pope says christian fundies no better than isis

Read The Catechism of The Catholic Church, its beautiful, and free online. 2000 years of Christian Tradition in one place. All your answers are in there. Pay attention to the part on relativism. You're a relativist. A zero-sum equation. " Personal Truth" haha! "Personally I think 2+2=5!"....uh, no, you're wrong :-)

a reply to: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Tangerine

In other words, it's your belief. Thought so. This may come as a shock to you, but beliefs are not facts and there is absolutely no reason why we should take your beliefs as facts. No, I don't need to prove God to myself. That's another of your beliefs. The doctrine of men written by men who didn't even live when Jesus allegedly lived and never heard him say anything isn't very convincing. Essentially, you want us to worship you. No thanks.

Yes, Finally you have understood what theology really is. Only proves that you are not completely dense. When you read a post it would do you well to try to focus on what is being written instead of defending your own ideologies. I have repeatedly explained that Theology can never be proven. Once proven it is no longer theology the same as any theoretical scientific proposition follows the same method. There is no Christian who has ever claimed that he or she can present God to any living person. You know better than to even entertain that sort of an argument. Complete foolishness.

It would also serve you well to read the KJV bible before you continue to show your ignorance in Christian theology. The majority text of the NT of most all Christian bibles were letters written by one man who theologically met Jesus and did live in His life span. As far as worship is concerned, that is your choice and i hope you eventually will make the right choice just the same as I hope that I make the right choice but I shall never depend upon science to give me eternal life that is for sure.

Now it's theology. A few posts ago, it was a claim of fact (ie. there is only one God). May I remind you that facts are based on testable evidence only and you have cited none. If you had said you BELIEVE there is only one God, I wouldn't have challenged you. Instead, you chose to make a claim of fact.

I've read the Bible. Paul never even claimed to have met Jesus in the flesh. "(M)et him theologically". LMAO. But you are right about one thing you implied: Christianity is really Paulism.

I suggest that you follow a policy of stating your beliefs as beliefs and not making claims of fact unless you can back up those claims with testable evidence or, in the case of historical claims, contemporaneous documentation. Conversations with Christians would be so much more pleasant if they did that.

originally posted by: Ignatian
It's not about me brother, i'm just relaying what 1/5 the earth's population believe. The first reaction to truth is anger. Yours drips from your posts. Peace!

"to a nonbeliever, no evidence is adequate, to a believer, no evidence is necessary"

a reply to: Tangerine

So you admit it's belief and not fact. Thank you.

originally posted by: Ignatian
St Paul never personally met Jesus, in person. That's in the Bible :-))

You might want to research what the word "theology" means. Your usage in text is quite strange.

Christians invented science!! Why do you ignore science? It's not a naughty word. Science is beautiful and further enhances our understanding of God's awesome creation. Follow truth wherever it leads you. Humility beckons one to open their eyes to Truth. Have an open mind, but don't let your brain and common sense spill out in the process. If science tells us the earth is X-billion years old, question your preconceived notions brother. Reason and Faith always dance together.

a reply to: Seede

Surely, you jest when you say Christians invented science. I suggest you brush up on the history of science and pay close attention to the Egyptians, Greeks and Chinese.

originally posted by: Ignatian
I believe 2 + 2= 4. Do you? Is this a fact, or merely a belief?

Objective Truth...Subjective Truth. Some things are true everywhere, for everyone, all the time. If you don't believe 2 and 2 are 4, I'd never convince you otherwise.

You do believe there are unarguable facts right?

a reply to: Tangerine

If something is a fact, belief is not involved. If something is a belief, it's not a fact. If you're talking about fact, there is no such thing as something unarguable. Science is always open to better evidence.

a reply to: Ignatian

St Paul never personally met Jesus, in person. That's in the Bible :-))

You are right, how careless of me. It was Saul that met Jesus.
Act 26:14-18
(I14) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (15) And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. (16) But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; (17) Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
(18) To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

a reply to: Tangerine

Now it's theology. A few posts ago, it was a claim of fact (ie. there is only one God). May I remind you that facts are based on testable evidence only and you have cited none. If you had said you BELIEVE there is only one God, I wouldn't have challenged you. Instead, you chose to make a claim of fact. I've read the Bible. Paul never even claimed to have met Jesus in the flesh. "(M)et him theologically". LMAO. But you are right about one thing you implied: Christianity is really Paulism. I suggest that you follow a policy of stating your beliefs as beliefs and not making claims of fact unless you can back up those claims with testable evidence or, in the case of historical claims, contemporaneous documentation. Conversations with Christians would be so much more pleasant if they did

Once again you have stumbled and do not seem to understand what is said.

I did say “How do you know that I do not know? I know what I know because I know what I know. Can you say the same? If you can then I can not prove what you know anymore than you can disprove what I know.”

I mentioned nothing of the word Fact did I? Did I imply to you that my knowledge was established fact to the world? Did I not say that “I can not prove what you know anymore than you can disprove what I know” -- You have a tendency to misunderstand what you read.

You also stated that - “May I remind you that facts are based on testable evidence only and you have cited none.” --

Yes, you may remind me and I have noted this throughout many of your posts. I would like you to cite, as fact, that this world is 65 million years old. You have said facts are based on testable evidence so please produce your facts. Not sources from others but presentable fact. I have not presented my knowledge as fact simply because it is in the realm of theology. I believe we have discussed that several times. Theology is not demonstrable fact. Has never claimed to be and is understood by most as being unprovable knowledge.

Now it is your turn. Show me Demonstrable, Observable, and Repeatable fact that this world is 65 million years old. Do you actually know that the world is 65 million years old or do you simply believe the world is 65 million years old? Tell me where is your beginning or do you have a beginning?

Now as far as theology is concerned, yes I do understand what theology means and when I say theological understanding it means to understand in the realm of theology.

a reply to: Tangerine

Now it's theology. A few posts ago, it was a claim of fact (ie. there is only one God). May I remind you that facts are based on testable evidence only and you have cited none. If you had said you BELIEVE there is only one God, I wouldn't have challenged you. Instead, you chose to make a claim of fact. I've read the Bible. Paul never even claimed to have met Jesus in the flesh. "(M)et him theologically". LMAO. But you are right about one thing you implied: Christianity is really Paulism. I suggest that you follow a policy of stating your beliefs as beliefs and not making claims of fact unless you can back up those claims with testable evidence or, in the case of historical claims, contemporaneous documentation. Conversations with Christians would be so much more pleasant if they did

Once again you have stumbled and do not seem to understand what is said.

I did say “How do you know that I do not know? I know what I know because I know what I know. Can you say the same? If you can then I can not prove what you know anymore than you can disprove what I know.”

I mentioned nothing of the word Fact did I? Did I imply to you that my knowledge was established fact to the world? Did I not say that “I can not prove what you know anymore than you can disprove what I know” -- You have a tendency to misunderstand what you read.

You also stated that - “May I remind you that facts are based on testable evidence only and you have cited none.” --

Yes, you may remind me and I have noted this throughout many of your posts. I would like you to cite, as fact, that this world is 65 million years old. You have said facts are based on testable evidence so please produce your facts. Not sources from others but presentable fact. I have not presented my knowledge as fact simply because it is in the realm of theology. I believe we have discussed that several times. Theology is not demonstrable fact. Has never claimed to be and is understood by most as being unprovable knowledge.

Now it is your turn. Show me Demonstrable, Observable, and Repeatable fact that this world is 65 million years old. Do you actually know that the world is 65 million years old or do you simply believe the world is 65 million years old? Tell me where is your beginning or do you have a beginning?

Now as far as theology is concerned, yes I do understand what theology means and when I say theological understanding it means to understand in the realm of theology.

a reply to: Seede

You repeatedly make claims of fact. The word "fact" need not appear in a claim such as "There is only one God" for it to be a claim of fact. When challenged, you claim that you know what you know, another claim of fact. When asked to cite testable evidence proving your claims of fact, you claim that they're not claims of fact! Utter rubbish.

As for proving the age of the earth, I made no such claim and I am not obligated to prove any claims of fact other than those made by me. That's how it works.

Your statement, "Now as far as theology is concerned, yes I do understand what theology means and when I say theological understanding it means to understand in the realm of theology" is an example of weasel-shuffling. I realize that you're skating on proverbial thin ice grasping at proverbial straws, but, surely, you can do better than that. That bit of weasel-shuffling might wow an uneducated person but it's laughable when you try to pass it off on anyone else. The same applies to your use of "I know what I know." That's the adult equivalent of a child saying, "'cuz" when asked why he wants something.

You're entitled to your beliefs, as is everyone. The fact that I think they're silly doesn't change that.

a reply to: Tangerine

You're entitled to your beliefs, as is everyone. The fact that I think they're silly doesn't change that.

Thank you Tangerine for your thoughts and input. You are a person of conviction.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually (fundamentalism) started back in the early 1900’s with the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church members who drew up five basic fundamentals of what a true Christian should be in their opinion. This became adopted throughout the protestant denominations congregations in stages of time to the present day.

Your historical perspective is insular and short. Presbyterianism is not an American phenomenon. It goes all the way back to sixteenth-century Europe and John Calvin.

Fundamentalism is not presbyterianism. It is just scripturalism, or as real Christians of all denominations call it, bibliolatry. It is as old as the printing press. It couldn't exist before that due to a lack of Bibles, but its spirit, the spirit of holier-than-thou exclusivity and bigotry, exists in all religions, and has done so in Christianity since the time of the likes of St. Simon Stylites.

He heard His voice. Paul never met Jesus in person.

a reply to: Seede

a reply to: Astyanax

Is this a response to me or Seede? I didn't say that.

originally posted by: Ignatian
He heard His voice. Paul never met Jesus in person.

a reply to: Seede

More correctly, he CLAIMED to have heard his voice.

a reply to: Seede


I love the way way they spoke back then....it seems so, uh, Reformation English.....

a reply to: Ignatian

Hearing voices is a mental illness.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Ignatian

Hearing voices is a mental illness.

The link between temporal lobe epilepsy and mysticism

Not a mental illness, to be sure, but not divine, either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry. That was a reply to Seede.

I wonder, should the catholics ask for the pope's resignation if he goes too far?

He didn't do anything until now except for talking and useless meetings. I assume he has good intentions and good plans, but he is too weak and can't put them in practice. At least he didn't do so until this moment. No matter he is a jesuit.

If he resigns he will put an end of speculations of prophet Malachi's list and end times' pope. Because it should be he himself.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Ignatian
He heard His voice. Paul never met Jesus in person.

a reply to: Seede

More correctly, he CLAIMED to have heard his voice.

Exactly. He claimed. Or someone else claimed in his name 100s years later. We don't have original manuscripts of "his letters" dating back from the time of Paul. What we have are later works, written in the name of Paul, and filled with Roman understanding of Jesus' teaching. Actually it doesn't matter if Paul wrote them, if someone else wrote them, or if Paul's original words were re-fitted in the Constantine era. What matters is that teaching that is a Roman teaching is put on equal foot with the words of Jesus himself. It is obvious the followers of Jesus before 100AD didn't have Paul's teachings as their manuals. And even quarreled with him, if the letters say the truth. Sorry Paul, you are dear to me, but the truth is more dear.

The Christianity must be revised to pre-Constantine era, or to pre-Paul era with all banned books back on the table for discussion. It is a shame we have a copycat of what is said to be Gospels of 3 different people, written much later. Let alone the Revelation of "John" who is not the John of the Gospel. Pope Benedict put doubt on it, besides many others, and called him "the author of the Revelation"

And what did Jesus do before the Baptism in Jordan? Before the Cana of Galilee? Was it his own marriage feast? What if he had only one son from Mary Magdalene? Would he be semi-god, as the greek used to say?

I could say more. How about the 1980 years after the ascension. Jesus ate after the resurrection. Could he marry, too? Not on a cloud but on the place where he really dwells now? May be Eden garden, may be another place, heavenly Jerusalem, a planet, don't know.

Don't say it is impossible for the resurrected Jesus to marry. Don't quote texts that were rewritten under Roman iron hand, to fit the Roman agenda of Christianity.
Reason with common sense. Jesus was pretty physical after the resurrection. he could marry if he would like to. He could have thousands descendants by now, if he wanted to.
Not the French kings! No way, Dan Brown! That can't be the Son of God's' heritage!