Quote:Uh oh.  Can't have God talk in a thread about God.

Yes, we can. What we can't have is bullshit trolls running around. But please go back to your victim tactics.

If science can impress upon us the reality that the bible is scientifically ignorant, then clearly god isn't omniscient.

(August 22, 2021 at 6:06 am)Mashmont Wrote: Serving others is always the very best way to live.  Subjugation of selfish interests, making sacrifices, self-denial is always the best way to live.

If only Christians actually believed this and lived this way, I would be more supportive.  When you watch Christians, this is not a trait that becomes evident.

(August 21, 2021 at 5:22 am)Ahriman Wrote: Since when does science upstage God? That's actually laughable. Science didn't give me an enriching Catholic education. Science didn't give me the ability to learn how to play guitar. Science didn't give me the wonderful dachshund sleeping next to me right now. God did all of those things.

Gawd gave you none of that. Your parent's made the choice to run you through the kathy-lick indoctrination mill. Artists gave you the guitar, and scientists allowed you to plug it in and really rock the house. Breeders, following the laws laid out by evolution, even though they weren't yet understood, gave you the dachshund, along with every other variety of domesticated K-9s.

No gawds needed.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 5:25 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: We recently rescinded our rule against replying to old posts, a process called 'necroposting'.

Boru

Oh, ok.  Thanks.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 5:24 am)arewethereyet Wrote: Where does one find a herd of wild dachsunds?

I don’t get it.

Color my 100% unsurprised. 

---

(August 21, 2021 at 9:30 am)Mashmont Wrote: Prior to Edison capturing light in the electric lightbulb from the ether, that would have been perceived as a miracle.  But when you understand enough science,  the miracle becomes understandable.

And you just keep pushing your gawd into smaller and smaller gaps.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 9:30 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 8:59 am)Ahriman Wrote: You're right about the biases. I just think in terms of magic, miracles, angels, demons, all that stuff. My tendency to think that way, actually became more pronounced after I left Catholicism, almost as if God was saying, "No Jacob, come back, we need you". I used to have friends and a social life, so maybe back then, I didn't feel as much of a need to indulge in magical thinking, because I was more fulfilled?

Miracles are simply science which we do not  yet have the intelligence to understand, and perhaps never will.

Prior to Edison capturing light in the electric lightbulb from the ether, that would have been perceived as a miracle.  But when you understand enough science,  the miracle becomes understandable.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 5:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Dachshunds are a human-created breed. German dog breeders took multiple generations of artificial selection to come up with the animal you know as a dachshund.

Boru

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 7:12 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: But what about figures like Gandhi? Do they count as proof of Vishnu?

Gandhi, while a man of accomplishment, had blemishes in his personal life, including a love affair with a woman not his wife.  Had he been Catholic, he probably would not have been canonized as a saint.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 7:24 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The cannonized saints?  We talking about the ones who flew around churches and made animals talk...or?  I don't wanna be completely dismissive here, and I suspect that those guys probably handed out alot of bread or made alot of bread for the catholic church.  That's amazing, in it's own right - but they lose me when they get to the whole verified miracles thing.

I can't think of any canonized saint who was involved in making money for the Catholic Church.  They were all either very poor or renounced their family wealth.  But they performed outsized accomplishments of good for mankind.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 11:31 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 11:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: She raised hundreds of millions of dollars to ostensibly help the poor. Virtually none of the money was spent to help the poor. It sat in the Vatican Bank.

Boru

Why would people send money to a Vatican bank instead of to the Sisters of Charity?   But assuming this is so, and assuming it was mismanaged by a few bad people,  I would say two things.  1)  Fallible humans do bad things sometimes, and they exist in every organization.  2) How do you make the leap that bringing in money to the Vatican is a prerequisite for Sainthood, even through this example?

You keep using this "just a few bad people" excuse every time someone exposes yet another crime against humanity by the RCC. How many will it take before you realize it's the RCC itself that's corrupt and not "just a few" people. Just a few did this, just a few did that, just a few molested kids, just a few took bribes, just a few redirected the donations, just a few... just a few... just a few.

It's really not "just a few."

(August 22, 2021 at 9:06 am)Spongebob Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 6:06 am)Mashmont Wrote: Serving others is always the very best way to live.  Subjugation of selfish interests, making sacrifices, self-denial is always the best way to live.

If only Christians actually believed this and lived this way, I would be more supportive.  When you watch Christians, this is not a trait that becomes evident.

Also, it's comical that he believes a god is necessary for those actions.

(August 21, 2021 at 8:07 pm)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 8:02 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: And what evidence do you have for any of those outrageous claims?

Simple.  I look beyond two feet in front of my face.

Your near vision must really suck if you have to hold your holy book that far away.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 8:17 pm)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 8:16 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: A personal anecdote is not evidence of anything. I asked an honest question. Instead of presenting evidence for your claims you have done a dance around it. You are intellectually dishonest.

It wasn't an honest question.  It never is.

Rather than answer his question, or admit you don't have any evidence, you impugn his integrity. You really are a fucking piece of work Mushamon.

---

(August 22, 2021 at 6:06 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 4:24 am)░I░G░N░O░R░A░M░U░S ░ Wrote: It cracks me how theists "think" that they need evidence for having "faith" in their pet sky fairy.
They're not actually trying to convince us of anything. They already have faith. They're trying to convince themselves because that niggling suspicion in the back of their mind is always there!

The one that says:

What if I'm wasting my time because there's no god!
What if my god is the wrong god to believe in and not the one true god.
What are the chances of the god I believe in which are predicated entirely on a geopolitical happenstance as to where my parents were born and subsequently which religion was shoved down their throats from good ol' gramps...
What if I'm just a gullible fool and the atheists are right?

Hey theists. I apologize to any genuine non trolling theists here.  Please don't respond with anything other than: I have faith, I need no evidence. That's a great answer. But then if that was your attitude, you guys probably wouldn't be here.

/rant

Here is why living the Catholic life is the best life possible:  Because the life is not just the best way to live for getting to Heaven;  it is also the best way to live here on earth.  It leads to the best happiest results.  Serving others is always the very best way to live.  Subjugation of selfish interests, making sacrifices, self-denial is always the best way to live.

Don't forget the shame and the guilt. Nobody does shame and guilt like you kathy-licks.

(August 22, 2021 at 10:31 am)brewer Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 9:06 am)Spongebob Wrote: If only Christians actually believed this and lived this way, I would be more supportive.  When you watch Christians, this is not a trait that becomes evident.

Also, it's comical that he believes a god is necessary for those actions.

That is another good point.  It certainly is not necessary.  I would say that it requires conscious choice and that must be grounded in some sort of philosophy.  It doesn't just happen by chance because humans are inherently selfish.  But there's ample evidence to demonstrate that adherence to a religious philosophy isn't necessary, although it can certainly be done through a religious philosophy.  Just happens that the message so easily gets lost and morphs into self-righteousness.

[quote pid='1675432' dateline='1513840811']
I'm glad you asked! Let's dig into this post and question what you've said. I will go one at a time and maybe we can get a good conversation going. I will defend the Christian God of the Bible. I am not advocating for a general theism. I think general theism has as many holes and inconsistencies as atheism.

You ask "why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have an alternate natural, more feasible explanation"

Because your conclusions are formed by your presuppositions. You're not a neutral truth seeking autonomous being and I'll show you why I say that:

1. You have decided there is no God and that "everything has a alternate, more feasible explanation." Even though that isn't true, and if it were true you couldn't prove that it's true because you don't know everything. In fact, I would challenge you that the big bang and evolution are both "more feasible". I think there is evidence to challenge that.

2. "More feasible" to you means naturalistic. So immediately you preclude the supernatural in your premises because you assume they are less feasible.

So this affects the way you look at the universe. There is nothing wrong with the evidence. It's very clear that God exists. In Romans 1 God tells us that people

"suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Meaning God has clearly shown you at least two things about himself: his eternal power and divine nature. And these two things are so clear that your unbelief is inexcusable. In fact, the word there "without excuse" is the Greek word we get apologetics from. So what he is actually saying is that you are without a reasonable defense.

You see, you never question yourself, your presuppositions, or what formed your worldview. The problem is not with the evidence, it's with you and the way you view the evidence.

[/quote]

How about an intro post. We have a thread for that.

Let us get to know you...I am curious what a 'reformed Christian' is. Were you unformed and had to be put back together?

In the simplest way, Reformed is a denomination, like Baptist or Presbyterian. But it's more nuanced than that, really. Its a whole system of theology.