Ask question, give answers, be kind to one another, and above all assist one another in living the virtuous life.
>OVERBIN, which is still in progress
>Remember that you can donate money to help the Assyrian Christians picking up arms to defend themselves and fight off ISIS.
>IN THE NEWS
Pope's family synod: No changes, but everything has changed
As a barrier goes up dividing Jews and Palestinians in Jerusalem, more deaths ensue in Israel
Texas cuts Planned Parenthood from Medicaid
Hajj pilgrimage: more than 700 dead in crush near Mecca
Also, have some solid modern Christian music and music with Christian themes. All from different artists and different styles. These are some recommendations from /mu/ and anons here. It's in no way comprehensive though.
>Marvin Gaye's "God is Love"
>Om's Pilgrimage Album
>Sufjan Steven's Seven Swans Album
>mewithoutyou - Sun and Moon
>Young Oceans - ONLY YOU (TOKEN MAINSTREAM ADDITION)
>Bobby McFerrin's Joshua
>Janelle Monae's Victory
>Johnny Cash's God's Gonna Cut You Down
Here is my usual hymnal selection
>A nice Latin hymn
>A nice Coptic hymn
>The Lord's Prayer in Swahili, done in song.
>Hail Mary in Latin, done in song.
>Hallelujah Chorus done suddenly in the public
>Quality Icelandic hymn
Not today, /pol/?
Got any tips?
Also I need some scripture on anger
Will you be united with you're waifu in heaven?
As for scripture:
Frowned upon, sinful, and damaging to yourself and others.
The way I was raised in evangelization but to evangelize by example. Basically be witness and testament to the value of Christian teaching and that will work wonders in itself. It would be simply people catching the triumph over sin.
Important is to grasp your view precisely, as some people screw up Catholic social teaching in some things.
Something specific you wish to discuss?
Many /pol/ Catholics are mixed on the pope and the traditionalists are against him and more conspiracy tier at times.
I'm discerning with the Congregation of the Marian Father of the Immaculate Conception. I want to be a priest in their order. I recommend you all look them up. Super orthodox, awesome devotions, really interesting mission. Good stuff.
Anyone else ever felt called to the clergy?
>Something specific you wish to discuss?
Well I live in secular socialist hell hole that is Hongcouver.
And if you disagree with ANYTHING they believe you don't make many friends
>constant asking who I would vote for
>attempt to avoid situation
>Constant irate yelling about democracy and why I should vote
>legit looked like they wanted to behead me on the spot
But this happens with the faith too.
>"going to the pride parade anon?"
>"no im busy"
>"Oh well you should go because etc etc."
>he notices the cross on my neck
>"Oh anon, you christian?"
>"Ya roman catholic"
>The dude spent the next 10 minutes screaming at me.
Im not even confrontational but if you say ANYTHING against them they try to kill you.
To put it into context im in university so there's that.
Sad times when we agree persecuted again
I think the funniest part though is they then say they are more tolerant than anybody else.
And with that I gotta go to work tomorrow, so I'm going to sleep
I'd participate in your threads allot more if you made them earlier in the day
Anyway night Catholic bros
You're waifu. It isn't hard to understand anon.
Truth. I have actually become closer to God because of mai waifu. We talk together about the bible in my dreams. I always get kind of sad when I am about to wake up but she says not to worry and assures me that she will be waiting for me in heaven.
Should I consider that a sign from God? Or is it just a dream?
From time to time, though I am the worst as a public speaker. I hear that being interesting in monasticism after reading The Seven Storey Mountain is simply cliche but I suppose I'm not very original.
>I'm in university
That makes sense now.
Well shit. I'm not quite sure. It would be easier if I know the situation more clearly (their complaints and such) but with what i know I can only say to live the Christian life despite. This, in itself, can diffuse many situations. Take the /pol/ video of that blonde atheist going crazy over that sign-carrying Christian. By the atheist being the key aggressor and the christian simply standing there being normal sympathy lies on the christian for many bystanders. Now imagine if that christian was to be loving and living the normal Christian life of charity when that goes on. It makes the atheist position of seemingly righteous anger simply hard to pull. They forget to love even their enemies and I wouldn't recommend you make the same mistake. Surely you're conservative because you support their views and you can defend them but despite that try to drill in the lesson to them to love all people despite their differences. Surely there is more to friendship than whether you agree to the same solutions to social issues or not. Remind them of that. You discuss the issues themselves on your time.
As for social issues, I'd recommend looking into Catholic Social Teaching if you are not big on it already.
It's cool, man. Have a great night.
That's not persecution. It's not even a slap on the wrist. That's just people disagreeing with you the poster. Free speech means that we have a right to tell the other person that their beliefs are insane, backwards, and make you an inferior human being. If someone exercises that right they are not persecuting you, they are being rude which may or may not be necessary ruddness.
Getting your feelings hurt is not persecution that's how fucking SJW think. Bohoo.
At least you bumped the thread.
I'm Atheist and I laugh in your general direction! Imagine handicapping yourself educationally! GOD isn't real you fucking child! Grow the fuck up.
Richard Dawkins has already disproved religion! How about getting a real education and fashion sense instead of walking around in your dress preaching about a false GOD!
To be honest, I can't believe religious people still exist. Richard Dawkin has disproved religion so many times in intellectual debates (not that you know what that means), that it's a shock you haven't all committed suicide.
Generally I'm partial to it in that the serious differences deal little with the salvation of individuals. All the issues that split Orthodoxy and Catholicism are related to church structure and very minor theological issues. I hold that they are wrong in their differences, of course, but that their differences do not spoil the good they do have. There are many brilliant minds and good people in Orthodoxy despite their issues.
At least you're bumping.
So Canada's new Prime Minister is a Roman Catholic, he's called himself "devout" before.
But get this, he's totally pro-abortion, and he banned pro-lifers from his party.
All the while he talks about how bad it is to require Muslim women to remove their niqab when swearing the citizenship oath.
His cardinal once wrote him a strongly worded letter.
If the hierarchy had some bones he would be excommunicated, or at least barred from communion. But his father (the one who brought in abortion) was given a Catholic funeral in the best church in Canada.
The Catholic pro-life movement in Canada is going to face a lot of opposition coming up. They have a traitor PM, and a hierarchy who won't stand up to him.
I'm honestly a little happy. The Church here needs some persecution like our brothers and sisters around the world. It will clean out the chaff and we can start building again after.
I wish to convert, but need evidence that the Catholic church is the one holy and true church of God.
I am not sure what is more particularly convincing about Catholicism as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism or even Gnosticism.
Please state your case.
Which one represents Matthew?
Im not an atheist but nor am I devout.
You on the other side consider yourself educated and smart just because you're an atheist although there is as much proof that God exist as there is that he doesn't. Basically you're the same thing as devout christians only you're more annoying. The vegans of religion.
Pretty disappointing honestly, the thread continued without so much as a serious reply or even the vainest attempt to justify that claim. I suppose that answers my question?
>d-dont ask us to tell you why, a-apostate
Eat shit tbqh guys
That's what happens when your justification for belief in something is the assertion that it's true... because it just is. You don't end up with the most intellectually stimulating of conversations, if you even have them at all.
That backs it up, of course, but no. From everything I'd read of the historical and theological debate on the subject the Catholics were in the better position theologically.
That's a hilariously large and detailed question. I will do the full arguments injustice by summing them up but I'll sum them up despite so you at least get the gist.
It was known throughout early Christianity (unanimously) that Jesus had apostles from whom authority had been given to teach the faith. This is how we have the authority to declare a scriptural canon and form church structure. It was also unanimously known throughout early Christianity that those apostles passed on their authority when establishing successors. This is also found in scripture, though only partially. From this we can grasp the importance of apostolic succession and apostolic authority as part of the church. The main branches that assert claims to apostolic authority are:
With Protestantism being opposed. Protestantism upholds a focus on the Bible as the final and ultimately the only authority on the faith and, on the question of how best to interpret it, Protestantism promotes the idea that God will guide true believers to understanding it correctly. This is unfortunately the reason for the creation of thousands of Christian sects. Second, the concept of scripture as final authority is found no where in the bible so the position is extrabiblical in itself. Further, how we know the Bible to be canon when we scrap the authority that made the canon is inconsistent. Moreso when we see the figurehead at the start of the Protestant Reformation - Martin Luther - removing books from the Bible as an appeal to the Jewish canon in that age, ignoring his lack of authority to make such a claim either way. I could go further but from this we can see how fucked up it is.
Coptics are simply a splinter group that come from one bishop that disagreed with the church's position on an early council about the nature of Jesus. As one bishop has no authority over the faith compared to the church body on authoritative decisions we can make the assertion that Coptics are also fucked up, albeit in a lesser way.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a much more challenging discourse but largely their split is over church structure and innumerable minor theological issues. Thankfully because of it we can fairly say that both can fairly lead people to Christ despite their differences. For the sake of discussion I'll focus on purely the church authority disagreement. When all the apostles got successors that ensured successors for the position that apostle was in. Of those offices, both Orthodoxy and Catholicism assert that Peter does in fact have primacy over the other offices but the core split is over whether the primacy is purely honorary (the Orthodox position) or has mechanical function in the church structure (the Catholic position) and that man in the office of St. Peter is called the Pope. As the authorities given to the apostles are laid out in scripture, which specific ones given to Peter, none of which simply honorary in practicality, it is safe to assume that the Catholics make headway in the discourse. There is much in the way of historical criticism on the matter - Orthodoxy referencing an old saint referring to "Holy Sees" rather than "Holy See" to make the assertion that all the apostolic offices were equal in status and the like. The Catholics also drag out the writing of old saints to give their view too and each make their own scriptural cases. Orthodoxy/Catholicism is honestly one of the most complex theological debates you'll get. However I would say the most damning evidence is pre-schism examples of the office of St. Peter acting over the other bishops (such as Victor I threatening to excommunicate another in an office.
can i get an explanation on this image, i figure this is the place to ask
Can I get an explanation of the Filoque clause from both sides, Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
In school currently, in between ideas.
I'm a philosophy and anthropology hobbyist, which is how I know this stuff though.
What literally all the christians were supporting for the first nearly 1500 years is not the full argument I make. How we know things as scripture and know our canon depends on understanding authority.
I've read through this and don't understand how the Catholics made the decision to refine/reorganize the trinity?
>How we know things as scripture and know our canon depends on understanding authority
So what understanding of authority gets you around the part where you're asserting something as incontrovertibly true and yet that assertion is somehow not intellectually idiotic and absurd?
It gets even nuttier when you realize that there was no united opinion at the start. There were all sorts of different ideas. In some early Christianity Old Testament god is a seperate entity who is evil, in some Jesus is not God just a prophet and "son of God" just means someone that is adopted into the family we are all sons of God, in some Jesus is a Gnostic teacher, in some Jesus is a half God. There were tons of theological desputes about very core things (some of the apostles seemed to be have believed that Goys could not be Christians).
Even the formation of the bible itself, who's Gospel went in, who's gospel went out, and minor changes to the text over the years had disputes.
The official answer is that the holy spirit guided all the disputes and wars to ensure the correct party won out. Which is just a thinly veiled way of saying "might makes right"
I don't accept at all that the earliest Christians were magically perfectly unified on doctrine. But I can pretend that they were for argument's sake, because *even if they were* it doesn't make a single lick of difference logically.
The other problem is that you are in correct in saying we know that Jesus appointed apostles. We do not know this, objectivily.
All we know is that decades after Jesus several differnet people wrote texsts. These writers claimed to be the disciples of Jesus and they claimed Jesus made them their successors.
It takes a leap of faith to believe that they gave us the truth at all or that the texts were even written by who they say they were (which some historians doubt). Actually proving what Jesus said and whether the bible was actually written by his disciples is a nearly impossible historical task. At best we can make educated guesses.
And this whole thing really makes the religion seem retarded. Why would Jesus allow the shadow of doubt to fall over the entire core of his religion? Bart E. Erhman theorizes that Jesus thought the world would end in his life time which is why he never asked his discipels to write anything down. Is he correct? Fuck if I know, we will probably never know.
The fact is that if Jesus actually wrote things down himself and gave us some proof that could seperate his own papers from people just using his name for them, than things would be a lot easier. Christianity's making are very typical, following the same structure you would expect from "false religions". An all knowing all powerful God should be able to do better. Our current methods of preserving knowledge are superior to the methods used by a supposed God. Which would imply that we are superior to this so called God.
Too add some.
>Dies Irea (Day of Wrath), Gregorian Chant
>Bogurodzica (Mother of God) Polish Knight Chant
The first one is Isis nursing Horus Behudty. She is a personification of the pharaoh's authority. In lore, she births Horus which is the protector god for the pharaoh. Isis in early Egyptian culture was also a symbol used in the culture for the ideal woman. The statue is of her famous motif of her breastfeeding baby Horus.
The second and third and early and late paintings of Mary and baby Jesus.
The connection here is both that the Egyptian motif is continued in Mary/Jesus but, as the filename suggests, that there is a gradually "whitening" of the figures in the motif. The former is hardly a connection as a mother breastfeeding and a mother cradling are both everyday things and not the same thing and the last point about whitening fails because:
>Ancient Egyptians weren't black
>There are older pictures of Mary that are much lighter in skin tone
>Mary and Jesus are not Isis and Horus
>All we know is that decades after Jesus several differnet people wrote texsts
May I just add to this that the texts give completely different numbers of and names of the apostles.
hm, well it's just interesting to say the least ;-)
I posed the question because to me, in reality just as you mention Egyptian motifs are continued in Christianity. And like I said I'm not religious so it's interesting when I find a pattern/s/similarities. It makes me wonder why the need to seperate from the origin. Just as Judaism/Christianity/Islam have done.
Hey Wolf would you be able to tell me your opinion on Kant as well as comment on the arguments/claims made in pic related?
Good evening Catholic general, good to see this up Wolf. I was feeling like one of these.
My own heart led me to Christ. And my own heart then further lead me to the one true holy apostolic church, whom the pope is the leader of.
Painfully difficult answer but this would help you the most
The "Historical Importance" section is important to you, but I'm sure both would be very helpful.
When am I doing that? When I assert that Christ gave authority to his disciples? We have record of it in the scripture and extrabiblical citations from disciples of those apostles. Further, that there would be hundreds of Christians just after the time of Christ's death and they would be centralized under the apostles would show that there is legitimacy to those historical claims.
African historical revisionism is largely American, from what I recollect. It makes sense that Americans partake in that subculture the most. I can't remember if that's precisely true though.
>It takes a leap of faith to believe that they gave us the truth at all or that the texts were even written by who they say they were (which some historians doubt). Actually proving what Jesus said and whether the bible was actually written by his disciples is a nearly impossible historical task. At best we can make educated guesses.
All our best historical arguments point towards this, as I said to Praceteom in this post, but you are correct that we have but witness reports of events and people giving their own lessons in scripture. What we do bank on as legitimate is the claim to church authority. From it we have the basis for establishing the faith and understanding it with some authority. This is separate from scholasticism's authoritative claims - which functions akin to simply natural religion. We may not grasp things immediately word-for-word but we can grasp the ideas behind them and by grasping at least the church authority we have room to grasp the rest of Christianity authoritatively.
I would say he's wrong and likely pulling out that idea that Jesus taught people the end was coming within their biological generation.
>why didn't Jesus write himself
Do you not think that Jesus spending his time writing things down in full would be counterproductive to the notion of the life of Jesus being one made for example-giving? Why do you think a body of text with "some proof" of its authorship would be more powerful than establishing a leadership of people throughout generations that can teach authoritatively? Surely you know from Protestantism that simply have a body of text leads to many different understandings. You fail to grasp the capability of humanity.
>All our best historical arguments point towards this
This is pure falsehood.
The gospels were written by second or third generation Chrisitians in a language Jesus and his original followers didn't speak.
Even evangelical scholars only try and suggest there was a really awesome chain of transmission.
It is not mainstream thought among biblical historians, most of whom are Christian, that the actual original apostles wrote them.
>When am I doing that?
You ascribe to Catholic dogma. Dogma is the assertion that some thing or things are incontrovertibly true. When you ascribe to dogma you're making that assertion.
>Further, that there would be hundreds of Christians just after the time of Christ's death and they would be centralized under the apostles would show that there is legitimacy to those historical claims
That doesn't show legitimacy in the slightest. It just shows (if it even does that) that the ones who knew most of Christ were the ones who were doing most of the initial work. Which is obvious and not indicative of anything.
I originally gave up masturbation because I felt like giving up was the right thing to do. I wasn't good at giving up until I got into my current relationship. Then I decided I'd give up to stay true to the relationship. Eventually after a number of months my girlfriend and I started having sex. And now at 2 years, we still are and I still haven't relapsed on fapping. In my personal scenario it seems counter-intuitive to give up sex with fapping
If you wanted to say Jesus was just a mortal without magical powers than I could see why you would say he never wrote anything down. It is not uncommon for thinkers to have their work recorded by other people. Conjuring books out of thin our is something he is able to do correct (otherwise he isn't all powerful). Likewise you would expect that if he was all knowing he would know the way to write his ideas in the method that would have the least incorrect interpretations. He would know exactly how future cultures would interpret anything he wrote. He could even have commentary texts that describe HOW to interpret his work. Again he would be able to conjure these tomes in an INSTANT and he could make as many as he needed. He conjured a ton of fucking fish so why not books?
This would actually save a lot of souls because many church divisions and heresies would never happen. He could have even prevented the Reformation by making it expressly clear how his church would be organized.
Thats what I've been trying to do lately. Trying to get off both of them. Currently at once a week on the day I'm going out with the mates for the night, so that I have a better chance at turning chicks down when they try shit with me.
Last time I brought a chick home with me I felt shit for about four days after, because even when I brought her home I had thoughts of how God wouldn't want this. But I was two weeks free of masturbation and lust really got to me.
I'm not afraid to tell the world because though I feel shame for my actions, I recognise that we all sin. I only hope that our lord forgives me. But at the moment, I'd rather he forgives you for your blatant disrespect. Because at least I can recognise my sin, but you seem to fail to do so.
May God have mercy on your soul.
The patterns are neat - not really dismissive of any religion immediately either - but I find drawing the parallels and then stating they are explicitly connected is a very strange jump. As I said, a mother cradling a baby and a mother breastfeeding a baby are common everyday concepts all historical cultures share. But as I said the cross-cultural connections are super neat and telling of multiple things.
>Just do what you think is what Christ wants
>not these trained experts on the subject
The comment on Kant is misplaced.
>says Kant's claim that existence is not a property of something but a state of being (existence is not predicate) dismisses Aquinas' arguments
>Kant's claim that existence is not predicate is actually his refutation of the ontological argument by Anselm
>Aquinas was also against ontological arguments
The poster is simply mixed up. Kant did actually do succinct arguments about Aquinas' Ways but he (by no fault of his own, this was a common mistake for his time) failed to grasp the concept of "necessary being" as was used in the arguments. He had a commendable and radical refutation but simply screwed up at grasping the core term that his refutations rested on. However, Aquinas and Kant would be at odds outside of his Five Ways. Aquinas supports the notion of a separation of essence and existence while Kant clearly doesn't. That's it's own discussion but it doesn't weigh on Aquinas' Ways which was the central point.
The comment on Hume I don't support whatsoever. Hume, from my experience reading his work directly, feels more like a brilliant sophist rather than simply a brilliant thinker. Particularly when dealing with Aquinas and the scholastics he shines in not grasping causality the same way that the logicians he criticizes do and fucks it up pretty severely because of it.
As for Kant's categories that is mentioned this falls into my mentioning of "necessary being". Kant actually confused the ontological argument and the Five Ways' thinking by assuming that the latter was based on a logical/ontological equivocation of the term 'existence' like the former. In fact, Kant has misread the Five Ways; St Thomas begins from an a posteriori premise and not in any a priori understanding of the word 'existence'. The anon references Aquinas' Fifth Way as being not a posteriori argument when it simply not the case. Kant miscategorized Aquinas, accurately categorized Anselm.
Without diving into technicalities, not recognising you're a sinner is a sin because it doesn't recognise that Jesus died on the Christ for the forgiveness of our sins.
Saying you don't sin means you don't believe he died for a purpose, and not for your salvation.
>The poster is simply mixed up
He's not. It's commonly applied both to Aquinas/Aristotle/Paley as well as to Anslem/Godel. Depending on your readings it flies in key places. The most common out is simply to go with 'no that's not what they're saying'.
Of course he died for a purpose. For the Romans to show how badass they were to troublemakers. The same as the other thousands and thousands of people that were were crucified by the Roman Empire.
If you wanted to prove him wrong you'd have to prove free will exists. If we live in a deterministic universe than whether or not he believes in Jesus is predestined. Calvinism can work here but not other forms of Christianity.
Free will does exist, I believe, but not in the same way Christ-fags think it does.
Does Aquinas deal with Ship of Theseus in the same way as Aristotle?
Nice way to excuse yourself from all responsibility.
Way to treat your "girlfriend" like a whore instead of a wife.
If she got hit by a meteor tomorrow she'd go to hell because of you.
Fuck me actions have consequences.
You haven't taken communion in years, how can you call yourself a Catholic! LEL!
Actually it is entirely a result of my original genetic compostion and all of the outside influences I have been exposed to.
WOLFSHIEM: from the last thread (a few days ago)
Following Billy Kangas, I agree that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is indeed nonsensical, which makes me wonder whether the people who believe it are just reciting the clichés that their instructor taught them.
Futhermore, I have made a modern abstraction of your religion, tell me if I am close to understanding it (reductively of course, since I have spent precisely 0 seconds
reading The Bible) and where can I improve it:
1. God designs some software
2. God's software doesn't seem to work quite as intended (God wasn't concentrating that day)
3. After some time God realises the bugs are causing insidious errors. soon there the number of errors will grow out of control
4. God creates a patch (codename ``Jesus") to remedy these errors
6. The Jesus patch reigns in the error rate to an acceptable level by instructing God's software how to execute properly
p.s. this didn't increase my belief in your god. it strengthened my belief that Christianity is a blueprint, designed by Smart People, for a meaningful life and afterlife
...where afterlife := what remains of you once you're dead (e.g., memes (in the sense of Dawkins), children, community...)
You're free to believe that.
Vacuous statements will remain vacuous regardless of whether you think they are or not though.
>since I have spent precisely 0 seconds
>reading The Bible
Oh man, you're missing out. Ever heard of the story of Abraham and his son? It was bad enough that this god’s idea of the “best” in man is a willingness to murder one’s own child on demand. It is inconceivable that any kind being would ever test Abraham’s loyalty that way. To the contrary, from any compassionate point of view, Abraham failed this test: he was willing to kill for faith, setting morality aside for a god. A decent being would reward instead the man who responded to such a request with “Go to hell! Only a demon would ask such a thing, and no compassionate man would do it!” But the Bible’s message is exactly the opposite. How frightening. It was no surprise, then, to find that this same cruel god orders people to be stoned to death for picking up sticks on Saturday (Numbers 15:32-36), and commands that those who follow other religions be slaughtered (Deuteronomy 13:6-16). Indeed, genocide (Deuteronomy 2:31-34, 7:1-2, 20:10-15, and Joshua, e.g. 10:33) and fascism (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:13, 24:13-16, Numbers 15:32-6) were the very law and standard practice of God, right next to the Ten Commandments. Instead of condemning slavery, God condones it (Leviticus 25:44, cf. Deuteronomy 5:13-14, 21:10-13). And so on. All fairly repugnant.
I could go on at length about the many horrible passages that praise the immoral, the cruel, as the height of righteous goodness. It does no good to try in desperation to make excuses for it. A good and wise man’s message would not need such excuses. It follows that the Bible was written neither by the wise nor the good. And the New Testament was only marginally better, though it too had its inexcusable features, from commands to hate (Luke 14:26) to arrogantly sexist teachings about women (1 Timothy 2:12), from Jesus saying he “came not to bring peace, but the sword,” setting even families against each other (Matthew 10:34-36) and approving the murder of disobedient children (Mark 7:6-13), to making blasphemy the worst possible crime (Matthew 12:31-32), even worse than murder or molesting a child. It, too, supported slavery rather than condemning it (Luke 12:47, 1 Timothy 6:1-2).
Worse, its entire message is not “be good and go to heaven,” itself a naive and childish concern (the good are good because they care, not because they want a reward), but “believe or be damned” (Mark 16:16, Matthew 10:33, Luke 12:9, John 3:18), a fundamentally wicked doctrine. The good judge others by their character, not their beliefs, and punish deeds, not thoughts, and punish only to teach, not to torture. But none of this moral truth was in the Bible, and the New Testament had none of the humanistic wisdom of the Tao Te Ching which spoke to all ages, but instead drones on about subjection to kings and acceptance of slavery, while having no knowledge of the needs of a democratic society, the benefits of science, or the proper uses of technology. It even promotes superstition over science, with all its talk about demonic possession and faith healing and speaking in tongues, and assertions that believers will be immune to poison (Mark 16:17-18).
At this point I've already recognised that you're not even Christian. So there's no real point in discussing this with you, but, I will in the hope that perhaps I can help bring you closer to the lord in time.
I don't try to excuse my actions nor doubt the gravity of them.
You intially assume that my actions are forced upon my girlfriend and it's not mutual. This is misguided.
To think that I treat her like a whore make the implication that sex out of wedlock is appropriate behaviour with another woman, so we can already see your attitude to the issue is biased as you believe it's excusable in some instances and not others.
Perhaps we would go to hell, however I rather maintain hope for salvation, after all, religion is a belief. If God wishes neither of us acceptable to be in the kingdom of God, then I shall take my punishment so I can spend an eternity regretting my lust and greed for consuming me.
Actions do have consequences. You're 100% right. Do you believe you don't sin? It would be interesting to hear your response. Because if you ever picked up some scripture you'd realise that Jesus asks us not to chastise peers who sin, as we are all sinners. We need to love and respect one another regardless. Which I assume you don't enact.
I take communion regularly, so nice try, but you're only showing how childish you are.
Determinism is the vacuous assertion m8. If you assert your actions and thoughts, as well as any other events, are simply determined, then you're making a vacuous statement.
but the issue is that premarital sex in your context is a mortal sin whilst masturbation is a venial one. As a Catholic this is a very serious distinction. Have you discussed this problem with your preist or in confession?
You and your girl are both in danger
I recognise the distinction and it is something that weighs on me heavily.
But I would feel just as terrible moving from sex to masturbation on the basis of a technicality. I stand naked before the lord and he is to do with my soul as he pleases.
Let me get this straight. You're a Catholic who doesn't go to confession, takes communion, and bangs his girlfriend who's on birth control?
Bro, where did you get the idea there's some gray area on committing mortal sin, and repeatedly with full intention and knowledge?
There's no purgatory for that, it's straight to H E double hockey sticks.
I go to confession weekly so I can take communion. Generally priests won't even hear the confession of someone like you, who has full intention of committing the same sin after mass kek
Thank you for responding but what of that posters comments relating to Kant and teleology?
Also how does one get around problems like those posed by Parmendies and Zeno or Elea? For i feel a sense of unease when a rational deduction is used to prove the existence of God when that same method can be used of proving the impossibility of movement and change,
> my experience reading his work directly
Which works specifically It seems a bit much to write him off as a sophist just because of some isseus with scholasticism.
We can date the finalized versions of the gospels (Sans John, for its own reasons) to late into the life of the apostles or just beyond them. The "just beyond them" historians note to be the asides seen in through the gospels where they try to illustrate to the reader the prophetic connections of specific events. Writing asides doesn't change what I said. And note the implication of me dating only when the FINAL version of the text was made. Also note that while the gospels are anonymous the author of John make a hard reference not to his personal identity but his position was an apostle.
Nope, standard Catholic, albeit unbaptized because of my own plans.
This may help
Ascribing to dogma does not mean you base all arguments about it on that. I just went into discussion about it that was entirely about looking into things critically.
>That doesn't show legitimacy in the slightest.
If I were to bring you to a country that you know the world events of nicely and literally everyone in the country said that whatever man was the president is that not evidence of the fact that he is? It's not complete proof in itself, of course, but it still is evidence to legitimacy. And you're completely ignoring the other evidence I gave you.
>all extrabiblical sources on the topic
>the unanimous agreement about apostolic authority of all Christians for nearly 1,500 years
None of this is evidence for you?
The very fact that institutional power was given to people is ignored because they're just "doing most of the initial work". What gave them the authority to do the work?
The north rendered such destruction to the south during the civil war, that it still hasn't recovered, especially economically.
Where do you get this assumption I don't go to confession?
I'll take your word for it that you go weekly, I implore you to tell your priest that you betrayed our lord by not acting in a manner towards a fellow sinner as Jesus requested.
I hope next time you're in prayer in front of the altar you give this some serious consideration. The lord does not let anyone into the kingdom of God who could not forgive the sins of those around him.
I pray that you will learn in time.
Haha, but this is mistaken. Behold - a short paper I ended up turning into an MS paint image!
Shouldn't really be taking this bait, but this is kinda why we have judgement day and all that. To make sure that those who use their free will to do evil don't make it into heaven.
>To make sure that those who use their free will to do evil don't make it into heaven.
>Ascribing to dogma does not mean you base all arguments about it on that
I'm not implying you do. I'm implying any that you *do* based on dogma are necessarily based in unjustifiably bad logic.
>If I were to bring you to a country that you know the world events of nicely and literally everyone in the country said that whatever man was the president is that not evidence of the fact that he is?
Of course it's not. Everyone in the country to have a policy wherein they're supposed to blatantly lie to outsiders about who is in power. This is really basic logic dude.
>but it still is evidence to legitimacy
If popular belief and sentiment is all it takes for something to be legitimate, then Hitler was a pretty legitimate guy.
I don't even get that. What does the priest tell you? Do you confess about the sex and birth control and he lets you take communion?
I gotta hear this.
You trying to find a loophole and confess, take communion, then mortal sin the rest of the week?
Hey, there are thousands of priests, maybe he says that's cool.
You're also inducing others to sin by bragging about it, and a few more I don't care to list
>by bragging about it
Never mind mate, I won't even bother continuing to talk to you about my journey with the lord.
May you have a good week, and lord have mercy on your soul. You need it just as much as me.
I genuinely fear for you and I don't know who you are. You are caught up in some high levels of delusion that I believe your image of God has become faded.
Through prayer, reading scripture and following the teachings of the lord, perhaps you can stoke the flame of the Holy spirit in you.
>None of this is evidence for you?
I think Scripture indicates something else entirely, and I can argue exactly why.
>all extrabiblical sources on the topic
The ones which have internally demonstrated themselves fallible in one sense or another many times throughout history, and the ones which are literally just people just as weak and fallible as myself saying and writing things?
>the unanimous agreement about apostolic authority of all Christians for nearly 1,500 years
Which means absolutely nothing to a logician?
>What gave them the authority to do the work?
You don't need authority to evangelize. You can *literally* just *DO IT*. It's an obligation of *EVERY* Christian - there is no authority to it *WHATSOEVER*.
>If you wanted to say Jesus was just a mortal without magical powers than I could see why you would say he never wrote anything down. It is not uncommon for thinkers to have their work recorded by other people.
As I've mentioned a few other times to other anons the mission of Christ was to give us salvation while involving humanity directly in it - giving us an example to act upon. Sitting around and writing a body of text simply the best way of showing this. Especially because text is manmade and thus struggles with its own faults like the ability to read and the ability to interpret correctly and things like that. Again, how is writing a body of text to survive generations better than forming an institution that can make claims authoritatively that can survive generations? If we have a body of text we struggle with the faults of Sola Scriptura. If we have a human institution we can work together to handle simpler issues.
>the least incorrect interpretations
You either doubt the capabilities of man or truly overstate the ability of the manmade concept of written language.
Commentary texts are era-specific. Try to read Aquinas' commentaries and you struggle with the meaning of his works and his form and stuff. Of course you could say "God could make the best one" and then I'd point you to my above point and my question of its value over an institution.
>This would actually save a lot of souls because many church divisions and heresies would never happen. He could have even prevented the Reformation by making it expressly clear how his church would be organized.
However you put yourself in a situation where you have the faults of Sola Scriptura that broke Christianity into thousands of sects. You only ignore this reality because you appeal to God making a situation where this isn't the case.
>albeit unbaptized because of my own plans.
>still has original sin
>could die at any moment
>will spend eternity in hell if so
Top kek, the fact that avoiding damnation isn't enough motivation to get baptized shows how much you actually believe in your jewish cult
Existence as specifically a property is not something any of the Five Ways are dependent on. Other things of Aquinas' are but not that. Thus it is misplaced to mention "Existence is not predicate" to Aquinas' arguments.
>The most common out is simply to go with 'no that's not what they're saying'.
Dealing with modernity reading scholastic thinkers that's sadly the case more often than not.
Ship of Theseus? You mean the thought experiment?
I missed you Wolf,
Have a couple really good books;
That first one has a really good story about a trilingual heresy, it basically proves that the Catholic church wasn't trying to keep the bible under-wraps, and they would make as many translations as they could.
Nobody around me at mass could figure out what was happening. We were all looking at the pictures in the Misal to figure out what they were doing.
I have a question for you. As people take communion at the rail, then get up and return to their pew, when is the correct time to walk to the rail and kneel from the line of people in the center aisle?
Do you wait for everyone to take communion and the rail is empty before filling it? Or do you line up behind the people taking communion, then move forward after the last one has taken it?
Latin mass is cool but nobody knows what to do kek
"Existence is not a predicate" is Kant too, obviously. I'm just pointing out that he uses it in regard to Aquinas's first-mover-based-argument, while applying the categorical distinctions as a critique of five ways.
By the time the Gospel writers went to make their writings they had already filled the text with human error. Paul wants the religion open to everyone, James wants it restricted to the Jews. Jesus either did not make this clear enough, someone forgot an important issue, or someone is lying. There are tons of minor consistency issues (did Peter's rooster crow 3 or 1 time? Did Jesus exorcise 1 or 2 men in the pig story?) which at minimum show that the writers had trouble remembering what happened.
Apart from that it becomes hard to separate Jesus from his disciples. As a historical example it's very hard to tell exactly what Socrates taught and when he is just acting a mouthpiece for Plato. The same problem happens with Jesus.
But perhaps the biggest reason of all Jesus should have wrote his own texts was that most of his teachings were not preserved. Think about how LITTLE of Jesus's teachings are actually preserved. The Buddah's teachings fills several volumes the size of the New Testament. Jesus would have given hundreds of speeches and had thousands of private conversations. When reading the bible it's actually amazing how few direct quotes we get from Jesus.
>However you put yourself in a situation where you have the faults of Sola Scriptura that broke Christianity into thousands of sects. You only ignore this reality because you appeal to God making a situation where this isn't the case.
The biblical case for apostolic succession is vague, this is why they were able to get away with it. As Protestants point out the word Pope, nun, bishop, or cardinal never appear in the bible. In texts where government or priesthoods are set up, descriptive, non-allegorical language is used, usually with extensive detail.
Also does Aquinas deal with the Ship of Theseus paradox in the same way that Aristotle does?
Yes. The thought experiment is troubling for the Aristotle/Aquinas idea of objects transitioning rigidly from one state to another.
The reason this is important because the whole universe can be described as Ship of Theseus. All matter is constantly decaying or changing, just like the ship. Cells in the body die, animals evolve through micro evolution, even at the atomic level there is decay. It's a very important thought experiment.
Let's take your idea of an ice cube transitioning from one state to another (ice to water puddle) well when exactly does it stop being ice and become water? When exactly does the seed stop being a seed and become a tree? This is also relevant for evolution, how many micro evolution's until species A is B?
This also relates to Heraclitus who tried to solve it with his philosophy of constant change.
>which at minimum show that the writers had trouble remembering what happened.
And if they were perfectly the same, you'd be claiming that there was a conspiracy. In the real world you WOULD have slight differences in stories.
Oh hey! I was disappointed i missed your post last time. Good to have you back.
Now I'd say you're wrong on your grasp of Christianity but forgive me if I fail to apply it neatly to your programmer analogy:
1. God designs some software
2. To accomplish said software free will must be coded in
3. Some things in God's software fail to execute their design goals properly due to free will
4. Those design goal failures lead to larger issues in the overall program
5. Patches come in waves as the program develops when the program can stand it
6. God designs a final patch (codename "Jesus") that will have lasting effects towards remedying these errors.
7. The Jesus patch and its lasting effects function to aid the free will in escaping continued errors and allow the object "humanity" in the software to return to a pre-error state to some degree.
Note that this is from a Catholic point of view (which is shared by pretty much all groups in the apostolic sects of Christianity). I'd say the only thing I'd be missing in the explanation is working in the notion that God's programmed ends for things are arbitrarily placed. Christianity holds that those programmed ends are innate to the person despite whatever socialization they have - "written on their hearts" as scripture says - and that these ends are good for the person involved. It's the whole "inner peace" thing.
There really isn't much focus on the afterlife compared than life on Earth in apostolic sects though it's definitely recognized. The big focus on Heaven and Hell in Christianity was a slightly pre-modern idea where theologians separated from our 1000+ years of connecting philosophy and theology and making claims that God rejects reason and so we don't need to assume that God's will is anything more than an arbitrary divine command and thus all we could confirm by the faith was scripture, which would lead us only to the promise of Heaven and Hell.
Anything else you're curious of? I could help.
Well I responded to you here.
The point of a model is to provide a lence to view the world with. A shitty model is one that struggles to answer questions.
Aristotle's answer for when a person becomes bald (and the ship) has to do with the purpose of baldness or the ship. Which is fucking retarded. It would mean not only baldness but vestige organs would have to have a 'purpose'. All in according with some natural law.
It actually took me awhile to realize WTF Aquinas was about because it seems to be a model that has weak explanatory power.
That's actually a neat point. Do angels sin? Did Jesus die for angels? Also do angels have their own form of origenal sin because Lucifer turned away from God (and if not why do we get it and they don't!)
I think it has to do something with the latin translation of the creed. Procedit has some special meaning not just as "proceed" which made the adding of the Filioque necessary for not commiting some kind of heresy.
>Why would God make a more sin prone being than necessary?
How would you ascertain we're more sin prone than necessary? What if our current state of affairs is the one wherein we're the least sin prone we could possibly be while still being free agents?
>2. To accomplish said software free will must be coded in
>3. Some things in God's software fail to execute their design goals properly due to free will
God sounds like a pretty fucking incompetent programmer, he has two contradicting software requirements.
A tiny minority of all angels. Whislt the reverse is the case of humans who are all fallen and in need of constant forgiveness.
>simultaneously don't know how you could be sure this is the case.
The fact that Jesus told us that they inhabit Heaven in Mathew and didnt have to go through the same burdens the material world places on humans.
The existence of fallen angles demonstrates they have free will
The fact that God chooses them as his favored messengers.
>How would you ascertain we're more sin prone than necessary?
Because God purged humanity once and needed to send his son as a scarfice. God did not purge the angels or require a the death of his son for them to be in heaven.
>atheist spam with no content
Why waste your time? We don't go severely into one of your arguments if you spam them all at once. Most of us gloss over it.
>I'm not implying you do. I'm implying any that you *do* based on dogma are necessarily based in unjustifiably bad logic.
Unless, of course, the dogma comes from a source with adequate authority. And honestly I thought you were implying. My bad. Why talk about dogma then if that was never the topic then?
>Of course it's not. Everyone in the country to have a policy wherein they're supposed to blatantly lie to outsiders about who is in power. This is really basic logic dude.
Of course, hence "you know the world events of nicely". We know the historical background of the time.
>If popular belief and sentiment is all it takes for something to be legitimate...
It's not about sentiment, just that if something is unanimously agreed on that something occured by all those involved at the time then it's strong evidence it did.
And I'd be disagreeing entirely.
>witnesses to something being fallible so it's not valid evidence
Please tell the court system.
>You don't need authority to evangelize.
No, no, you do need authority to evangelize in the way the apostles did. They forced an authoritative structure of the church and arranged a council so to make declarations OF THE FAITH AUTHORITATIVELY.
Actually I was worried about that until I heard of the Baptism of Desire. I am currently in a state of that until I can find a way to organize my baptism properly.
It does what it can. Pic related.
>Most of us gloss over it.
not the tl;dr majority
>Actually I was worried about that until I heard of the Baptism of Desire
Convenient! Maybe you should also wear a magic necklace just in case too (scapular)
I'm sure you don't think it's all arbitrary made-up bunk ;^)
So, so sorry for the late response.
>Thank you for responding but what of that posters comments relating to Kant and teleology?
The "teleological argument" he referenced is the Fifth Way that I mentioned in my post.
>Also how does one get around problems like those posed by Parmendies and Zeno or Elea? For i feel a sense of unease when a rational deduction is used to prove the existence of God when that same method can be used of proving the impossibility of movement and change,
Hm? Could you link me to what you mean?
>write him off as a sophist
I'd say he and some other Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes have an agenda behind their work which is where my comment comes from, actually.
>The fact that God chooses them as his favored messengers.
That doesn't indicate angels have free will at all.
>The existence of fallen angles demonstrates they have free will
This isn't necessarily the case. Could God not have simply caused them to go without?
Any and all information on angels are far far too vague to reach solid conclusions in their regard.
>And I'd be disagreeing entirely.
You're free to do that. Your opinion on the matter will be weighed against the same logic as mine or anyone else's.
>Please tell the court system
That's normative and has nothing to do with logical validity. I'm glad you understand that.
>No, no, you do need authority to evangelize in the way the apostles did. They forced an authoritative structure of the church and arranged a council so to make declarations OF THE FAITH AUTHORITATIVELY
Except not a single apostle was still alive during the council? You're asserting they had authority. Literally just asserting it.
You could make a neat flow chart about angles
*Do Angels have free will?
Yes: Proceed to next question
No: Than how did Satan defy God? How did 1/3 of the angels join him?
*Since Angels have free will why is it that only a tiny of fraction of them are sinners? (remember nothing impure is allowed in heaven so we must know the angels have never sinned) While all humans are sinner. Why couldn't God have just made all humans angels?
>The "teleological argument" he referenced is the Fifth Way that I mentioned in my post.
What has that response have to do with Kants discussion on the nomencial and the phenomenical world having order due to the nature of human cognition rather than the other way around?
>Hm? Could you link me to what you mean?
For instance Zeno's use of reason to demonstrate that the distance between myself and the door is infinite because in order to get there I would have to travel half way, and to get half way there I would need to get half of that way ect.
With Parmenides he used reason to demonstrate change is impossible based on argument that there are only things that are and things which are not.
>I'd say he and some other Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes have an agenda behind their work which is where my comment comes from, actually.
Given the horror of the English Civil War that is to be expected at some level.
>Unless, of course, the dogma comes from a source with adequate authority
No. The only authority who can lay down incontrovertible truth is God. No one else is existentially *capable*.
>That doesn't indicate angels have free will at all.
The indirectly part refers to them having favoured status which would indicate their suprior status. However this is far weaker evidence than my direct arguments.
>This isn't necessarily the case. Could God not have simply caused them to go without?
Are you actually arguing that God forced Satan to fall? Doesnt that seem like a large and illogical leap to avoid the issue at hand?
>Any and all information on angels are far far too vague to reach solid conclusions in their regard.
Jesus literally tells us they dwell in heaven is that not enough?
I don't find it a particularly interesting topic given we have virtually nothing to go on. Almost the entirety of Scripture is about our relation to God - I'll wait until after judgment to learn the details and particulars of angels.
>Are you actually arguing that God forced Satan to fall? Doesnt that seem like a large and illogical leap to avoid the issue at hand?
In what sense is it illogical? Are you implying God could not have done it? Wouldn't *that* be illogical, since God is omnipotent?
Or are you implying God would not have done it? But if Satan has no free will there would be nothing violating omnibenevolence to make a cog in a machine serve another purpose.
>Jesus literally tells us they dwell in heaven is that not enough?
Not for the questions concerning whether they have free will will or not. You think things without free will can't exist in heaven?
>Not Five Ways
The original anon specifically mentioned Aquinas' Fifth Way. There is no confusion between Kant's comment on existence and category separation. The original anon in that /lit/ post made a comment about both elements of Kant's work.
Will check them out when I'm not swamped with responses to write up. Thanks, mate.
My parish actually doesn't do Latin Mass so I couldn't say, man. I'm sorry.
Well how do you make things to love?
>if they mechanically love, it's not truly love
So we need free will
>if they don't love due to their own free will then they failed to meet their purpose
Note "make thing to love" is painfully simplistic for what we're talking about but it gets the core idea across.
The scapular teachings are very confused by people to the point they're taught in superstitious ways, fyi.
And if you don't care for Baptism by Desire I can't help you.
Hence apostolic authority. The apostles didn't give themselves that authority.
OL, don't think I'm ignoring you. You have lengthy posts and I'm trying to keep up while answering everyone as well. I'm sorry, man.
Oh I missed that.
The fact that God did something doesn't mean it wasn't necessary though. You could argue that *nothing* is "necessary" for God, but the question is not what is necessary period but what is necessary for God's Will in regard to our agency. What if those things *were* necessary, and that any other state of affairs would have deprived us of agency in some fashion?
Most arguments against God are actually really fucking stupid most of them are very comedic.
Most ones for him are also really stupid. I think Aquina's first mover is the best argument for God and I don't even take it that seriously, it's a fun puzzle though. Once you get into his natural law though it's very boring, like falling asleep boring.
How to use a religion properly is a far more meaningful question as it transcends whether or not God exists.
>The original anon in that /lit/ post made a comment about both elements of Kant's work
That's what I'm saying, but you *only* brought up "existence isn't a predicate", when another more applicable objection was raised. Also "existence is not a predicate" *CERTAINLY* applies to first mover, the second way, the third way, and arguably the fourth way in common and historic formulations.
>In what sense is it illogical?
Unnecessary complexity compounded by the next part bellow.
>Wouldn't *that* be illogical, since God is omnipotent?
Its illogical because God is also benevolent forcing Satan and arguably all of humanity goes against this concept.
With regards to it serving another purpose this is something that needs to be demonstrated as Satans fall is the greatest evil that has occurred in all of history. It seems rather odd to ignore this and invoke the need of mystery just to avoid the question of free will.
>Not for the questions concerning whether they have free will will or not. You think things without free will can't exist in heaven?
The point is only pure beings do, and as I belive the evidence points strongly to Angles having free will (due to the above) it stands to reason that they could have been a better form of humanity.
What part of it is unnecessary? And unnecessary toward what? Occam's Razor *IS NOT A DEVICE WHICH THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH LOGICAL VALIDITY*.
People *REALLY* fail at understanding that.
The need to maintain Gods omnibeneovlance is why it should be held as necessary. Having the drown all those people and children and sacrifice his only son could only be a last resort.
I know you aren't ignoring me. I don't expect a fast answer. You are very responsible with these sorts of things.
Anyway thanks for starting up these threads again. They are fun, I'd probably not even post in religious threads if I couldn't poke at people like you. You are the sakurako, to my himawari antics.
I'll have to read your comment and continue talking later because it's late here
>Its illogical because God is also benevolent forcing Satan... goes against this concept
Only if you're already assuming Satan has free will, which you shouldn't be when you're trying to show he has free will in the first place.
Its illogical in the same way it would be for me to say that you arent responding to a person but a highly advanced and secret super computer built by the Chinese. Its technically possible however its not reasonable to belive.
>The need to maintain Gods omnibeneovlance is why it should be held as necessary
Except evil is necessary for good. How do you know exactly as little evil as possible exists for good to be maximized according to God's Will?
>Its illogical in the same way it would be for me to say that you arent responding to a person but a highly advanced and secret super computer built by the Chinese
So not illogical at all? You should be using the term "reasonable", which means something entirely different.
If Satan had no free will he *couldn't* be evil, and he *couldn't* suffer. He could facilitate the sowing of evil and suffering, surely, just as an atomic bomb has no will yet can do the same.
>No it isnt evil is simply a lack of Good
That's just the Augustinian assertion. You can believe that, but it's not necessarily true at all.
Thought I was the only one. Shoebat is pretty based glad to see another person know of him. Wish more people on pol discussed his work.
>If Satan had no free will he *couldn't* be evil, and he *couldn't* suffer. He could facilitate the sowing of evil and suffering, surely, just as an atomic bomb has no will yet can do the same.
But isnt suffering just isolation from God which Satan suffers the most from?
>That's just the Augustinian assertion. You can believe that, but it's not necessarily true at all.
Why is your approach true then and not an assertion.
>Of course it's logical. Do you know what the term 'logic' actually refers to?
Let me give you an example of completely valid logical reasoning.
Elephants can fly.
Things that can fly create jumbo jets on Uranus whenever they see emus.
Elephants create jumbo jets on Uranus whenever they see emus.
The above is completely logical.
>What has that response have to do with Kants discussion on the nomencial and the phenomenical world having order due to the nature of human cognition rather than the other way around?
I didn't use the terms noumenon and phenomenon because I used the categorical terms a priori and a posteriori as both sets of terms are parallel to one another. The anon implies that Aquinas' Fifth Way regards a priori logic when it does not. Hence me saying he miscategorized Aquinas.
>With Parmenides he used reason to demonstrate change is impossible based on argument that there are only things that are and things which are not.
Didn't Parmenides and Heraclitus get their arguments folded upon by Aristotle that demonstrated the accuracy of the act/potency distinction over their claims? I'm trying to remember but I believe that's right. simply because one reasons something does not mean their logic is sound.
Honestly the first I've heard of this but it seems this would deal with actual and potential infinities, correct?
>Given the horror of the English Civil War that is to be expected at some level.
Expected to a degree but not at all justified.
>That's what I'm saying, but you *only* brought up "existence isn't a predicate", when another more applicable objection was raised.
No, I didn't bring up "existence isn't a predicate" I was responding to the /lit/ claim that that comment by Kant destroyed Aquinas arguments.
>Also "existence is not a predicate" *CERTAINLY* applies to first mover
Explain to me how please.
Through the arguments I've already given you, sans scripture.
>You are the sakurako, to my himawari antics.
You're going to have to teach me what that means one of these days. I'm not too keen on Chinese cartoons nowadays.
You have a good night, man.
>But isnt suffering just isolation from God which Satan suffers the most from?
Of course, but only things with agency can suffer. You wouldn't say your calculator or your cell phone are capable of suffering, because they don't have a will. There's nothing I've ever seen that precludes that Satan or any angels must have free will instead of simply being like a calculator or machine.
>That's just the Augustinian assertion. You can believe that, but it's not necessarily true at all.
PRACETEOM, SHOW US THE EVIL THAT HAS REAL EXISTENCE
>Why is your approach true then and not an assertion.
I'm not asserting anything. I'm simply leaving open the possibility that angels could have free will or they couldn't. I'm fighting *against* the assertion that they simply *do*, but I'm not asserting I know the truth of the matter.
This is actually how a lot of /pol/ fucking acts. They think if everyone converts to Christianity it will magically fix all the problems...it's not like we were not a Christian majority country for decades!!
The people that make these statements also seem to have the least theological understanding so they can't even understand Christianity can be interpreted to promote many different or even contradicting things!
>You're going to have to teach me what that means one of these days.
It means you are the responsible, nurturing girl and I'm the idiotic, mischievous selfish, bratty girl in the questionable lesbian relationship. I love my flaws.
Anyway look forward to your response. Good luck with the Protties.
>No, I didn't bring up "existence isn't a predicate"
">says Kant's claim that existence is not a property of something but a state of being (existence is not predicate) dismisses Aquinas' arguments"
">Kant's claim that existence is not predicate is actually his refutation of the ontological argument by Anselm"
You were talking about how it doesn't apply. If you're simply saying you didn't *INITIALLY* bring the topic up that's not what I meant by you brought it up - I merely meant you were talking about it. Which you were.
>Explain to me how please
"Thus a first mover exists". Existence as a predicate of the conclusion. First mover doesn't necessitate God to begin with.
They can be in the New Creation though.
Wut? Is that fancy terminology for being with God in heaven?
>I didn't use the terms noumenon and phenomenon because I used the categorical terms a priori and a posteriori as both sets of terms are parallel to one another. The anon implies that Aquinas' Fifth Way regards a priori logic when it does not. Hence me saying he miscategorized Aquinas.
>Didn't Parmenides and Heraclitus get their arguments folded upon by Aristotle that demonstrated the accuracy of the act/potency distinction over their claims? I'm trying to remember but I believe that's right. simply because one reasons something does not mean their logic is sound.
Yeah ive heard of the possibility but I was curious as to whether you might have had that on the top of your head.
>Honestly the first I've heard of this but it seems this would deal with actual and potential infinities, correct?
Could you explain this a bit more please.
>Expected to a degree but not at all justified.
Does his is/ought distinction come into this?
>Of course, but only things with agency can suffer. You wouldn't say your calculator or your cell phone are capable of suffering, because they don't have a will. There's nothing I've ever seen that precludes that Satan or any angels must have free will instead of simply being like a calculator or machine.
Does that mean animals have will/agency? Is there any good reason to see them as being that mechanical given their appearance?
>I'm not asserting anything.
>Does that mean animals have will/agency?
I don't know, though I tend to think they don't. I'm one of those weird people who think animals only give the appearance of suffering, but in fact don't actually suffer. This stance of mine is in direct contradiction to my general sentiment toward animals though, namely that I greatly enjoy their company, companionship, and care for them quite a bit.
>Is there any good reason to see them as being that mechanical given their appearance?
Something's appearance doesn't really have a bearing on its functional reality. Something either has free will or it doesn't. A sufficiently advanced robot could, to any observer, look completely human, but of course that doesn't mean it has free will or can suffer.
The new Creation happens after the final judgement. It's the ultimate Heaven for the faithful. One where I hope all will be at grills and partake in yuri. There isn't really a you die and leave Earth to be in heaven forever in Christian theology. You would live on a new Earth free from sin and filled with qts and yuri
I actually should go to bed now. If you guys wanna keep responding to any of my stuff that's fine - I can look it up in the archive and get back to you on it later.
Goodnight and thanks for the conversation yo.
>There isn't really a you die and leave Earth to be in heaven forever in Christian theology
You must have exposure to a radically different 'Christian theology' than me then.
Critical assessment, as I already told you in different words in you original responses on them.
>James wants it restricted to the Jews.
>Jesus either did not make this clear enough, someone forgot an important issue, or someone is lying.
Not sure about your judgement on James but what comes to mind is Peter struggling with non-Jews and Paul scolding him for it. People sinning happens. It doesn't change teaching.
>There are tons of minor consistency issues
1. This doesn't affect Christian doctrine in any practical way so it's useless to bring up.
2. The gospels are made as semi-historical witness reports, not objective historical documents. Differences are fair as there is a difference in personal experience.
>Apart from that it becomes hard to separate Jesus from his disciples. As a historical example it's very hard to tell exactly what Socrates taught and when he is just acting a mouthpiece for Plato. The same problem happens with Jesus.
Not at all, we know the genre of the texts Biblically so the issue never comes up.
>But perhaps the biggest reason of all Jesus should have wrote his own texts was that most of his teachings were not preserved.
Now this is a good point, you make a strong argument here. A dogmatic Christian response would be that we got all we were supposed to have (Given Jesus' life was partly to be an example to us it's proper to assume we got the example we were supposed to get) but we cannot objectively say this. Jesus was very good with his parables and gathering them quickly.
Personally, however, I would say that this is not a problem given what we got instead. The Deposit of Faith - Sacred Tradition - allows for our ability to grasp teachings to deepen and already covers every part of the human experience. The personalization in teaching and examining things and ability for us to play a part is I would say more valuable than your point.
It's a shame we don't talk about the Pali Canon more, don't you think? Our chats on world religions are usually fun.
>The biblical case for apostolic succession is vague, this is why they were able to get away with it. As Protestants point out the word Pope, nun, bishop, or cardinal never appear in the bible...
To be fair, the Protestants use the scripture incorrectly and apostolic succession was already "gotten away with" before the Bible existed.
Pffft, goodnight man.
>">says Kant's claim that existence is not a property of something but a state of being (existence is not predicate) dismisses Aquinas' arguments"
This is literally me referencing that the anon brought it up, not I, just as I just told you.
>Kant actually confused the ontological argument and the Five Ways' thinking by assuming that the latter was based on a logical/ontological equivocation of the term 'existence' like the former. In fact, Kant has misread the Five Ways; St Thomas begins from an a posteriori premise and not in any a priori understanding of the word 'existence'.
Kant has no relevance with the First Way.
>Does his is/ought distinction come into this?
Hume's is/ought distinction doesn't, I'd say. It's Hume responding to thought that had come before him. Aquinas responded to the is/ought distinction in his lifetime. Linking them requires the concept of final causality which by Hume's time was already dismissed so when people still used the logic around him he grasped the lack of coherence (he had no grasp of final causality in the first place) and brought the distinction to attention. Personally I would say Hume is justified in his position there as the fault is not on him at all. If you want to get into what I'd consider his sophistry then I'd recommend him talking about skepticism and causality as a whole. One point of which being denying that we can have any knowledge of objective causal connections in nature.
>Could you explain this a bit more please.
Have a good night everyone.