The Key Point About Specific Religious Debates

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
That possibility is really a sub-case of Deism, as such an hyphothetical god isn't "tinkering" with his creation right now, even if he intends to do so later.

[/ QUOTE ]


Does this mean that your God was a deist God who coverted either 2000 or 5000 years ago? (depending if you want to call the start of the Christian God at the time of Christ or the rise of Judaism)


Beyond that, Im curious as to how you typically deal with questions like

1) Why does God let bad things happen to good people?
2) Why doesnt God make his existence more clear?

etc, etc

(yes, I know they are bland questions, but I do have a point)

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Why does God let bad things happen to good people?
2) Why doesnt God make his existence more clear?
...

(yes, I know they are bland questions, but I do have a point)

[/ QUOTE ]
Ishmael - as much as we probably agree here on our (non) religious viewpoints, I must point out that when you pose these two questions, you are assuming that people are capable of assessing what "bad" and "good" mean, and you are assuming that skepticism, rather than faith, is "good." Both of these assumptions beg the question, if one is willing to assume that God defines these matters, and David's original post seems willing to grant that assumption, should a believer admit to it.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
So all you have left then is Deism, Catholicism and Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have pared down all the religions of the world, some now defunct or in the dust bin of History, to only three. That is quite a feat.


So I assume that you include the Eastern Orthodox Church and Copic Christians under the hierarchy of Catholicism? That is an ex cathedra statement loaded with chutzpah. Do you have the authority to make this kind of statement? I want Peter666's take on this.

[ QUOTE ]
Then as far as christianity by itself, it's a slam dunk that catholicism is more likely to be true than protestantism

[/ QUOTE ]

The gantlet has been thrown down. Where are the odds makers for this one?

-Zeno, The Antipope

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So all you have left then is Deism, Catholicism and Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have pared down all the religions of the world, some now defunct or in the dust bin of History, to only three. That is quite a feat.


So I assume that you include the Eastern Orthodox Church and Copic Christians under the hierarchy of Catholicism? That is an ex cathedra statement loaded with chutzpah. Do you have the authority to make this kind of statement? I want Peter666's take on this.

[ QUOTE ]
Then as far as christianity by itself, it's a slam dunk that catholicism is more likely to be true than protestantism

[/ QUOTE ]

The gantlet has been thrown down. Where are the odds makers for this one?

-Zeno, The Antipope

[/ QUOTE ]

The odds are quite good with that Bluff's lumping of Catholicism/Orthox/Coptic Traditions is correct, since each has direct and provable lines of successors dating back to the 12 Apostles (Apostolic succession, we call it). Protestants have no such claim to apostolic succession. Lack of apostolic succession is a compelling argument to throw Protestantism out the running for Faith most likely to be true.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So all you have left then is Deism, Catholicism and Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have pared down all the religions of the world, some now defunct or in the dust bin of History, to only three. That is quite a feat.


So I assume that you include the Eastern Orthodox Church and Copic Christians under the hierarchy of Catholicism? That is an ex cathedra statement loaded with chutzpah. Do you have the authority to make this kind of statement? I want Peter666's take on this.

[ QUOTE ]
Then as far as christianity by itself, it's a slam dunk that catholicism is more likely to be true than protestantism

[/ QUOTE ]

The gantlet has been thrown down. Where are the odds makers for this one?

-Zeno, The Antipope

[/ QUOTE ]

The odds are quite good with that Bluff's lumping of Catholicism/Orthox/Coptic Traditions is correct, since each has direct and provable lines of successors dating back to the 12 Apostles (Apostolic succession, we call it). Protestants have no such claim to apostolic succession. Lack of apostolic succession is a compelling argument to throw Protestantism out the running for Faith most likely to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that many of the practices of the Catholic Church that Protestants eschew are deeply rooted in Scripture and tradition (as handed down via apostolic succession)

[rainonacongadrum]

[ QUOTE ]

If somebody wants to claim that he personally has information or experience not available to all and that he therefore can't expect others to have his specific beliefs that's fine (except to some hardcore atheists.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing 98% of atheists wouldn't like that answer--not just hardcore ones. Secret knowledge...eh...

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If somebody wants to claim that he personally has information or experience not available to all and that he therefore can't expect others to have his specific beliefs that's fine (except to some hardcore atheists.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing 98% of atheists wouldn't like that answer--not just hardcore ones. Secret knowledge...eh...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you read the last half of the DS statement you quoted.

luckyme

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
For one, just about any Catholic on this board regarding the holiness and legitimacy of the church (and the beliefs which stem from this).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually we don’t, Phil. When you include “un beliefs” the odds change dramatically. (But, like I have asked rhetorically before – is 1 in 1000 or 1 in a googolplex good odds or bad relative to God?)

[rainonacongadrum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If somebody wants to claim that he personally has information or experience not available to all and that he therefore can't expect others to have his specific beliefs that's fine (except to some hardcore atheists.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing 98% of atheists wouldn't like that answer--not just hardcore ones. Secret knowledge...eh...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you read the last half of the DS statement you quoted.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about this part?:

If somebody wants to claim that he is making a leap of faith when he takes the information available to all and from that gets to his specific religious belief even though he admits that pure logic would assert that his information is less than 50 percent to lead to his specific beliefs, that's also fine (again except to some hardcore atheists.)

[thanksalot187]

Keep pushing DS Im sorry things came to this, you are truly an enlightened (not sure of spelling) man. I wish I could continue to fight with you. Unfortnatly I cant, but please keep pushing I beg you.

Michael Steven Hoydilla