2 of 5
2
Defining Morality and Ethical Consideration
Posted: 04 August 2006 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“FaixaPrata”] You’re finally starting to make sense. However as we all know, beer lubricates not only conversation, but genitalia as well. Maybe you could spearhead the effort to have condoms passed out with every pint.

Well science tells us differently. Alcohol, when drunk in excess,  decreases inhibitions thus impairing decision making skills, but it actually decreases potency in men. You are just another product of beer advertisements, thinking that if you can just find the right beer and a drunk girl than you can get laid. What a sorry abuse of such a fine libation. Some of us more sophisticated types can enjoy a pint as just being a pint. We do not see it as a means to a sexual end, but as a good in itself (when enjoyed moderately of course) Its an attitude like yours that gives us beer drinkers a bad name.

Boo FaixaPrata! Hooray beer!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 07:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  318
Joined  2006-03-23

Hey – don’t shoot the messenger bro.  Like I said – I’m just sayin’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 07:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2006-02-20

Thank you for the quotation, frankr. Actually, the hops are crucial for cutting the sweetness of the malted barley, but let that pass. (Sorry.) You make a persuasive case that the teetotaling Baptists and Mormons must have it wrong.

Here’s a quotation in response to yours, although you’ve probably heard it before:

Water to Wine

An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding. The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest’s breath and then sees an empty wine bottle on the floor of the car. He says, “Sir, have you been drinking?” “Just water,” says the priest. The trooper says, “Then why do I smell wine?” The priest looks at the bottle and says, “Good Lord! He’s done it again!”

 
(Jokes aren’t funny if I have to explain them, but the hint is “Cana”.)

Ireland contributed a bit of my ancestry, most recently a man by the name of Murphy. That family changed its name to Murfree, as in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Evidently, the name change shows that they were celebrating their new freedom in escaping from Ireland’s triple curse: the church, the bottle, and the English occupation. (OK, OK, I have English ancestry too.)

I’m glad you gave in to the temptation to respond to my comments about the logical impossibility of the Christian God. As I understand it, your church teaches that Jesus was “true man and true God.” (Reasoning about such a being is probably beyond me, but I’ll press on bravely.) For that reason, he could discover by introspection that he would survive his death. The rest of us as mere mortals cannot receive this assurance in that way, by consulting our divine component. It seems we have to accept someone’s testimony about divine revelation for an assurance of immortality, or do without that assurance. I’ll do without it but, here, let me buy you a beer. I recommend the Red Rock brew: Red Rock is an Oktoberfest style Lager—Beautiful red-amber color, prominent malty aroma and just barely sweet malt flavor followed by a dry, pleasantly hoppy finish.

I’m all for hoppiness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  318
Joined  2006-03-23

Actually frank, perhaps you’re right.  How about every two pints?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2006-07-08

mmmmmmmm…...hoppy beer….......

I’ll raise a glass to ya Frank ‘n Ted, once I can get out of this realm of wires and cables that I call “work”.

 Signature 

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

-James Joyce

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“frankr”]An all powerful God may have a difficult time understanding what it is like to be a powerless man unless he uses his power to become man; not just any man but a poor man in an insignificant tribe. A man who surrounds himself with followers who are of no special merit and eats drinks and walks with the lowliest of men.

First off, how could anything be “difficult” for God? Second, to design your counterpart as a religious evangelist already violates the premise of coming down here for a purely human experience. An average man does not endeavor to gather up ‘followers’, or call himself the one and only son of God. Kinda skews the whole Average Joe experiment, doesn’t it? Why did Jesus not just say he was God? Why confuse matters with the creation of this separate persona, a son who, as Ted points out, could never have been in any way separate from his own all-knowingness? It’s just wacky, frank.

It’s all wrong from the start: He created himself, knit  himself into a woman without her permission, thus spiritually raping her to his own ends. Not to mention insulting her husband, since it seems he was also not consulted. What mortal man gets to impregnate his mother to create himself  in her? Or knows his exact life purpose from that same moment? Jesus supposedly paraded around for three decades presenting himself as “God’s son”, when he was really just plain old God. Why split hairs? Why confuse the issue if you’re going to use your life for purposes of talking about the supernatural anyway?! I see this character as nothing but a kind of cyborg, a flesh-covered puppet. . . not a true man.


There are so many things wrong with the ‘God’s offspring’ premise, but one of the biggies is simply WHY? Why would an all-knowing being need to go through this primitive mock-up of living a human life, if he already knows enough about that life (EVERYTHING, in fact, since God is perfect) to program it down to the most minute detail, and on a scale of billions of humans? No need to respond, since Ted has already shown the logical impossibility of it. God being able to create that which he has never previously experienced (as with the weakness, temptation and disobedience of Adam and Eve) reveals the contradiction from, literally, Day One.


Even if we accept that God can create himself in another persona, why bother to live that one human existence as a messenger of God, instead of simply wallowing in being a 100% human male? Why not just carry on as a simple man, grow up in his community, struggle with his education and career choices, have an excruciating series of relationships like the rest of us have, eventually marry, raise a family, make mistakes, sin and suffer regret, question his faith, deal with all aspects of love and lust, longing, loss, greed, grief, poverty, hatred, inadequacy, disease, frailty, despair. . . and then die alone in doubt of what comes next, as we all do? After going to all the trouble of getting down here, presumably for purposes of understanding what the hell we’re all about, why would God not dive into the experience with the intention of feeling all that the rest of us endure? Jesus, as written, did not really live as a man, COULD not, if he was in fact a direct counterpart to God. . . and therefore could never have hoped to know our many and varied sufferings. Announcing that one is the direct seed of God is not exactly Average Joe behavior, and it defeated the whole idea of blending in and living life as everyone else does. At best, he set himself up as a Pat Robertson or a Pope, not as a humble Everyman who lives and dies in relative anonymity.

One can wax philosophical about a God who can play pretend that he was once ‘one of us’. . . but it could never happen, except via make-believe.


_

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2006-02-20

Hey, switch, that would be good. Let me know when you visit Las Vegas, aka, Sin City.

One of the television preachers said that New Orleans is the “moral cesspool of the nation.” Loyal supporters of Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and New York objected, wanting to claim the title for their own dens of iniquity, but the preacher man stuck to his comment. He was probably thinking about the sin and degradation of Mardi Gras where, I hear, people carry on very publicly in the streets of the French Quarter. A woman of an earlier century said “I don’t care what people do sexually. I just don’t want them doing it in the streets. It upsets the horses.”

There is a certain religious element in the casinos here. Signs like “Conversions” and “All Denominations” abound. A lot of people have faith that they can beat a game that they know the house has designed in its own favor. There are cameras in the ceiling watching everyone all the time, just like God Himself.

Yours for calm horses,

Ted

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Mia
You are arguing against a theology that does not exist. I am going to go through your post and make comments. I will give you the Catholic orthodox reply to your argument. It is not intended to convert you (this is my intention for all on this board but not always my primary intention), sway you or affect in anyway your “spirituality”; it is only meant to clarify what the Church teaches. You may continue to hate the church, love the church, ignore the church as you wish I only ask that you do so in light of what they teach and not in light of what you think they teach.

[quote author=“Mia”][quote author=“frankr”]An all powerful God may have a difficult time understanding what it is like to be a powerless man unless he uses his power to become man; not just any man but a poor man in an insignificant tribe. A man who surrounds himself with followers who are of no special merit and eats drinks and walks with the lowliest of men.

First off, how could anything be “difficult” for God? Second, to design your counterpart as a religious evangelist already violates the premise of coming down here for a purely human experience. An average man does not endeavor to gather up ‘followers’, or call himself the one and only son of God. Kinda skews the whole Average Joe experiment, doesn’t it? Why did Jesus not just say he was God? Why confuse matters with the creation of this separate persona, a son who, as Ted points out, could never have been in any way separate from his own all-knowingness? It’s just wacky, frank.

The difficulty was an answer to Ted’s question namely how could an all powerful God understand the sufferings of men. He may take pity on them but he could not understand it like men do. A similar example would be AA. The alcoholic understands the alcoholic. he knows what that kind of suffering is. Similarly the woman with breast cancer can empathize more with the woman recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

Jesus was average in that he grew up in a simple village surrounded by simple men. He did nothing out of the ordinary from other Jews in his time. There were many rabbis with many followers. St paul even refers to his teacher in his letters. “I sat at the feet of rabbi Gamiel(sp). God did not become Jesus. Jesus was and is always God. He is the second person of the trinity who became man. The trinity existed prior to Jesus becoming man. God is one and three. It is the belief of Christians. It is not an easy teaching and it is a great mystery but do not confuse it to God creating himself. As the Nicene Creed says, “begotten, not made, one being with the father”.

As to Jesus all knowingness we have to delve into Christology. Here we have the two natures of Christ , fully man and fully God, and one divine person. How those two natures intermingled is the object of speculation and the Church leaves this pretty much alone. Did Jesus know english? We do not know about his human intellect we do know his divine intellect knew everything. We know there was intermingling of the human and the divine natures but we do not know to what extent.

[quote author=“Mia”]It’s all wrong from the start: He created himself, knit  himself into a woman without her permission, thus spiritually raping her to his own ends. Not to mention insulting her husband, since it seems he was also not consulted. What mortal man gets to impregnate his mother to create himself  in her? Or knows his exact life purpose from that same moment? Jesus supposedly paraded around for three decades presenting himself as “God’s son”, when he was really just plain old God. Why split hairs? Why confuse the issue if you’re going to use your life for purposes of talking about the supernatural anyway?! I see this character as nothing but a kind of cyborg, a flesh-covered puppet. . . not a true man.

Again you are wrong. Christ did not create himself he is always God. He did not knit himself into the womb of Mary; the Holy Spirit did and only after and with Mary consent. This knitting was not a spiritual raping but a loving act of God for His people and of Mary for her God. He is not a flesh covered cyborg (this is the terminator heresy and has been officially condemned by the Vatican) nor is he adopted by God. He is truly man and truly God. There have been many attempts throughout history to deny Jesus’ divinity and to deny his humanity. They have all been condemned by the church. Again you may not agree but if you are going to hate Catholic dogma then hate what the church teaches not what you think it teaches.

[quote author=“Mia”]There are so many things wrong with the ‘God’s offspring’ premise, but one of the biggies is simply WHY? Why would an all-knowing being need to go through this primitive mock-up of living a human life, if he already knows enough about that life (EVERYTHING, in fact, since God is perfect) to program it down to the most minute detail, and on a scale of billions of humans? No need to respond, since Ted has already shown the logical impossibility of it. God being able to create that which he has never previously experienced (as with the weakness, temptation and disobedience of Adam and Eve) reveals the contradiction from, literally, Day One.

There is a need to respond. The all knowing God does not need to do anything; however, out of love he does so. He does so to save us. I do not see the illogical part of the second part of the quote. God is perfect, we are not. Not being perfect means we lack something not that we are more than perfect. He does know weakness and temptation. He does not know sin which again is a lack of perfection.

Even if we accept that God can create himself in another persona, why bother to live that one human existence as a messenger of God, instead of simply wallowing in being a 100% human male? Why not just carry on as a simple man, grow up in his community, struggle with his education and career choices, have an excruciating series of relationships like the rest of us have, eventually marry, raise a family, make mistakes, sin and suffer regret, question his faith, deal with all aspects of love and lust, longing, loss, greed, grief, poverty, hatred, inadequacy, disease, frailty, despair. . . and then die alone in doubt of what comes next, as we all do? After going to all the trouble of getting down here, presumably for purposes of understanding what the hell we’re all about, why would God not dive into the experience with the intention of feeling all that the rest of us endure? Jesus, as written, did not really live as a man, COULD not, if he was in fact a direct counterpart to God. . . and therefore could never have hoped to know our many and varied sufferings. Announcing that one is the direct seed of God is not exactly Average Joe behavior, and it defeated the whole idea of blending in and living life as everyone else does. At best, he set himself up as a Pat Robertson or a Pope, not as a humble Everyman who lives and dies in relative anonymity.

Again God did not create himself. Second he did wallow in being 100% male. You make the incarnation sound like method acting preparation. God put on some man clothes to feel what it is was like. Marlon Brando roughing it with the dock workers in preparation for his role as terry malloy. This is not the case. God became man for us not for Him. He gets nothing out of it. He is not trying to understand us he is trying to help us. He is trying to show us the way (and the truth and the life for that matter). It is not a magic trick performed to make us love him. He does not set himself up as Pat Robertson or the Pope he sets himself up as the Messiah as the God/man for that is who he is. In doing so he dies in obscurity yet we all know who he is.

[quote author=“Mia”]One can wax philosophical about a God who can play pretend that he was once ‘one of us’. . . but it could never happen, except via make-believe.

Again we do not believe that God was once one of us. We believe that he is now one of us. He is still fully human and fully man. We believe that God becoming man elevated all mankind. We are now adopted sons and daughters of God. Hooray God! Hooray men!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 06:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2006-02-20

Thank you for your post, Mia. I’m impressed again with the strength of your feeling, the cogency of your reasoning, and the power of your expression. I gave out a short involuntary laugh at your phrase: have an excruciating series of relationships like the rest of us have, So true. So sad. We laugh, I suppose, to help manage the pain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2006-02-20

frankr:

God is perfect, we are not.

If he is our Author, then He created our imperfections and is therefore imperfect himself. “Ye shall know them by their fruits” and all that. An honest workman takes responsibility for the quality of his products.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2006-07-08

[quote author=“Ted Shepherd”]Hey, switch, that would be good. Let me know when you visit Las Vegas, aka, Sin City.

One of the television preachers said that New Orleans is the “moral cesspool of the nation.” Loyal supporters of Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and New York objected, wanting to claim the title for their own dens of iniquity, but the preacher man stuck to his comment. He was probably thinking about the sin and degradation of Mardi Gras where, I hear, people carry on very publicly in the streets of the French Quarter. A woman of an earlier century said “I don’t care what people do sexually. I just don’t want them doing it in the streets. It upsets the horses.”

There is a certain religious element in the casinos here. Signs like “Conversions” and “All Denominations” abound. A lot of people have faith that they can beat a game that they know the house has designed in its own favor. There are cameras in the ceiling watching everyone all the time, just like God Himself.

Yours for calm horses,

Ted

Thanks, Ted, I would enjoy that!  I am in vegas about 5 times a year (for business, not gambling), so I am sure I could buy you a red hook.
Now N’orleans.I know that city well.  And yes, during the right part of the year, you can witness any type of debauchery one could imagine.
But one does not travel to the crecsent city for that (at least I don’t).  I go for the oysters, the red hot Redfish, and the bread pudding.
Now I’m hungry again, laters.

 Signature 

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

-James Joyce

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

-

Surely we’ve all slogged through these absurd premises enough times, but just to give my digits their daily workout. . .

[quote author=“frankr”]The difficulty was an answer to Ted’s question namely how could an all powerful God understand the sufferings of men. He may take pity on them but he could not understand it like men do. A similar example would be AA. The alcoholic understands the alcoholic. he knows what that kind of suffering is. Similarly the woman with breast cancer can empathize more with the woman recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

The creator described in your book would need no tutorial on what his own creation feels. How can you be all-knowing about something that you’ve never personally been?  He would have programmed each and every feeling into us intentionally. Only a person of blind faith could find sense in the idea of God needing to become one of us in order to ‘save’ us—save us from Him.  And only blind faith can make sense of God not having achieved 100% success in his mission to “sacrifice” Jesus. Why go through so much ‘pain’ (mock pain, in God’s case, since he is supernatural) unless you intend to save ALL of your children, not only those in an extremely small geographic area? And only  those who buy into the whole supernatural story?

 

[quote author=“frankr”]God did not become Jesus. Jesus was and is always God. He is the second person of the trinity who became man. The trinity existed prior to Jesus becoming man. God is one and three. It is the belief of Christians. It is not an easy teaching and it is a great mystery but do not confuse it to God creating himself. As the Nicene Creed says, “begotten, not made, one being with the father”.

“Not an easy teaching”. . .? It is purely fantastical, and the word ‘begotten’ clears nothing up (answers.com says this means: “generated by procreation”). I was begotten by my parents. So was Jesus. Not by quite the same means, though, nor with the same result. I cannot, for instance, be both my mother and myself at the same time. One cannot be the father and the father’s son at the same time, either, except in a storybook.  Toss in a ghost who does the deed of impregnation, artfully dodging the virgin’s hymen (why?!), presumably while the other two aspects of the Godhead look on, and now it’s a full-fledged creepy foursome.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]Here we have the two natures of Christ , fully man and fully God, and one divine person. How those two natures intermingled is the object of speculation and the Church leaves this pretty much alone. . .

And who can blame them :D? Yet they claim to ‘know for certain’ that Mary’s hymen remained intact throughout the God-sex, throughout her marriage, and also throughout other pregnancies. Priceless stuff, frank.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]Did Jesus know english? We do not know about his human intellect we do know his divine intellect knew everything. We know there was intermingling of the human and the divine natures but we do not know to what extent.

That’s a lot to leave hanging regarding the one single Being in all the universe who holds your eternal fate in his hands. You believe him to be fully man and fully God, yet still question whether he knew a particular language?! Wonder all you like, but please repeat after me, frank: If he was God, he knew everything. And if he was ‘fully Man’, he would have to experience sin in order to be considered a true man . . . otherwise he was ‘only’ a god dressed up and posturing in man’s clothing for 30 years. 

 

[quote author=“frankr”]Christ did not create himself he is always God. He did not knit himself into the womb of Mary; the Holy Spirit did and only after and with Mary consent. This knitting was not a spiritual raping but a loving act of God for His people and of Mary for her God. He is not a flesh covered cyborg (this is the terminator heresy and has been officially condemned by the Vatican) nor is he adopted by God. He is truly man and truly God. There have been many attempts throughout history to deny Jesus’ divinity and to deny his humanity. They have all been condemned by the church.

Arbitrary pronouncements aside. . . you’re splitting hairs again: Whether Jesus, God or the Holy Ghost did the knitting, the fertilization of the Godsperm and virgin egg, they are all the same being  in your particular spin on the story. The three-fold personality of God knew where this was going, knew how it would end, and that all three versions of Himself would turn up safe and sound in heaven at the end of it all, freshly recovered from a crucifiction (spelling intentional) that did no permanent damage whatsoever. Unless you count scaring the poop out of many generations to come. And I do.


Mary only consented to God’s rather inelegant seduction after she was told  how it was going to go down. God didn’t even show up himself, much less with an armload of roses and candy. No, he sent an underling with a pronouncement. If I was to be informed by an angel that I was about to get knocked up by God, I’m not sure, being a young maiden with no worldly experience, what recourse I would have in that moment. How do you brush off your maker? Under pressure, faced with an angel tapping his toe and awaiting my response, I’d probably say, “Okay then! Just ask him to please be gentle!” . .  and then try to put a positive spin on it (“I suppose if it has to happen, might as well be the Master of the Universe. Surely mom and dad won’t beat me too badly once they hear how it happened.”)

But we all know that it’s more likely that Mar and Joe just got a little carried away one night wink. Granted, she used an excuse that not many could get away with—“God impregnated me, I swear!!!’—but she also had a little help from frisky Joe, who stood by her once she discovered she was preggers. A quick trip to see her relative Elizabeth for reinforcement probably also helped save Mary’s hide. But we’re supposed to believe that Joe never had sex with Mary after the birth of God/Jesus? Even though we have references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters? Really, frank, the mental gyrations they put you through.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]Again you may not agree but if you are going to hate Catholic dogma then hate what the church teaches not what you think it teaches.

I don’t ‘hate’ fairytales; I only hate myth being taught to children as truth. It causes decent people to grow up devoting their lives to pursuing and serving phantoms.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]There is a need to respond. The all knowing God does not need to do anything; however, out of love he does so.

Ted covered this and I concur. The Catholic position supports blind faith in a God that cannot logically exist. And he certainly does not ‘love’, not by any definition I embrace.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]God became man for us not for Him. He gets nothing out of it. He is not trying to understand us he is trying to help us. He is trying to show us the way (and the truth and the life for that matter). It is not a magic trick performed to make us love him.

If God wanted to ‘do’ for us, he might have considered actual parenting. Instead he ‘begot’ a confounding incarnation of himself, resulting, lo these many centuries later, in mass confusion and a world of deadly conflict. Who gives a rip if Mary’s virginity is considered perpetual, frank?? How about just establishing the One Truth for all men, so that lives can be lived in peace and personal fulfillment, not in confusion, suffering and shame. How to do this? Any God worth his salt would have found a way from Day One.

 

[quote author=“frankr”]Again we do not believe that God was once one of us. We believe that he is now one of us. He is still fully human and fully man. We believe that God becoming man elevated all mankind. We are now adopted sons and daughters of God. Hooray God! Hooray men!

I thought we’d established that we are all wretched, sinful beings that can only *hope* to be granted grace in the end, but with no guarantees. Now you’re saying we’re elevated and permeated with Godliness. Automatically? Then what do we need faith for? Shouldn’t I feel an elevation and sense of Godness stirring within me, pretty much on demand, particularly when I implore him to guide me? If so, why did that act of imploring God to guide me. . lead me to Sam’s book?

 


Apologies for the length of that. A round of red beer and bread pudding for one and all :D!


_

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 04:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Mia for the most part I stay out of direct discussions with you. I find them fruitless. I think you well intentioned and your search sincere but I think it has come to an end. You are here looking for intellectual/psychological support which is fine by me. However you come across as very close minded and much more so then most on this site (and we are pretty closed minded on both sides). I stated the catholic position in my last post not to convince but to clarify. You go on with the same old lies.

The church does not teach that mary was impregnated with God sperm.The church does not teach their was a sexual act at all. The Holy Spirit is immaterial he has no body, no genitals, no sperm to impregnate. We believe that Jesus (who has existed for eternity) received his body wholly from Mary. Yet you seem obsessed with the Virgin mary’s hymen. I mean does it seem impossible that a god who created the universe out of nothing could impregnate a woman without sex. No I guess not. Go on with your silly asides about the rape of the Virgin mary by the Holy Spirit as if it were Leda and the swan.

Begotten means he comes forth from the father. He does so eternally. This is the teaching of the Church yet you go on about the created Jesus.

I have no idea where you get your idea of the necessity of sin. Why is sin natural to man? What is a sin according to you anyway? I for one hold that when we sin we are not acting like a human being we lessen ourselves.


[quote author=“mia”]I don’t ‘hate’ fairytales; I only hate myth being taught to children as truth. It causes decent people to grow up devoting their lives to pursuing and serving phantoms.

Call it whatever you want but hate like a rose is hate by any other name.

[quote author=“Mia”]Ted covered this and I concur. The Catholic position supports blind faith in a God that cannot logically exist. And he certainly does not ‘love’, not by any definition I embrace.

Ted for the most part is willing to debate. We rarely agree but he seems to at least counter the points I make and I try to counter his. You seem to have your idea of what is true and you stick to it even when pointed out that it is not true. This to me seems like blind faith. You talk about the toll catholicism took on your early life yet you seem surprised by the doctrine of the Trinity. The most basic doctrine of Christianity. You didn’t abandon Christianity. You have to have some knowledge of the faith to give it up. You seem to abandoned a few moral teachings and some platitudes that you mistook for a religion.

[quote author=“Mia”]If God wanted to ‘do’ for us, he might have considered actual parenting. Instead he ‘begot’ a confounding incarnation of himself, resulting, lo these many centuries later, in mass confusion and a world of deadly conflict. Who gives a rip if Mary’s virginity is considered perpetual, frank?? How about just establishing the One Truth for all men, so that lives can be lived in peace and personal fulfillment, not in confusion, suffering and shame. How to do this? Any God worth his salt would have found a way from Day One.

I’ll let God know that you would have done it differently and better. I’m sure he already knows this.

[quote author=“Mia”]I thought we’d established that we are all wretched, sinful beings that can only *hope* to be granted grace in the end, but with no guarantees. Now you’re saying we’re elevated and permeated with Godliness. Automatically? Then what do we need faith for? Shouldn’t I feel an elevation and sense of Godness stirring within me, pretty much on demand, particularly when I implore him to guide me? If so, why did that act of imploring God to guide me. . lead me to Sam’s book?

Who established that man was wretched? Bible says man is good. Fallen but good. We are all saved Mia one just has to make the choice. I would think God guided to you Sam’s book to see how ridiculous the argument for atheism is. Seriously, I don’t think you implored God to guide you. I think you had your answer and Sam’s book just told you what you wanted to hear. You are here because you need to be further convinced that what you wanted to hear is really true.

I am sure the Mia apologists will come out in droves to defend you but so what. What are you going to do? Insult the Virgin Mary? mock and misrepresent Christian and Catholic beliefs? Basically, more of the same.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Frank, unlike with your side, Mia needs no apologists. She does go for the jugular, I’ll give you that much. On the other hand, I have no respect for your worldview since you can’t even seem to understand what exactly it is she’s doing. Since it obviously bypassed your intellect, Mia is arguing both from her heart and from her head. (Artists can accomplish that; few others are able to.) She is applying modern epistemological methodologies to ancient questions that were previously answered in great ignorance. You, Frank, persist in your ignorant world view. Out of fear of eternal flames? What is it?

You respond to logical inquiry with fantasy, childish illusion and outrageious fairy-tale nonsense. Do yourself a favor and grow up. Locical inquiry deserves better than your utter bullshit.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2006 06:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“homunculus”]Frank, unlike with your side, Mia needs no apologists. She does go for the jugular, I’ll give you that much. On the other hand, I have no respect for your worldview since you can’t even seem to understand what exactly it is she’s doing. Since it obviously bypassed your intellect, Mia is arguing both from her heart and from her head. (Artists can accomplish that; few others are able to.) She is applying modern epistemological methodologies to ancient questions that were previously answered in great ignorance. You, Frank, persist in your ignorant world view. Out of fear of eternal flames? What is it?

You respond to logical inquiry with fantasy, childish illusion and outrageious fairy-tale nonsense. Do yourself a favor and grow up. Locical inquiry deserves better than your utter bullshit.

If she doesn’t need her apologists, then why do you jump immediately to her defense? “She’s a jugular biting artist, Frank? You’re too stupid to understand such wisdom?” What modern epistemological methodology is she applying? Ignoring the facts or ad hominem attacks? Is referencing the hymen of the Virgin Mary over and over again a modern epistemological methodology. She seems like a nice women Homunculus so I understand your impassioned defense; however, if you are going to go for the jugular it is best to have some teeth (that goes for you and the one you don’t need to defend.)

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed