(May 15, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'm a Catholic. You have questions. Let's get started.

How does superman fly faster?

(May 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 5:20 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes, I am a convert from Protestantism...American-made all the way.

As for what it's like, I have nothing to compare it to.

Here is the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC...only slightly smaller than the Church at Fatima:

Pretty building... let's see if I can summon on of Fatima:

It's pretty much the same size as the Vatican!


It seems you missed all my remaining points... Care to go back and see what you missed?

I didn't miss it...I just decided not to respond.

If you have a particular question about Catholicism, please ask away.

---

(May 18, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 5:20 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Excellent question. 

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)

by James Akin
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...ecnum=3447
 
1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.
3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

Premise 1 is an example of the existential fallacy, unless you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as "being saved."

I can define it, and I can make a probable (though uncertain) evaluation of whether someone is saved based upon some knowledge of their lifestyle, etc., but I cannot demonstrate unless we agree that either someone has met the Christian Church's general standards for salvation or they haven't. 

If you concede that "being saved" is a matter of meeting a certain standard, then it may be possible to at least describe what being saved looks like.

(May 18, 2015 at 6:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Premise 1 is an example of the existential fallacy, unless you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as "being saved."

I can define it, and I can make a probable (though uncertain) evaluation of whether someone is saved based upon some knowledge of their lifestyle, etc., but I cannot demonstrate unless we agree that either someone has met the Christian Church's general standards for salvation or they haven't. 

If you concede that "being saved" is a matter of meeting a certain standard, then it may be possible to at least describe what being saved looks like.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, being saved requires involvement of a powerful supernatural being, along with some metaphysical postulates such as sin, soul, redemption and so forth. If you can demonstrate all that, I'd be most impressed.

You can start by demonstrating the existence of the big guy...

Nice architecture....







Fucking phonies.

(May 18, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What would change your mind about Christ, God and the Catholic church?  What would it take for you not to believe?

I suppose that if I were captured by ISIS, tortured, and watched all my family be slaughtered before my eyes, then I might be tempted to despair. Conversely, I might be greatly comforted by the presence of God during such a trial, so it's hard to say.

Beyond the doubt caused by extreme suffering, I'm not sure I can envision anything that would rattle me too much at this point.

---

(May 18, 2015 at 7:19 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 6:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I can define it, and I can make a probable (though uncertain) evaluation of whether someone is saved based upon some knowledge of their lifestyle, etc., but I cannot demonstrate unless we agree that either someone has met the Christian Church's general standards for salvation or they haven't. 

If you concede that "being saved" is a matter of meeting a certain standard, then it may be possible to at least describe what being saved looks like.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, being saved requires involvement of a powerful supernatural being, along with some metaphysical postulates such as sin, soul, redemption and so forth.  If you can demonstrate all that, I'd be most impressed.

You can start by demonstrating the existence of the big guy...

Oh, well, if that's all you wanted, why didn't you say so in the first place? 

Seriously, what kind of proof would you find convincing, Jorm? Are you open to logical proofs?

---

(May 18, 2015 at 7:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Nice architecture....







Fucking phonies.

Here's a little response to your point that I put together awhile back:

Why is the Church so rich? Why doesn’t the Church sell its property and give to the poor? The Cardinals and Pope should be like the wandering monks of the Middle Ages.

 
They could all be wandering monks, I suppose, but then where would the Vatican keep all its secret files?

The Church needs buildings in which to conduct its meetings and to run its day to day affairs. Protestants also have large churches (the National Cathedral (Episcopal) in Washington, DC is the sixth or seventh largest Church in the world), and Bob Jones University has a very large art collection. Why don't they sell all their "stuff" as an example for us?
 
The fact is that the Catholic Church maintains these buildings in the same way that the US Government maintains national parks, monuments, and historic buildings. Should the government sell all of its land and property to pay off the national debt? Or is there some advantage in maintaining these treasures so that everyone can enjoy them? Similarly, the Church holds its property, art, libraries and archives as treasures open to all.

Sadly, there is little cash flow generated from these things relative to the cost of upkeep, so the Vatican routinely needs to request additional money just to break-even on an annual basis. This annual collection is called "Peter's Pence."
 
Finally, are you envious that people have donated their time and money to glorify God through works of art and fine architecture? Does the Church have the right to take what has been donated to God in past centuries and put it all on the auction block without regard for what the original donors desired?

Like I said....fucking phonies.

(May 18, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 5:20 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.
 

So what?

I can come up with an endless list of logically valid syllogisms that do not prove their conclusions, because they are not sound. 


For an syllogism to prove its conclusion it has to be both valid and sound.

If the syllogism is valid, then which premise is unsound?

(May 18, 2015 at 6:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote: It seems you missed all my remaining points... Care to go back and see what you missed?

I didn't miss it...I just decided not to respond.

If you have a particular question about Catholicism, please ask away.

That's unfortunate... Why did you decide not to address those points?

I have no particular question about catholicism... I was looking for your catholic apologist view on those subjects I mentioned earlier.... even if you can only provide one liners to the TLDR version.

(May 18, 2015 at 7:42 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 6:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I didn't miss it...I just decided not to respond.

If you have a particular question about Catholicism, please ask away.

That's unfortunate... Why did you decide not to address those points?

I have no particular question about catholicism... I was looking for your catholic apologist view on those subjects I mentioned earlier.... even if you can only provide one liners to the TLDR version.

Because there are 30 or more of you and only one of me. So, I'm happy to answer questions one at a time, but no shotgun posts, okay? One question per post, please.

I'll do my best.

Ok, how do you compare the current understanding of such fields as history, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, politics... and physics with the religion's requirement of faith in a relatively powerful entity that could, if it so wished, present itself to every single thinking being on this planet and dispose of faith altogether, thus ending any and all animosity that exists and may come to exist due to divergences of belief?