troll.

 

[toaslan]

Hi, everybody. I looked over this whole thread after seeing that what was originally posted for comment was some news organization’s article on the vatican’s statement. I noticed cherry picking in the article, and when there was a chance to insert anti-Catholic bias, the author took it.

It is always scholarly to look at the closest you can get to the original of the document you want to object to or support, rather than at some third party’s version of the original’s words. It can’t get any easier that this link, to the document itself on the vatican website: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

There is also provided at that website a short official commentary on this even shorter document.

Catholics want to see their separated brethern come home to their ancient Church, so we all can be one. It’s not just a wish for togetherness–we really believe all must be members of the Roman Catholic Church to get to heaven. The Church has always taught this, and the vatican is just restating it. HOW a person can be a member of the Church is a matter of huge theological discussion, and the teaching has grown and unfolded itself over the long years–but membership can be explicit or implicit…

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, everybody. I looked over this whole thread after seeing that what was originally posted for comment was some news organization’s article on the vatican’s statement. I noticed cherry picking in the article, and when there was a chance to insert anti-Catholic bias, the author took it.

It is always scholarly to look at the closest you can get to the original of the document you want to object to or support, rather than at some third party’s version of the original’s words. It can’t get any easier that this link, to the document itself on the vatican website: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Thanks for posting this link; and refocusing this topic. Are you referring to the news article that I posted in the first post? if so; I would appreciate knowing from you just what was not right in the article? I have also read the article at the link you posted; and I do not see anything in my first post that would not be contained in the Vatican Document you named.

 

[RedSoxFan]

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.

How is it becomming more relevant for you? It seems to weird to me that on some days you want the possibility of God (pepperoni pizza) and some days you don’t (steak dinner).