Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: I haven't seen an answer to this question - if I over looked it, I apologize. I think it is a very good question and am interested in the responses.
"So then what makes [anyone's] personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?"

Nothing! That was the point of my question.

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?

This is me rationalizing, and presenting my thoughts to you. It's for you to ponder, not for me to prove right.

I am not asking you to prove it to be right.

You asserted as the premise of the thread that "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation."

First of all the premise is false, there is alot of empirical, rational argument (which you may not find pursuasive) favoring a number of religions.

But then you assert YOUR OWN PERSONAL REVELATION implying it is somehow dispositive because it is self generated.

I am not questioning the validity of your belief, I am questioning your premise that YOUR revelation is any more valid than the "religious" people you assert have no "empirical or rational" argument OTHER THAN a personal revelation, which apparently is only an issue if it differs from YOUR perfectly acceptable personal revelation?

[CursedLemon]

Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?

This is me rationalizing, and presenting my thoughts to you. It's for you to ponder, not for me to prove right.

I am not asking you to prove it to be right.

You asserted as the premise of the thread that "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation."

First of all the premise is false, there is alot of empirical, rational argument (which you may not find pursuasive) favoring a number of religions.

But then you assert YOUR OWN PERSONAL REVELATION implying it is somehow dispositive because it is self generated.

I am not questioning the validity of your belief, I am questioning your premise that YOUR revelation is any more valid than the "religious" people you assert have no "empirical or rational" argument OTHER THAN a personal revelation, which apparently is only an issue if it differs from YOUR perfectly acceptable personal revelation?

Care to chalk up some evidence in support of religion that isn't off a creationist website and doesn't involve St. Thomas Aquinas?

Also, I've had no "revelation".

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: I haven't seen an answer to this question - if I over looked it, I apologize. I think it is a very good question and am interested in the responses.
"So then what makes [anyone's] personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?"

Nothing! That was the point of my question.

Then do you agree that your personal revelation is no different than mine, even if these revelations are contradictory towards each other and are about the same thing?

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?

This is me rationalizing, and presenting my thoughts to you. It's for you to ponder, not for me to prove right.

I am not asking you to prove it to be right.

You asserted as the premise of the thread that "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation."

First of all the premise is false, there is alot of empirical, rational argument (which you may not find pursuasive) favoring a number of religions.

But then you assert YOUR OWN PERSONAL REVELATION implying it is somehow dispositive because it is self generated.

I am not questioning the validity of your belief, I am questioning your premise that YOUR revelation is any more valid than the "religious" people you assert have no "empirical or rational" argument OTHER THAN a personal revelation, which apparently is only an issue if it differs from YOUR perfectly acceptable personal revelation?

Quote: First of all the premise is false, there is alot of empirical, rational argument (which you may not find pursuasive) favoring a number of religions. What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?
I read CursedLemon's post as saying that, since there is no proof to show the existence of God, therefore, no proof exists to demonstrate Christianity is right for everyone, as according to biblical teachings, it seems the only thing left is 'personal' beliefs and how one received those 'beliefs'. Christianity says one should have a "personal relationship' with Jesus. This is one reason why some people can see one thing as a sin (smoking) while others don't see it as a sin. If this is true, how can one 1) know that their revelation was of God and not of themselves subconsciously or 2) what they believe to be correct for everyone?
Perhaps too many questions at one time - let's go with this one:
What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote:

Care to chalk up some evidence in support of religion that isn't off a creationist website and doesn't involve St. Thomas Aquinas?

Also, I've had no "revelation".

I NEVER use creationist websites so fear not.


Why would you object to Aquinas who in addition to being one of the great Catholic theologian, nearly single handedly revived Aristotle at a critical time in the history of thought and education, is he too logical to employ?

As I said the fact that you don't find an argument or a set of documents(the Gospels of the New Testament) pursuasive does not make them either less empirical or rational.

CursedLemon wrote: If hearing the godlike voice of myself is "personal revelation", then it would seem so.

Whether you come to a self realization or have a revelation of some kind, I fail to see how yours being self generated is somehow more true or valid than someone elses from some other source?

That was my point and what I found ironic about your statement belief in what represented God to YOU, which is purely SELF realization.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?
I read CursedLemon's post as saying that, since there is no proof to show the existence of God, therefore, no proof exists to demonstrate Christianity is right for everyone, as according to biblical teachings, it seems the only thing left is 'personal' beliefs and how one received those 'beliefs'. Christianity says one should have a "personal relationship' with Jesus. This is one reason why some people can see one thing as a sin (smoking) while others don't see it as a sin. If this is true, how can one 1) know that their revelation was of God and not of themselves subconsciously or 2) what they believe to be correct for everyone?
Perhaps too many questions at one time - let's go with this one:
What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?

It was not my assertion so I can only respond to what I read.

If the thread premise was

"God can not be proven absolutely to exist or not exist, therefore Christianity is not for everyone."

I would never have responded and would have NO ability to refute anything in that sentence.

But clearly that is NOT what Lemon is saying.

Lemon is clear and precise in saying "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence". And my response is that while one does not have to agree or believe them there are many such arguments in various religions.

The Gospels are empirical arguments/evidence (dependant upon experience or observation) for the existence and deity of Jesus Christ. You may dispute them or find the represented experiences unconvincing but they are empirical none the less.

There are volumes and volumes of philosophers and thelogians who apply logic and reason to the belief in God, modern philosophy exists as an outgrowth of the very question of meaning of life, truth and God.

Again you may not find the logic or reasoning pursuasive but that does not mean the arguments are not there to be argued.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?
I read CursedLemon's post as saying that, since there is no proof to show the existence of God, therefore, no proof exists to demonstrate Christianity is right for everyone, as according to biblical teachings, it seems the only thing left is 'personal' beliefs and how one received those 'beliefs'. Christianity says one should have a "personal relationship' with Jesus. This is one reason why some people can see one thing as a sin (smoking) while others don't see it as a sin. If this is true, how can one 1) know that their revelation was of God and not of themselves subconsciously or 2) what they believe to be correct for everyone?
Perhaps too many questions at one time - let's go with this one:
What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?

It was not my assertion so I can only respond to what I read.

If the thread premise was

"God can not be proven absolutely to exist or not exist, therefore Christianity is not for everyone."

I would never have responded and would have NO ability to refute anything in that sentence.

But clearly that is NOT what Lemon is saying.

Lemon is clear and precise in saying "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence". And my response is that while one does not have to agree or believe them there are many such arguments in various religions.

The Gospels are empirical arguments/evidence (dependant upon experience or observation) for the existence and deity of Jesus Christ. You may dispute them or find the represented experiences unconvincing but they are empirical none the less.

There are volumes and volumes of philosophers and thelogians who apply logic and reason to the belief in God, modern philosophy exists as an outgrowth of the very question of meaning of life, truth and God.

Again you may not find the logic or reasoning pursuasive but that does not mean the arguments are not there to be argued.

Interesting that you and I read the same post differently.
At any rate, this is why I wanted to ask if you were using the two terms synonymously or not. Thank you for the clarification.
By merely believing in a certain religion is "favorable" (depending on the definition used) evidence of the religion. So I would suppose that this 'favorable evidence' can be said to be, fundamentally, anywhere.

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote: I haven't seen an answer to this question - if I over looked it, I apologize. I think it is a very good question and am interested in the responses.
"So then what makes [anyone's] personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?"

A good heart?
Good intentions?
A pure soul?
More knowledge of a religious book than others?
Force of personality?
The ability to convince others?
Beautiful face?
Large, er.., feet? :wink:

I am curious. What gave, say Moses a clearer idea of what God wanted than, say Billy Graham, or Pat Robertson?

How did Pope Pious III know God's will better than Martin Luthers? (or, visa versa?)


So many questions..... So few answers...

"I pray, please God, tell me who is the person who interprets your word the correct way? Who is closest to explaining your plan?"

"Who?"

"What's that, God? Toddytodd?"
:shock:

"Well, OK, but how do I know I am interpreting your message properly??"

"What? Ask Toddytodd?"




Well, there you have it. Toddytodd is the official mouthpiece of God.

God has spoken.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?
I read CursedLemon's post as saying that, since there is no proof to show the existence of God, therefore, no proof exists to demonstrate Christianity is right for everyone, as according to biblical teachings, it seems the only thing left is 'personal' beliefs and how one received those 'beliefs'. Christianity says one should have a "personal relationship' with Jesus. This is one reason why some people can see one thing as a sin (smoking) while others don't see it as a sin. If this is true, how can one 1) know that their revelation was of God and not of themselves subconsciously or 2) what they believe to be correct for everyone?
Perhaps too many questions at one time - let's go with this one:
What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?

It was not my assertion so I can only respond to what I read.

If the thread premise was

"God can not be proven absolutely to exist or not exist, therefore Christianity is not for everyone."

I would never have responded and would have NO ability to refute anything in that sentence.

But clearly that is NOT what Lemon is saying.

Lemon is clear and precise in saying "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence". And my response is that while one does not have to agree or believe them there are many such arguments in various religions.

The Gospels are empirical arguments/evidence (dependant upon experience or observation) for the existence and deity of Jesus Christ. You may dispute them or find the represented experiences unconvincing but they are empirical none the less.

There are volumes and volumes of philosophers and thelogians who apply logic and reason to the belief in God, modern philosophy exists as an outgrowth of the very question of meaning of life, truth and God.

Again you may not find the logic or reasoning pursuasive but that does not mean the arguments are not there to be argued.

Interesting that you and I read the same post differently.
At any rate, this is why I wanted to ask if you were using the two terms synonymously or not. Thank you for the clarification.
By merely believing in a certain religion is "favorable" (depending on the definition used) evidence of the religion. So I would suppose that this 'favorable evidence' can be said to be, fundamentally, anywhere.

"there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence" Seems like a very clear declarative sentence which leaves very little room for intepretation. But if Lemon meant something other than what is written then he can explain it himself. I took his meaning as it was very clearly expressed.

I don't understand your question here.

An empirical or rational argument is specific. The idea there are NO emprical or rational arguments for Christianity, Judaism, Islam among others is false, what may be true is that one is not convinced by the arguments. That is my main point.

I am convinced about the Truth of Christianity, you are not.

That does not make either of us bad people, nor by the way does my Christianity somehow permit me to think I am better than you or anyone else who does NOT believe. In fact it would be a sin, no different than any other, for me to consider myself in any way superior to you or anyone else.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence" Seems like a very clear declarative sentence which leaves very little room for intepretation. But if Lemon meant something other than what is written then he can explain it himself. I took his meaning as it was very clearly expressed.

I don't understand your question here.

An empirical or rational argument is specific. The idea there are NO emprical or rational arguments for Christianity, Judaism, Islam among others is false, what may be true is that one is not convinced by the arguments. That is my main point.

I am convinced about the Truth of Christianity, you are not.

That does not make either of us bad people, nor by the way does my Christianity somehow permit me to think I am better than you or anyone else who does NOT believe. In fact it would be a sin, no different than any other, for me to consider myself in any way superior to you or anyone else.

No, but I would say that Christianity has a lot to answer for in terms of bad actions commited by people claiming to have followed it's philosophy. The Cath. Churches stance on condoms, for one.

If we take the good that Christianity has done, we must take the bad. (IMO, all the good and bad could have been down without the extra "drama" of "gods, demons and such"

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence" Seems like a very clear declarative sentence which leaves very little room for intepretation. But if Lemon meant something other than what is written then he can explain it himself. I took his meaning as it was very clearly expressed.

I don't understand your question here.

An empirical or rational argument is specific. The idea there are NO emprical or rational arguments for Christianity, Judaism, Islam among others is false, what may be true is that one is not convinced by the arguments. That is my main point.

I am convinced about the Truth of Christianity, you are not.

That does not make either of us bad people, nor by the way does my Christianity somehow permit me to think I am better than you or anyone else who does NOT believe. In fact it would be a sin, no different than any other, for me to consider myself in any way superior to you or anyone else.

No, but I would say that Christianity has a lot to answer for in terms of bad actions commited by people claiming to have followed it's philosophy. The Cath. Churches stance on condoms, for one.

If we take the good that Christianity has done, we must take the bad. (IMO, all the good and bad could have been down without the extra "drama" of "gods, demons and such"

I would suggest that you must distinguish between Christianity, Christians and others who claim to be Christians and what they do.

What does the Catholic Church have to answer for on its condom stance?

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I would suggest that you must distinguish between Christianity, Christians and others who claim to be Christians and what they do.

This is impossible. Who is to be the arbitor (here on earth) of this? YOu or me? The Pope or some other person?

My rule: if someone claims to be Christian, I take them at their word.
Same for Muslims, Atheists, etc. There is no possible way for us to determine what is in the heart of someone, with something as personal as Belief.

(It is one of the problems I see with Religion - it is entirely subjective. People decide on their interpretation of the Religious text based on their Nature & Nurture. One person feeds the homeless, another bombs abortion clinics - all based on the same book)

Quote: What does the Catholic Church have to answer for on its condom stance?

Are you serious that you don't know the issue, or are you being a tad disingenuous?
:wink:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

(I hope Catholic.org is an acceptable website to you. :wink: :) )

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I would suggest that you must distinguish between Christianity, Christians and others who claim to be Christians and what they do.

This is impossible. Who is to be the arbitor (here on earth) of this? YOu or me? The Pope or some other person?

My rule: if someone claims to be Christian, I take them at their word.
Same for Muslims, Atheists, etc. There is no possible way for us to determine what is in the heart of someone, with something as personal as Belief.

(It is one of the problems I see with Religion - it is entirely subjective. People decide on their interpretation of the Religious text based on their Nature & Nurture. One person feeds the homeless, another bombs abortion clinics - all based on the same book)

Quote: What does the Catholic Church have to answer for on its condom stance?

Are you serious that you don't know the issue, or are you being a tad disingenuous?
:wink:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

(I hope Catholic.org is an acceptable website to you. :wink: :) )

So you make no effort to determine whether what someone says matches up to any reasonable standard of reality?

I understand the issue, I asked what the Church has to answer for?

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
So you make no effort to determine whether what someone says matches up to any reasonable standard of reality?
I try to. Moses was considered a good Christian, in fact, a Prophet, and killed women and children.
Bush is considered by many to be a good Christian and is conducting war (One of Christ's message was to tuen the other cheek, etc. I know, eye for an eye, but we've killed 30,000+ for our 3,000 - which makes it 1 eye for 10 eyes. Plus, I believe the Pope is against war - correct me if I'm wrong - Is he the REAL Christian?)

Surely, you see the dilemma. Some Christians believe the literal word of the Bible, are they the TRUE Christians?

Some believe that it is all metaphor.

I wonder who, even within your own Sect, you consider a TRUE Christian?

"judge not, lest ye be judged" so be careful....

In fact, are all Christians, by definition, BAD Christians? THat you are all sinners and not worthy of God's approval?

If you could, please outline what specifically make someone a GOOD (or TRUE) Christian.

(BTW, I was arguing about what is the true sect of Christianity and someone said: "THat which follows the Bible most closely"

He is a Mormon. Go figure.)

Quote: I understand the issue, I asked what the Church has to answer for? I would have thought you would have known.

The Catholic Church's (CC) dogmatic stance on the sanctity of life in sperm form, has led to the death of millions of people who could have be saved through simple education.

I know you will say they shouldn't be having sex anyhow, but this is not a real-world answer. In the end, the CC operates in the real world, and any authority that is given them is by the authority of people allowing them to hold the position they do.

The CC has used their interpretation of a few passages in the Bible to call masturbation and premarital sex a sin. These are not expressly forbidden in the Bible - it takes a certain interpretation.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
So you make no effort to determine whether what someone says matches up to any reasonable standard of reality?
I try to. Moses was considered a good Christian, in fact, a Prophet, and killed women and children.
Bush is considered by many to be a good Christian and is conducting war (One of Christ's message was to "turn the other cheek", etc. I know, eye for an eye, but we've killed 30,000+ for our 3,000 - which makes it 10 eyes for 1 eye. Plus, I believe the Pope is against war - correct me if I'm wrong - Is he the REAL Christian?)

Surely, you see the dilemma. Some Christians believe the literal word of the Bible, are they the TRUE Christians?

Some believe that it is all metaphor.

I wonder who, even within your own Sect, you consider a TRUE Christian?

"judge not, lest ye be judged" so be careful....

In fact, are all Christians, by definition, BAD Christians? THat you are all sinners and not worthy of God's approval?

If you could, please outline what specifically make someone a GOOD (or TRUE) Christian.

(BTW, I was arguing about what is the true sect of Christianity and someone said: "THat which follows the Bible most closely"

He is a Mormon. Go figure.)

Quote: I understand the issue, I asked what the Church has to answer for? I would have thought you would have known.

The Catholic Church's (CC) dogmatic stance on the sanctity of life in sperm form, has led to the death of millions of people who could have be saved through simple education.

I know you will say they shouldn't be having sex anyhow, but this is not a real-world answer. In the end, the CC operates in the real world, and any authority that is given them is by the authority of people allowing them to hold the position they do.

The CC has used their interpretation of a few passages in the Bible to call masturbation and premarital sex a sin. These are not expressly forbidden in the Bible - it takes a certain interpretation.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?
I read CursedLemon's post as saying that, since there is no proof to show the existence of God, therefore, no proof exists to demonstrate Christianity is right for everyone, as according to biblical teachings, it seems the only thing left is 'personal' beliefs and how one received those 'beliefs'. Christianity says one should have a "personal relationship' with Jesus. This is one reason why some people can see one thing as a sin (smoking) while others don't see it as a sin. If this is true, how can one 1) know that their revelation was of God and not of themselves subconsciously or 2) what they believe to be correct for everyone?
Perhaps too many questions at one time - let's go with this one:
What do you mean by "favoring"? In this instance, does it equate as "proving"?

It was not my assertion so I can only respond to what I read.

If the thread premise was

"God can not be proven absolutely to exist or not exist, therefore Christianity is not for everyone."

I would never have responded and would have NO ability to refute anything in that sentence.

But clearly that is NOT what Lemon is saying.

Lemon is clear and precise in saying "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence". And my response is that while one does not have to agree or believe them there are many such arguments in various religions.

The Gospels are empirical arguments/evidence (dependant upon experience or observation) for the existence and deity of Jesus Christ. You may dispute them or find the represented experiences unconvincing but they are empirical none the less.

There are volumes and volumes of philosophers and thelogians who apply logic and reason to the belief in God, modern philosophy exists as an outgrowth of the very question of meaning of life, truth and God.

Again you may not find the logic or reasoning pursuasive but that does not mean the arguments are not there to be argued.

Interesting that you and I read the same post differently.
At any rate, this is why I wanted to ask if you were using the two terms synonymously or not. Thank you for the clarification.
By merely believing in a certain religion is "favorable" (depending on the definition used) evidence of the religion. So I would suppose that this 'favorable evidence' can be said to be, fundamentally, anywhere.

"there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence" Seems like a very clear declarative sentence which leaves very little room for intepretation. But if Lemon meant something other than what is written then he can explain it himself. I took his meaning as it was very clearly expressed.

I don't understand your question here.

An empirical or rational argument is specific. The idea there are NO emprical or rational arguments for Christianity, Judaism, Islam among others is false, what may be true is that one is not convinced by the arguments. That is my main point.

I am convinced about the Truth of Christianity, you are not.

That does not make either of us bad people, nor by the way does my Christianity somehow permit me to think I am better than you or anyone else who does NOT believe. In fact it would be a sin, no different than any other, for me to consider myself in any way superior to you or anyone else.
Quote: I don't understand your question here. Wasn't a question - I was only trying to clarify you definition that you were using.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: "there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence" Seems like a very clear declarative sentence which leaves very little room for intepretation. But if Lemon meant something other than what is written then he can explain it himself. I took his meaning as it was very clearly expressed.

I don't understand your question here.

An empirical or rational argument is specific. The idea there are NO emprical or rational arguments for Christianity, Judaism, Islam among others is false, what may be true is that one is not convinced by the arguments. That is my main point.

I am convinced about the Truth of Christianity, you are not.

That does not make either of us bad people, nor by the way does my Christianity somehow permit me to think I am better than you or anyone else who does NOT believe. In fact it would be a sin, no different than any other, for me to consider myself in any way superior to you or anyone else.

No, but I would say that Christianity has a lot to answer for in terms of bad actions commited by people claiming to have followed it's philosophy. The Cath. Churches stance on condoms, for one.

If we take the good that Christianity has done, we must take the bad. (IMO, all the good and bad could have been down without the extra "drama" of "gods, demons and such"

I would suggest that you must distinguish between Christianity, Christians and others who claim to be Christians and what they do.

What does the Catholic Church have to answer for on its condom stance?

Quote: I would suggest that you must distinguish between Christianity, Christians and others who claim to be Christians and what they do. If a person does something (good or bad) and proclaims to be a christian, how are we to know if they are or aren't a truechristian? What is a true christian? Who defines what a christian is, what they do, how they do it or how they come to their beliefs? There are groups that claim to be christian, yet are at odds at the core of certain beliefs and act differently. Yet both groups strictly defend their beliefs and actions accordingly. Are we to say one is christian and one is not?
I am not sure what you mean here.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I would suggest that you must distinguish between Christianity, Christians and others who claim to be Christians and what they do.

This is impossible. Who is to be the arbitor (here on earth) of this? YOu or me? The Pope or some other person?

My rule: if someone claims to be Christian, I take them at their word.
Same for Muslims, Atheists, etc. There is no possible way for us to determine what is in the heart of someone, with something as personal as Belief.

(It is one of the problems I see with Religion - it is entirely subjective. People decide on their interpretation of the Religious text based on their Nature & Nurture. One person feeds the homeless, another bombs abortion clinics - all based on the same book)

Quote: What does the Catholic Church have to answer for on its condom stance?

Are you serious that you don't know the issue, or are you being a tad disingenuous?
:wink:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

(I hope Catholic.org is an acceptable website to you. :wink: :) )

So you make no effort to determine whether what someone says matches up to any reasonable standard of reality?

I understand the issue, I asked what the Church has to answer for?

Quote: So you make no effort to determine whether what someone says matches up to any reasonable standard of reality? How are we to correctly determine who is or isn't something? An extreme example: Phelps considers himself a Christian. He interperts God's word as full or vendgence and hate (quite different than many christians). How are we to know he isn't truly acting like a christian should act? How are we to know he isn't a christian?

[mODULAR mAN]

BTW, Gilbert, thanks for hanging in. I know this seems like a barrage, but you have to admit, they are damn good questions.

I wish more Christians (note the spelling!) were as interested in talking about the complexities of their Faith.

I will admit, it is these questions (not just in this thread but many others) that led me away from religion and theism, but everyone has their own path to follow.

A Hindu friend of mine once said, "God is at the top of the mountain, and their are many paths to the top. God doesn't care which path you take, as long as you pick a path, stay on it and try to reach him."

Now, of course, if this is true, AND there is a God, I am on a path of skeptisism, and a truly Good God cannot judge me harshly for not tacitly believing. (This is in contradiction to Christianity, but I'm OK with that).

For me, What iota of spirituality I have, is based on the joy of life - of questioning, of using the mind, and other parts of my body...


Blah, blah, blah - etc.... (I realized I'm spouting).


Cheers, Gilbert for not ditching and taking on some tough questions.