Originally posted by frogstomp seeking is would be easier and so too would be finding, if you knew what to seek and that what is what you are missing in the way you read those passages.
As I've said once before, one can read an endorsement of genocide into Cinderella if one wants to by taking text fragments out of context.
Originally posted by lucifershammer As I've said once before, one can read an endorsement of genocide into Cinderella if one wants to by taking text fragments out of context.
you can read anything out of context if you want to, however dont try to give that passage a super-context and then give it contextual meaning by limiting the sense to the nearby text. "Tis a shame that you think your pope has all the answers when if fact he doesn't even know what the question is.
Originally posted by KnightWulfe Oh...ya know... I forgot about Animism.....
That has potential too....
Well, I’m already in the Zen/Taoist camp, although my recent project has been to explore it through the monistic (as opposed to monotheistic) streams of Judaism.
BTW, you can certainly follow Taoism and at least Zen Buddhism as an atheist...
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles There is evidence to justify belief in the accuracy of calculators.
But even calculators aren't infallible.
Your belief in papal infallibility is fantasy. There is insufficient evidence to justify belief in it. You make up the difference with faith.
The question of how much evidence is "sufficient" is one I've raised in another thread. I think I have adequate justification to believe in papal infallibility; another person (like you) may very well not.
But all of this is a smoke screen, an attempted ad hominem. You called the position I stated in this thread "nonsense"* - and so far you have not provided any evidence or argument against it. That's why I asked if you think you have refuted my argument by reviling me.
EDIT: * You also called it arrogance. Now, there probably is an element of truth to that; but it has nothing to do with whether my position is valid or not.
Originally posted by lucifershammer The question of how much evidence is "sufficient" is one I've raised in another thread. I think I have adequate justification to believe in papal infallibility; another person (like you) may very well not.
But all of this is a smoke screen, an attempted ad hominem. You called the position I stated in this thread "nonsense" - and so far you h ...[text shortened]... t against it. That's why I asked if you think you have refuted my argument by reviling me.
Yes, I rest my case on my reviling since you have provided no evidence to support your claim. It's your word against mine in this "objective" matter. People may choose to believe you, who would believe or disbelieve in limbo at the drop of a papal declaration, or me.
If you're going to try to build a case that the New Testament was written for Catholics, you should address why it contains one book that was written to the Corinthians.
Originally posted by lucifershammer EDIT: * You also called it arrogance. Now, there probably is an element of truth to that; but it has nothing to do with whether my position is valid or not.
Your position is a matter of opinion, not fact.
It is arrogant to take a subjective issue and declare your position to be objectively true, with the corallary that all who believe otherwise must be ignorant or unmindful of the facts.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles If you're going to try to build a case that the New Testament was written for Catholics, you should address why it contains one book that was written [b]to the Corinthians.[/b]
I don't get your question here. Are you saying there were no Catholics in Corinth?
09 Mar '06 01:52
If you were not to follow....
Back to Top