God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

Religions say they know. I say that nobody can know. Therefore, religion is not valid. Not any of it.

---

​

Schraf,
Can you explain how you got to "therefore" from the previous statements? I'm confused.

---

​

Hmm. Religions claim to know the unknowable. If someone claims to know the unknowable, their claims are not valid.

---

not very convincing, schraf... what religions claim that? who invalidated another's knowledge claim? i know God, are you saying God is unknowable? if so, on what basis do you make that statement... if not, please clarify your position

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
I suppose you could call yourself a Catholic and not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is an official doctrine.

---

you *could* call yourself a catholic i guess... a heretical catholic... there is no room here, if one is a catholic one believes in all the church says to believe or one is anathema

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Something is unknowable if we cannot detect it with our senses.

​

It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that we can't detect it, so it is effectively and for all practical purposes non-existent.

---

but schraf, you said all i've seen you do is give your opinion, and even then you don't show upon what it's based... and the above is simply incredible... if only that which is material (detectable with our senses) can exist, what tools are you utilizing to have these correspondences?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
I suppose you could call yourself a Catholic and not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is an official doctrine.

---

​

you *could* call yourself a catholic i guess... a heretical catholic... there is no room here, if one is a catholic one believes in all the church says to believe or one is anathema

---

It wasn't always so. It didn't become doctrine until 1854.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
I suppose you could call yourself a Catholic and not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is an official doctrine.

---

​

you *could* call yourself a catholic i guess... a heretical catholic... there is no room here, if one is a catholic one believes in all the church says to believe or one is anathema

---

​

It wasn't always so. It didn't become doctrine until 1854.

​

---

unfortunately, that isn't all one must believe if one is a catholic... mary must have remained a virgin, mary must have been bodily assumed into heaven, mary *must* be deemed "Co-Redemptrix" with her son.. so much more

Yes, but you have to allow room for liberal Catholics or liberal anything else. For example, the "holy war" against the infidels by Muslims. Many liberal Muslims interpret this in a different way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Something is unknowable if we cannot detect it with our senses.

---

This is of course presuming that we can trust our senses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Something is unknowable if we cannot detect it with our senses.

---

This is of course presuming that we can trust our senses.

---

good pernt chara... and of course i trust mine... schraf, i'm sure, trusts hers... however, therein lies a problem eh?... chara, do you remember elijah and his servant? on the mountain? the servant couldn't understand elijah's lack of fear, given the army coming against them... and elijah asked God to give his servant "sight"...there are senses and there are senses... i guess we could only accept the senses that the largest number of people say they have... leave it up to a vote, as it were

Forgive me if I came across that way. No, all people are prideful, including me. To acknowledge someone greater than myself in every possible way is to put self-pride to death. And that can be painful if that has been (as it was and in some ways still is) the basis of my life. That is why I have found being a Christian is incredibly difficult and is a life-long struggle with which I rely on God's help every day.I do not condescend; I include myself in this category. That is why I can speak of how difficult it can be -- every day, even (and especially) for a Christian.True Christians are "gentle and humble of heart" just like Christ, not arrogant. I don't have all the answers; I'm sad that your experience with Christians has been as you say. Examine Christ's teachings and decide for yourself what he stands for. Chances are there are Christians out there who act more like him than the folks that you've run across.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
Yes, but you have to allow room for liberal Catholics or liberal anything else. For example, the "holy war" against the infidels by Muslims. Many liberal Muslims interpret this in a different way.

---

yayus.. and i'm sure within the muslim community all the "sects" vie for the right to proclaim theirs *the* truth...

No, not bad at all.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
you *could* call yourself a catholic i guess... a heretical catholic... there is no room here, if one is a catholic one believes in all the church says to believe or one is anathema

---

I put it to you that you don't actually know too many Catholics.The catholics I know cover the range from the devout and dogmatic to the liberal, just like the members of every other religion.
Protestants have it easy - every time you disagree with someone else in your church over religion you can schism and found a new church with a more "accurate" set of beliefs

Yeah, I know ultraconservative Catholics, for example, that reject evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weyland:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
you *could* call yourself a catholic i guess... a heretical catholic... there is no room here, if one is a catholic one believes in all the church says to believe or one is anathema

---

​

I put it to you that you don't actually know too many Catholics.

​

The catholics I know cover the range from the devout and dogmatic to the liberal, just like the members of every other religion.
Protestants have it easy - every time you disagree with someone else in your church over religion you can schism and found a new church with a more "accurate" set of beliefs

---

i'm not saying that individual catholics don't part company with rome, weyland.. i'm saying that if they believe the teachings of the church they believe they are accursed if they *do* part ways with the holy see

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Something is unknowable if we cannot detect it with our senses.

---

This is of course presuming that we can trust our senses.

---

​

good pernt chara... and of course i trust mine... schraf, i'm sure, trusts hers... however, therein lies a problem eh?... chara, do you remember elijah and his servant? on the mountain? the servant couldn't understand elijah's lack of fear, given the army coming against them... and elijah asked God to give his servant "sight"...

​

there are senses and there are senses... i guess we could only accept the senses that the largest number of people say they have... leave it up to a vote, as it were

---

Now this is were it hurts that pride. Or else you can deny the existance of other senses. Realizing that you may be intellectually advanced but spiritually barely even a fetus. Until that part of you is nurtured I guess it's easy enough to say it doesn't exist. But then again this is the same as me saying "i don't understand evolution and therefore it doesn't exist". There is evidence on my life of the reserection of Jesus Christ, it's not sufficient for you so you dismiss it. There is evidence to support fluke life, it's not sufficient for me so I dismiss it.Something to think about here, when someone marches into a scientific debate at starts spouting off when they aren't at all trained or qualified, how much thought do you give to what they say?Now if someone who doesn't believe in God comes after your faith spouting who did what in the name of what therefore your faith is not credible, though all they have is a percieved view of what you believe, do you give to much to what they say?Maybe, just maybe that person is a little more in the know about that faith than you are?I'm trying to avoid being condescending or preachy here, I'm just saying if someone is claiming a personal relationship with God, that maybe they have an extra "sense" or a divinely given "understanding".