YEC

[anon5216]

anon5216;4875133:

Do I believe in God? Doesn’t my signature answer that?

not at all, its clearly antethical to monotheism. hinduism is a far cry from belief in anything Catholics would recognize as G-d.

What exactly is anti-monotheist or Hindu about my signature?
Why are you assuming Hinduism at all? I’m not a Hindu.

Regarding Hinduism, yes I agree Hindu mythology is different from Catholic mythology, but mythology is a far cry from God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What exactly is anti-monotheist or Hindu about my signature?
Why are you assuming Hinduism at all? I’m not a Hindu.

Regarding Hinduism, yes I agree Hindu mythology is different from Catholic mythology, but mythology is a far cry from God.

the reference to the

"in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine. "

simply smacks of anti-authoritarian sentiment, directed at “religious authority”. unless you happen to be taking a slap at the dalai lama, i can only assume you refer to monotheism, as you are in a monotheistic forum.

i assume you mean hindu, because you stated an interest in indian spirituality. maybe your buddhist or something else.

either way i dont see your signature as an acknowledgement of G-d, not as monotheists would consider it.

p.s. you can never be a former Catholic, you can not practice, but once baptized, always Catholic. you cant wash it off, you cant retire. you can only ignore

 

[anon5216]

the reference to the

"in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine. "

simply smacks of anti-authoritarian sentiment, directed at “religious authority”. unless you happen to be taking a slap at the dalai lama, i can only assume you refer to monotheism, as you are in a monotheistic forum.

So you’re saying the Catholic Church is authoritarian?

As the Dalai Lama is a religious authority, yes, I do include him.
I include all temporal religious authorities. I mean no more or less than what I wrote.

i assume you mean hindu, because you stated an interest in indian spirituality. maybe your buddhist or something else.

I am not a member of any religious group; I don’t promote or follow any particular ism.

either way i dont see your signature as an acknowledgement of G-d, not as monotheists would consider it.

Why not? There is no reference to this god or that god or gods plural - just God - plain and simple - nothing to read into.

What you mean is that there is no acknowledgement of your definition of God.
But why should there be? You don’t define God. God Is.

p.s. you can never be a former Catholic, you can not practice, but once baptized, always Catholic. you cant wash it off, you cant retire. you can only ignore

I am a former Catholic because I don’t believe in the Catholic magical incantations as having efficacy just because some ordained official recites them. It takes much more than that for a spiritual formula to have any real effect other than placebo. (True that the placebo effect can be very potent, but in that case it’s not the priest causing any effect, it would be the recipient’s consciousness that is the cause of any effect.)

As you are a believing Catholic, you can believe that it’s not possible to be a former Catholic, but belief does not guarantee the truth of what is believed.

p.s. Assuming too much is a habit that can really lead a person far astray.

 

[DavWan]

And this pertains to the discussion of YEC exactly how?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So you’re saying the Catholic Church is authoritarian?

hierarchical

As the Dalai Lama is a religious authority, yes, I do include him.
I include all temporal religious authorities. I mean no more or less than what I wrote.

then use binary, because language necessarily includes implication.

I am not a member of any religious group; I don’t promote or follow any particular ism.

didn’t you just say you were interested in indian spiritualism?

Why not? There is no reference to this god or that god or gods plural - just God - plain and simple - nothing to read into.

if not this god or that god, then no god?

see what i mean.

What you mean is that there is no acknowledgement of your definition of God.
But why should there be? You don’t define God. God Is.

thats what i said, and you claimed your signature implied a belief in G-d. so which G-d is it? or is it some personal interpretation of G-d?

I am a former Catholic because I don’t believe in the Catholic magical incantations as having efficacy just because some ordained official recites them.

which magical incantations would that be?

It takes much more than that for a spiritual formula to have any real effect other than placebo. (True that the placebo effect can be very potent, but in that case it’s not the priest causing any effect, it would be the recipient’s consciousness that is the cause of any effect.)

what makes you think that the priest actions cause any effect? thats G-ds power, not the priests.

that was established long ago when people thought a priest had to be sinless to celebrate mass.

As you are a believing Catholic, you can believe that it’s not possible to be a former Catholic, but belief does not guarantee the truth of what is believed.

now apply that sentence equally to your belief that you can be a former Catholic.

see? you think you can leave.

yet here you are.

p.s. Assuming too much is a habit that can really lead a person far astray.

dodging for all your worth isn’t the same as me assuming too much, its you changing the implications of what you are saying.

 

[anon5216]

warpspeedpetey:
As DavWan noted, this is getting way off topic. I’ll PM you a response.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As DavWan noted, this is getting way off topic. I’ll PM you a response.

no need, i will only post it here.

the threads are infinitely expandable, multiple conversations are common on one thread.

 

[tobinatorstark]

But you are defining what equals God’s words. At the very least, you are simply accepting some other human’s assertions of what are God’s words.

What you are affirming or denying is only your own beliefs of what is Truth.

Do I believe in God? Doesn’t my signature answer that?

My profile indicates I’m a former Catholic now interested in Indian spirituality. Indian spirituality has been around far longer than Catholicism and yes, very much is concerned with God and our relationship with Him. And no, I am not a member of any organized religious group.

are you insinuating that the Bible is false and the word of God???

 

[tobinatorstark]

What exactly is anti-monotheist or Hindu about my signature?
Why are you assuming Hinduism at all? I’m not a Hindu.

Regarding Hinduism, yes I agree Hindu mythology is different from Catholic mythology, but mythology is a far cry from God.

Catholicism doesn’t contain any mythology

 

[anon5216]

are you insinuating that the Bible is false and the word of God???

No, but I am saying that fallible humans wrote the various books and stories that other fallible humans defined as the Bible - as well as those fallible humans defining this set of writings as the inerrant Word of God.

It is not the inerrant Word of God. There certainly may be elements of divine inspiration here and there within it, but this inspiration can not be proven to have caused complete inerrancy in everything written nor caused other humans to infallibly select all divinely inspired words and nothing but divinely inspired words.

 

[Namesake]

Catholicism doesn’t contain any mythology

I think you misunderstand what mythology means. Catholicism contains the most beautiful and deeply meaningful mythology within Christianity.

Hindu mythology is very beautiful too.

 

[anon5216]

Catholicism doesn’t contain any mythology

Mythology: a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation,
esp. when exaggerated or fictitious.

The bible is certainly a set of stories and beliefs - and modern archeology is finding more and more proof of exaggerations and fictitious elements in it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, but I am saying that fallible humans wrote the various books and stories that other fallible humans defined as the Bible - as well as those fallible humans defining this set of writings as the inerrant Word of God.

It is not the inerrant Word of God. There certainly may be elements of divine inspiration here and there within it, but this inspiration can not be proven to have caused complete inerrancy in everything written nor caused other humans to infallibly select all divinely inspired words and nothing but divinely inspired words.

absolutely wrong,

no other faith has the mathematical perfection that is messianic prophecy.

across millenia, men who did not know eachother, speak the same language, live in the same culture, or exist in the same area, wrote messianic prophecies.

they came true in the person of Christ.

very specifically.

we know Christianity to be the one true faith, in a unique and undeniable, mathematically precise manner.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Mythology: a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation,
esp. when exaggerated or fictitious.

The bible is certainly a set of stories and beliefs - and modern archeology is finding more and more proof of exaggerations and fictitious elements in it.

That right there makes me think that you deny God and his word. I maybe wrong and I hope that I am but again I refuse to deny anything in Bible. I believe that the Bible is literally true and you don’t believe everything in the Bible is true. Let’s just leave it at that

 

[anon5216]

absolutely wrong,

no other faith has the mathematical perfection that is messianic prophecy.

across millenia, men who did not know eachother, speak the same language, live in the same culture, or exist in the same area, wrote messianic prophecies.

they came true in the person of Christ.

very specifically.

we know Christianity to be the one true faith, in a unique and undeniable, mathematically precise manner.

Absolutely wrong.

The Jews who wrote those prophecies were expecting a temporal king.
Most at the time did not believe Jesus was the messiah of their prophecies and most do not to this day - 2,000 years later.

Stating this does not deny the spiritual truth of Christ -
just that Jesus does not match up with the Jewish prophecy expectations.

Again, Jesus’ teachings sound much more Indian than they resemble anything out of the Old Testament.

 

[anon5216]

anon5216;4878656:

Mythology: a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation,
esp. when exaggerated or fictitious.

The bible is certainly a set of stories and beliefs - and modern archeology is finding more and more proof of exaggerations and fictitious elements in it.

That right there makes me think that you deny God and his word. I maybe wrong and I hope that I am but again I refuse to deny anything in Bible. I believe that the Bible is literally true and you don’t believe everything in the Bible is true. Let’s just leave it at that

The first part is nothing more than the accepted definition of mythology.

I in no way deny God. I do question and disbelieve claims that any human writings can be defined as the inerrant “Word of God”.

You can live your life “as if” the Bible is literally true.
Agreeing to disagree regarding beliefs is fine by me.

If your focus is on your spiritual development it doesn’t really matter (IMO) what mythology you start out with - as long as the intent is to use that mythology to get to God - and not just worship the “stories and beliefs” which are really only symbols. As such they become idols when worshipped instead of being used to reach what they attempt to represent.

 

[DavWan]

No, but I am saying that fallible humans wrote the various books and stories that other fallible humans defined as the Bible - as well as those fallible humans defining this set of writings as the inerrant Word of God.

It is not the inerrant Word of God. There certainly may be elements of divine inspiration here and there within it, but this inspiration can not be proven to have caused complete inerrancy in everything written nor caused other humans to infallibly select all divinely inspired words and nothing but divinely inspired words.

Arguing that there is no proof that Scripture is inerrant, therefore it is fallible is the argumentum ad silentio.

Another logical error is begging the question. What you assume as proven but needs proof is that only part of the Scriptures is inspired. What you need to prove is twofold:

1. *]Which parts of Scripture are inspired
   *]Which parts of the Bible are not inspired
   
   Of course since you do claim the issue of fallible humans, you will need to demonstrate how your assertion is not fallible when addressing these two parts

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Absolutely wrong.

The Jews who wrote those prophecies were expecting a temporal king.

what makes you think that? even if we accept that idea, that doesnt change that Christ met the prophecies.

you may expect one thing and another occurs, that is after all the nature of prophecies

Most at the time did not believe Jesus was the messiah of their prophecies and most do not to this day - 2,000 years later.

thats right, you just verified one of the prophecies

Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; 28:16 - He will be the stone rejected by the builders - Acts 4:10-11; Rom. 9:32-33; 1 Peter 2:7-8 - Jesus is the stone rejected by the builders.

their very refusal was foretold

Stating this does not deny the spiritual truth of Christ -
just that Jesus does not match up with the Jewish prophecy expectations.

we all know what happens when you begin to assume. but as the prophecies dont say that they expected an earthly king, there is no reason to believe thats what Isaiah and others thought.

modern Jews who reject Christ say that, why wouldn’t they, it supports their position.

Again, Jesus’ teachings sound much more Indian than they resemble anything out of the Old Testament.

whats your point?

 

[tobinatorstark]

The first part is nothing more than the accepted definition of mythology.

I in no way deny God. I do question and disbelieve claims that any human writings can be defined as the inerrant “Word of God”.

You can live your life “as if” the Bible is literally true.
Agreeing to disagree regarding beliefs is fine by me.

If your focus is on your spiritual development it doesn’t really matter (IMO) what mythology you start out with - as long as the intent is to use that mythology to get to God - and not just worship the “stories and beliefs” which are really only symbols. As such they become idols when worshipped instead of being used to reach what they attempt to represent.

I believe in no mythology and I refuse to accept the Bible as mythology

 

[Namesake]

I believe in no mythology and I refuse to accept the Bible as mythology

I am seriously curious. Why can’t you accept the Bible as wonderful inspiring literature and then accept science as just the facts of natural life.