Challenge Vanni


Vanni Fucci
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by tibear

Vanni,
Quote: Whereas, religion will hang onto their myths even when they fly in the face of all reason and understanding... I think if you were to actually look into the official teaching of the Catholic Church you will find that nowhere do they say that God created the universe in 7-24 hour days. Take some time to do some research on some Catholic Bible scholars and I think you will be very surprised about what the teaching of the Church is.
Anyone who has continued to study their faith will have progressed beyond the Adam and Eve theology. The problem I have is with people that think that since the Bible can't be taken as a literal history book, then anything to do with religion is a bunch of "hocus-pocus".
I've said on many occasions that I don't believe in Adam & Eve, believe that evolution is a very likely scenario for our development, many stories in the Bible are exactly that, stories. However, to ridicule people because they have a different belief system then your own is simply wrong.
As a very wise person once said, a few people hate the Catholic Church for what it stands for, a great many people hate the Catholic Church for what they believe it stands for.

Quote has been trimmed
What you've just revealed, tibear, is that you are choosing to believe or disbelieve the divine word of God, to suit your personal needs.

Don't feel bad though, as this is common of most Christians in that when an aspect of the Bible becomes unbelievable, they discount it, or claim that it was mistranslated, or should not be taken literally.

The Catholic Church maintains that the Holy Bible not only contains the word of God, but IS the word of God.

New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Quote:

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the...

Quote has been trimmed
As I've stated many, many times, I don't hate people who practice their religion, and I would defend their right to do so, so long as they do it responsibly, and don't infringe upon any of my own rights or the rights of others...unfortunately, there are elements that wish to further a Christian agenda through the government that I whole-heartedly reject...and I consider that to be impermissible...

Neither do I feel that I have ridiculed anyone with regards to their religion, and if you feel that I have done so, then I do apologize...my intent was not to ridicule, but to show how you've been so thoroughly deceived...and how terribly wrong the whole notion of religion has always been.
 
Extrafire
#32
Quote:

The universe always existed.... it's TIME that was created during the "big bang."

(Are you serious?) Space and time are inextricably linked. Both came into being along with matter and energy in the big bang. (space-time theory of relativity, Hawking, Penrose)
 
Extrafire
#33
Quote:

This has always fascinated me, too, whether from the Creationism or Evolution theory...

What is this "nothing" of which you speak? How can "nothing" boil and create bubbles?

Up till Einstein, conventional wisdom held that the universe was infinite both in time and space (although there was good evidence that disproved that). Einsteins general relativity theory in 1915 indicated that the universe was expanding, and that the expansion could be traced backwards to a beginning. This disturbed him greatly because, he reasoned, if it has a beginning, it must have a beginner. So he falsified his own equation to avoid the possibility of the big bang until Edwin Hubble proved the original theory correct by his observations. At this point, Einstein declared there must be a creator, a view he kept for the rest of his life in spite of tremendous pressure to recant from his contemporaries. Many scientists, such as Sir Fred Hoyle (hey, is he THAT Fred?) who first called it the big bang, were certain that further scientific investigation would disprove it. It is the most tested theory in the history of astrophysics, and the tests are still going on, and it has passed every test, forcing atheist scientists to accept it's valitdity.

Since they can't reject the big bang, they've been trying all kinds of explanations to get around the implication of a creator, things like the rebounding universe, and none will work. They've gone so far as to delve into metaphysics (which isn't science) to find a loophole. The multiple universes idea is one of the latest that can't be disproven because we can't ever know about them if they do exist. Any explanation for the possible cause of them, however, has failed until the latest, using string theory as a generator. The problem with it is the chances of it being able to produce our universe are scientifically zero.
 
Vanni Fucci
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Since they can't reject the big bang, they've been trying all kinds of explanations to get around the implication of a creator, things like the rebounding universe, and none will work. They've gone so far as to delve into metaphysics (which isn't science) to find a loophole. The multiple universes idea is one of the latest that can't be disproven because we can't ever know about them if they do exist. Any explanation for the possible cause of them, however, has failed until the latest, using string theory as a generator. The problem with it is the chances of it being able to produce our universe are scientifically zero.

It's my understanding that there is no evidence that points to the necessity of a creator. The fact that the Big Bang and string theory cannot be tested has nothing to do with the validity of the theory, but can be attributed to the simple fact that no force on earth can create the power necessary to replicate the event even in a scaled down and controlled fashion, and strings, if they exist would be too small to detect with our most powerful optical enhancers.
 
Extrafire
#35
Quote:

How can "nothing" boil and create bubbles?

Good question. Nothing means no matter, no energy, no space, no time. To put it simply, if you have a positive and a negative and you put them together, they cancel each other out, or add up to zero, nothing. The theory is that if you do it backwards you get something out of nothing by removing the positive from the negative. (the real stuff is much more complicated than that and I'm not the person to try to explain it) This is impossible, as you have suggested, unless superstring theory is true, and then it might be possible.
 
Extrafire
#36
Quote:

I'll read Greene if you read Kaku's Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension...

That sounds like the kind of book I like to read. Don't expect me to get through it any time soon though, from the amount of stuff in this thread I want to answer I won't have time for quite a while.

I found Greene a difficult read. It's graduate level stuff and you have to focus. I wanted to know what string theory was and it was recommended as a good explanation, probably about as simple as he could make it. He made it into a TV series last year, but I don't have cable so I missed it.
 
Vanni Fucci
#37
Well you should read Hyperspace then...I thought it was explained pretty well...of course I'm working off memory right now, because the book is packed away, and I'm at work right now...
 
Extrafire
#38
Quote:

...but the possibility exists, even if the probablility does not...and if all variables were satisfied, quantum theory states that the predicted result will occur, because it must...there is no design in that...

The problem is, the more variables there are, and the more fine tuning there is, the odds against it increase exponentially. Picture all of North America covered with dimes, piled all the way to the moon. One of them is red. What are the odds that you can reach in the pile and pick out the red one? When you have odd like that, scientists say it is impossible. Yet the odds you require don't come within trillions of trillions of trillions of that. That's why Hawking says he doesn't believe it to be possible.
 
Extrafire
#39
Quote:

When I was much younger I had a theory that the universe was a ring shape and so there was no end...then I started to think....so what's outside the ring!! DOH!!

Know what? You were right, sort of. Space is curved, so that although it is a finite size and there is an end to it, we can't come to the edge and look out at nothing. We are confined within the space-time continuum. If you head straight up from where you are into space (so the theory goes) you could keep going in a straight line (and you wouldn't come to the end of the universe) you would find yourself eventually approaching where you started from, from the other direction, behind you.
 
Extrafire
#40
Quote:

Design, and the necessary assumption of a designer, explains nothing in any scientific sense. One must then explain the origins of the designer, and the origins of those origins, and so on in an infinite regression. Attempting to terminate that regression by claiming that the designer has always existed begs the question. This is highly unsatisfactory to the scientific mind, which seeks naturalistic explanations of all phenomena.

Good points. The first thing to realise is that a designer must by definition be trancendant to it's creation, and not be bound by such things as time. We can have no comprehension of the nature a a designer other than some character traits and the knowledge that it is not bound by space and time as we are. In our space-time continuum we know that everything has a beginning, and we know that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. What we don't know is if the designer is similarly bound.

The true scientific mind seeks the explanation of nature and phenomena, whatever that may ultimately be.

Quote:

. I've never been sure what the point of that argument is; to me it just says that if things were different, then things would be different and we wouldn't be here to observe them.

Simply put, the point is that the incredible fine tuning could not be the product of chance.

Quote:

One possibility that has a certain appeal to me is the notion that there's an infinity of possible values for those constants, and thus an infinity of possible universes,

The people who know about that stuff believe that there are other possible values for those constants. The idea of an infinity of possible universes became popular when it had to be admitted that our universe wasn't infinite. However, infinity is just an abstract concept. It isn't possible in reality. Want a demonstration?

Quote:

. There's at least one more layer of reality we haven't discovered yet, which might be strings, or quantum loops, or something else nobody's thought of yet. But invoking a designer at this point is the end of the research program; in one sense it explains everything, but in another way it explains nothing, it merely denies the need for further explanations.

Not true. Having read about string theory as much as I'm capable of understanding, I worry that I may not live long enough to see it confirmed. I'm a creationist and I'm very interested in seeing what they come up with next, and so are a number of other creationists I'm familliar with. We don't invoke a designer to end the search or explain it away. We postulate it as the best explanation based on the evidence so far, and we encourage research because over the past 25 years, the amount of evidence that has accumulated that supports design is staggering, and we want to see if it continues to lead us in the direction we're going.

Quote:

that not only don't we know everything, we can't, not even in principle.

That's a creationist position.
 
Extrafire
#41
Quote:

the sun's about 5 billion years old, and should be good for about another 5 billion before it bloats up into a red giant and wipes out the inner planets. And what does that say about design and a designer?

That it only provided the earth as a temporary home for us.
 
Extrafire
#42
Quote:

So to answer the question that was given we could post anything we believe. None of us will truly be right, religious or not.

No, one or some of us might be right, but we couldn't prove it.
 
Extrafire
#43
Quote:

and one day the Big Bang Theory may too be relegated to the status of a creation myth.

That's where they tried to put it originally. The name "Big Bang" was originally a term of derision, an insult, because it implied a creator.

The big bang theory has passed dozens of tests. It will never be disproven. But there are those who dispute gereral relativity and believe it might be wrong.
 
Extrafire
#44
Quote:

That's quite possible, I'm for thinking whenever or if the Big bang is ever figured out then there will be tantilizing questions of what was going on before????

And THAT is the question we're all trying to answer.
 
Extrafire
#45
Quote:

I think if you were to actually look into the official teaching of the Catholic Church you will find that nowhere do they say that God created the universe in 7-24 hour days

Actually, that is so very true. It's 6 days. The 7th is the day of rest.

Actually, the original is written in Hebrew, and it says 6 yom.

But we're a little off topic.
 
Extrafire
#46
Quote:

Well you should read Hyperspace then...I thought it was explained pretty well...of course I'm working off memory right now, because the book is packed away, and I'm at work right now.

I could understand Greene while I was reading it, but don't ask me to explain it. I'm also working from memory. I read the book about 5 years ago and I'm not about to delve into it to try to prove anything. It isn't relevant to this discussion other than it provides a means to unite quantum and relativity theories, and may provide the possibility for your theory, although still not eliminating the need for a creator.

By the way, what kind of job do you have that allows you to surf the net while getting paid, and do they have any openings?
 
Extrafire
#47
Quote:

It's my understanding that there is no evidence that points to the necessity of a creator. The fact that the Big Bang and string theory cannot be tested has nothing to do with the validity of the theory, but can be attributed to the simple fact that no force on earth can create the power necessary to replicate the event even in a scaled down and controlled fashion, and strings, if they exist would be too small to detect with our most powerful optical enhancers.

According to Einstein, since the universe had a beginning, it must have a beginner. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and the cause must transcend the effect. Your multiple universe generator theory meets that requirement, but it lacks any evidencial support, and besides, it would have to be a highly designed process. When you examine different hyposthesies you need t keep in mind the amount of explanatory power that each has, and design far outstrips all the others.

The big bang theory can and has been tested extensively (for the purpose of disproving it) and has been confirmed every time. They even have infra-red photographs of it about 300,000 years after the event. (Don't ask me how they got them.) String theory can't be tested either through experimentation or mathematics yet, but they're working on it. According to Greene, it's like a 19th century scientist coming across a modern computer. They would have an idea what it's supposed to do, but they wouldn't have a clue how it worked. But it is, according to those who know, "mathematically elegant" and it holds a lot of promise. It is neither valid nor rejected at this point. They may be able to prove it by mathematics some day.

Your universe generator theory isn't likely to be proved at any time, because it would transcend us, but string theory could provide a means to calculate weather it would be possible. If it were possible, there's still the problem of the extreme degree of design required for it to work, which would mean that a universe generator would require a creator.
 
Dexter Sinister
#48
Well, you've been pretty busy here tonight, Extrafire. I hardly know where to begin to respond, but for starters I can say that you're quite wrong in what you attribute to Einstein, you've misunderstood his position entirely.

If you're a creationist in the usual sense of that word, you are completely, egregiously, and demonstrably wrong, there's no good evidence that supports your position, no good evidence in support of design that doesn't admit of much more parsimonious explanations, and plenty of reasons for thinking the universe wasn't designed. I'd like to know what you've been reading. David Hume completely demolished the argument from design centuries ago,and all the contemporary arguments advanced in its favour, like those we get from people like Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson, are based on ignorance and misunderstandings and distortions of the evidence.

Is your position that the universe was created by divine fiat over a period of six days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago? That's the conventional creationist view, and it's flatly contradicted by multiple converging lines of evidence from physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, you name it. If conventional creationism is correct, we have to throw away all of that, despite the fact that it's worked so spectacularly well for us in giving us the world of technology that enables us, among other things, to converse like this.

Bluntly, if conventional creationism is correct, the computer that enables you to post here would be an impossible mechanism, because it's based on about 400 years worth of increasing knowledge of physics and chemistry and mathematics that all hang together consistently and predictably, but cannot be true if creationism is correct. In particular, everything we know about radioactive decay must be wrong, and if that's wrong, then everything we know about all nuclear processes must be wrong, and if that's wrong then everything we know about the four basic forces must be wrong, and if that's wrong then everything we know about the behaviour of electrons must be wrong, and if that's wrong then there's no electrical power in your home and your computer doesn't work.

The conventional creationist position is indefensible in the light of modern science, and if that's your position, you are simply wrong from beginning to end.

But if that's not your position, you'd better explain what your position is. You identified yourself as a creationist, so tell us what that means.
 
tibear
#49
Vanni,

Quote:

What you've just revealed, tibear, is that you are choosing to believe or disbelieve the divine word of God, to suit your personal needs.

Don't feel bad though, as this is common of most Christians in that when an aspect of the Bible becomes unbelievable, they discount it, or claim that it was mistranslated, or should not be taken literally.

You are correct that the Catholic Church does say that the Bible IS the word of God but nowhere does it say that everything written in the Bible is 100% guaranteed to be factual. That is, the Bible IS the word of God in that it chronicles how God interacts with humankind. How humans sometimes reject God and sometimes they turn towards him. How they sometimes turn to "pagan" gods. Isn't this the story of all humans. We belief something for a while, say the story about Adam and Eve. Then when we get a bit older and start to reason for ourselves and make decisions for ourselves we start to realize that Adam and Eve may not be true but that it may STAND for our evolution. How God created man in his own image. Does this mean that God took dirt and form man and breathed life into him, possibly, but maybe it means that God formed man and blessed him. Could it possibly be that God used evolution as the "how"??

I'm not picking and choosing what to believe in the Bible, everything in the book relates various stories of the struggles and triumphs that humankind has had over it existence and how humankind's spiritual journey has progressed. It IS God's word in that without question it is a spiritual journey between humankind and God.

I think there are alot of people out there who believe that the Bible is 100% factual. However, if you were to read different parts of the Bible who will quickly realize that there are parts that are conflicting with itself. For example the ascension happens in two completely different locations according to two different books in the New Testament. Does that mean that the ascension didn't take place at all or that one of the books is lying? No, but perhaps the writer delibrately put the ascention in a location to stress a particular point.

For example, the gospel of Matthew is written specifically for members of the Jewish faith so the writer's try to make as many references to the old testament as they can to make that case that Jesus was the "Messiah". However, John was more philisophical than the other gospel writers and used alot of imagery in the writings.

Vanni, you need to progress beyond the black and white world of religion. Just like everything in the world has grey areas so does religion. Are there absolute truths that we are called to live by? Certainly! However, simply because you don't believe that everything in the Bible is 100% factual doesn't mean that you pick and choose your faith.

I challenge you to talk to 100 priests and I bet you at least 95% will say that they don't believe that Adam and Ever were "real" people but symbolize the creation of the human race as directed by God.
 
peapod
#50
Yes I am sure thats true tibear, but when did they change their minds about that? Was it when people started asking questions?

You seem to not understand that its only when you want to legislate and make laws based on those beliefs, that not only do people have the right to question them, we have a duty. The fact that homosexuality is called a "sin" based on those teachings, is morally wrong, and its not true. And no tibear I am not gay, and I truly believe that when people try to single them out and vilify them based on their bible, than they better be prepared to have those teachings scruitinized.

Yet, they are hurt and mortified by being questioned on them, well perhaps you have some idea now what it must be like for homosexuals. I also doubt if you would admit this either tibear, my many over the top religious people that I have talked to actually make some completely false conclusions that homosexuality is connected to peodofilia. You can deny it all you want, but I have seen it and heard it from certain groups of religious people. I don't blame them for trying to deny it either when called on it, they might as well say the world is flat. Its insane and its not true.
 
tibear
#51
Pea,

The only connection between homosexuality and pedophelia, incest or bigamy is that these are all sexual relationships that "minority" groups practice.

This is completely off topic, but anyways, as I've said before my concern is that moral compass is starting to swing and the politicians have to be certain that they know what they are doing. Because the other "minority" groups are eagerly watching everything that is going on with the SSM debate.

Getting back to the religious debate. Was and is their politics at play in the Catholic/Anglican/Luthern/Baptist... Churches??? Absolutely. Whenever humans get involved with something they try to manipulate things to the way they believe it should go. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong.

You need to realize that the Church is made up of human beings. None of which are perfect in any sense.

Was JP II a great leader, I think everyone will acknowledge that he was. Did he make any mistakes? YES! Should we through out all of his teachings because he made human mistakes? NO!

Vanni, RB and yourself are constantly saying you don't want the religious right to "shove" our beliefs onto you by making laws that go against your beliefs. However, what about laws that go against the religious right's beliefs?? Pea, you said that that your against 'teenage peadophelia' and want it to remain illegal. On what basis are you supporting this law?

Your right with your assertion that some Christian faiths place all of their trust in the Bible, but the Catholic Church isn't one of them. Remember, faith AND tradition. That is, Catholic's believe that the wisdom can be past on from generation to generation.

The teachings of the Church from day one has been that a sexual relationship between one man and one woman is the "best" relationship because it is positive for everyone including both spouses and the society as a whole. That sexual relationships should be contained within a marriage situation because men and women generally see sex differently and because of the differences, problems often occur when the sexual aspect o the relationship begins before a real commitment occurs.

I do acknowledge that too many religious people believe in a "hocus-pocus" aspect of their religion. Being Catholic, it drives me crazy to see all of the pews jammed full on two days of the year. If the people in the pews think it is important to go to church at Christmas and Easter than perhaps they should go more often during the year, likewise if they don't think it is important to go to church during the rest of the year what does going to church on Christmas and Easter give them. Do they think they are getting 'check marks' in some big book???

Again, with Catholicism you see the parents bringing their children for baptism, communion and confirmation and never darken the door again until marriage and funeral. They somehow believe that getting these sacraments "guarantees" them a place in heaven. Drives me nuts.

So you see, I share much of your frustration about people stuck in the "hocus-pocus" faith-life. However, the big difference is that I accept this is where they are and hope that they will progress beyond their grade 2 theology. Rather than belittling them for the faith they have try to support them to further explore their faith.
 
Twila
#52
TB, that was a great post.
 
peapod
#53
Tibear the catholic church is run by men, they also refuse to give up ideas that most catholics don't even follow themselves. There ideas do not belong in this century. And yes I do have a suspicion of a group of men who lock themselves behind their own little walled country and tell others how they should live their lives. And it all comes from their heads, no where else tibear just in their heads.
 
tibear
#54
Pea,

JP II NEVER locked himself in a "little walled country". He was a man that lived a very difficult life. Having grown up in a communist country during WWII and having many friends sent off to be killed.

He saw first hand the poverty and sickness of the world. However, he also had the opportunity to educate himself and spend a great deal of time thinking about everything around him. He was a great scholar and very well learned in Catholic and modern theology. Did you know he wrote a book about human sexuality in his early days?? He stood up to the communist government when they tried to bully the Church when he was bishop in the Ukraine and he stood up to world leaders and those within the Church when they went against Church teachings.

One of my children asked me the other day, "Why do all of the children have to go to school?". Of course, I answered that generally speaking the likelihood of a person succeeded in life increases with the amount of education they receive. To which he asked, "Did you take Shakespeare in school?" and if so how has it helped you in life. I admitted that I hated Shakespeare and still do but not everything in life is easy and sometimes we have to do things that we don't want to do because we learn from it. Others learn great insight from Shakespeare, I learnt that it wouldn't kill me!

Similarly, I believe that a faith life teaches everyone not only about the details of a particular religion but a great deal about yourself. Is it possible for me to do absolutely everything by myself or do I need help from others or some "supreme" being named God.

The problem Pea, is that you see the Church as a authoritative body and tries to "squash" all of its members into submission to generate power and money. I don't agree with your belief but accept the fact that you have it. Of course, I, like the other billion Catholics around the world believe the Church is full of men AND woman who are trying their best to lead their followers in a lifestyle that is the most beneficial for not only themselves but others around them. They teach us to share our resources and talents and that we have a responsibility to take care of the poor and those suffering injustice.

Are there problems within the Church? YES!!! Whenever you have an organization that is run by humans it will have individuals that think about themselves rather than the "greater good". But the difference is I don't lump the billion priests, brothers, sisters and laypeople of the Catholic Church with the few individuals that do harm to others or who do this to gain themselves power and money.

If you don't like the Church's teaching on abortion, birthcontrol, homosexuality, etc then that's alright, you don't have to follow it. However, just remember that this view isn't just the view of the Catholic's or even the Christians but many religions around the world share these views. In fact, some of these controversial views are also shared by some people that are agnostic: www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html (external - login to view)

BTW, have you looked into the possible successors of JPII for the papacy. Most, if not all of these men are worldly men who have a great deal of experience dealing with the "real" world. They know the issues around them and am sure that they will try their best to be the voice of the poor that JPII was.
 
Vanni Fucci
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by tibear

You are correct that the Catholic Church does say that the Bible IS the word of God but nowhere does it say that everything written in the Bible is 100% guaranteed to be factual. That is, the Bible IS the word of God in that it chronicles how God interacts with humankind. How humans sometimes reject God and sometimes they turn towards him. How they sometimes turn to "pagan" gods. Isn't this the story of all humans. We belief something for a while, say the story about Adam and Eve. Then when we get a bit older and start to reason for ourselves and make decisions for ourselves we start to realize that Adam and Eve may not be true but that it may STAND for our evolution. How God created man in his own image. Does this mean that God took dirt and form man and breathed life into him, possibly, but maybe it means that God formed man and blessed him. Could it possibly be that God used evolution as the "how"??

Sorry pal, but I think you just lost this argument...

If the Bible is the authoritative and divine word of God, and you've just stated that it is not always factual, then the only conclusions that one can draw, is that either your God has lied to you...or that that it never was the word of God to begin with.

...and if the Bible is not the divine word of God, then why has the church claimed that it is for almost 2000 years...what possible authority could the church maintain when it's tenets and doctrine are based upon obvious forgeries...

...and why would people still follow this hollow doctrine, even after it's been shown to be false...

...the reason that there are conflicting accounts of the same events in the Bible is quite simple actually...the authors never corroberated their stories...in all likelyhood, they never knew each other, and often the authors of the same story are separated by generations...so what's obvious is that the stories were derived from oral traditions that were separated geographically, and/or temporally...the validity of the stories is a moot point, because they are without a doubt derived from earlier myths...

...and yet in the Bible they are presented as the history of the world...this is a false claim, and has been proven so, time and again...

So go on then tibear, do tell me why it is that any of the stories in the bible should be believed...tell my why anything in the bible should be taken as fact...400 years ago you would have been tried for heresy and executed for saying what you've written here...that you are safe from being burnt at the stake in this day and age has nothing to do with the church being more progressive...it has everything to do with the fact that your religion, and your faith is utterly untenable...
 
peapod
#56
Tibear, I have a problem with all religions. You don't seem to understand that I believe that it is used to munipulate good people. People do things under the guise of religion, they play on peoples fears myself I do not need religion I am not interested in the so called after life, I know in my head my time is here right now on earth. And I am okay with that. It still does hinder my STRIVE for a spiritual life, its just not the same as yours.

I also feel you are deluded about catholics, I know many, and they do not think in a zealot way, they don't care if homosexuals marry, they take birth control pills, yet they say they are catholics. Personally I am glad for that.

Practice whatever you want, but leave people to live their lives the way they want to. Thats why we have a brain, to make our own choices. And if you really wanted any resepect from me you would really stop trying to lump homosexuality in with pligimy and pedophila. You have a problem with me mentioning the pedophines in the catholic church, but yet here you are using that conservative party trick of trying to imply homosexuals are pedophiles. Its cheap and dirty, and most people know it. A homosexual is not a pedophile do you understand that. Most of all tibear you still have not told me why homosexuality is a sin to you, I know why tho. Yet you will not lay down the scriptures that tells you that so vanni can show you how this is wrong thinking. Why won't you do that? What are you afraid of?
 
LadyC
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

Yet you will not lay down the scriptures that tells you that so vanni can show you how this is wrong thinking. Why won't you do that? What are you afraid of?

All due respect... who appointed Vanni the expert that we should follow his thinking? You appear to be following his teachings as blindly as you accuse others of following their leaders.
 
Vanni Fucci
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by LadyC

All due respect... who appointed Vanni the expert that we should follow his thinking? You appear to be following his teachings as blindly as you accuse others of following their leaders.

That is true...I'm no theologian...I'm just able to look at things from a different perspective, and I come equipped with a finely tuned BS detector... :P
 
peapod
#59
With all due respect right back at ya. Well yes I would follow vanni and dexter blindly. I can see and appreciate great thinkers of high intelligence. Sorry for the gush vanni and dexter, but honestly its like having a seat at the scopes monkey trial, if you know what I mean.
I can see where this is going to lead, so I am not going to bite. I leave it to more brilliant minds.
 
LadyC
#60
No-one should be followed blindly, no matter who they are. I thought that was exactly what you were saying all along, peapod.

Unless you think for yourself, how do you know they are "thinkers of high intelligence"?
 

Similar Threads

64
Vanni and Rev meet up
by peapod | Sep 22nd, 2005
2
For vanni and rev
by peapod | Aug 7th, 2005
8
Hi vanni
by peapod | Mar 22nd, 2005
no new posts