The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

Lol, I just quoted the Catechism. I obviously don't deny its Truth. Yes, Baptism of Desire exists, and Baptism of Desire, as St. Thomas explains, means an act of faith in Christ, and an act of contrition for our sins. St. Thomas also explains the one saved by Baptism of Desire will go to Purgatory. It has some of the effects of Sacramental Baptism but not all. Sacramental Baptism takes a soul to Heaven even without Purgatory, provided he dies shortly thereafter without committing any sin. Bottom line: those who have heard of Christ at least are bound to accept Him as Lord and Savior, and be contrite for their former sins.

Christ said: "Unless a man be born again of Water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

In these words, He sufficiently taught that once we know Baptism to be necessary, we must receive this Re-Birth/Regeneration in Water and in Spirit, to enter the Kingdom of God. This is what also all the Church's Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier and St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland, knew very well.

That's just the problem. You can't assume they "know (or believe) that Baptism is necessary". 
There is NOTHING in Roman Theology as taught today that says "It has some of the effects of Sacramental Baptism but not all."
You're denying you church's teaching.

[Nishant Xavier]

Oh pls. You obviously have never read this: "161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end." http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm

Believing in Jesus is necessary for attaining Salvation. It's that simple. If Baptism is out of reach, one can make an act of Contrition. When Baptism is within reach, one is strictly commanded by Christ to do all in one's power to receive it: "1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC 1257).

You don't understand the one or two passages you try to wrest out of context. That is speaking of hypothetical cases like the proverbial virtuous pagan on a native pagan island who has not yet heard the Gospel of Christ. They are bound to serve God according to their Conscience. They are not bound to more than that, until they have heard the Gospel. Even Christ said: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

You should read the incidents in Church History about those proverbial virtuous pagans. I recall one of them well: Priests who were laboring in distant mission fields to bring souls to Baptism and Salvation came upon a native tribe: This tribe already worshipped whom they called "The Great Spirit". The Priests were amazed at the simple faith of these simple men. The people gave thanks, "that the Great Spirit" had sent "Black Robes" (by which they meant, Christian Priests), to show them the way to Salvation. The Priests marveled and gave them Baptism, and taught them faith in Christ, and contrasted their piety, humility, simplicity and nobility to the proud godlessness that Atheism and such related opinions lead to.

[Nishant Xavier]

Here is Saint Thomas: "Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15." https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm

[The Grand Nudger]

Anthony Flew became a Deistic Theist after many years of discussions and debates, including with Dr. William Lane Craig, God Bless him for it.

Anthony Flew, seemingly at the very door of Christianity and Salvation also said: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” Amen. Well said. And yet we do not know if he made the final leap of faith before the end of his life; I hope for his sake that he did, so that he could now be in Heaven, or at least in Purgatory, and destined for Heaven in its own due time.

But all this goes to show, evidence does matter, arguments do matter, and they help people, in due time, who want to know the Truth, come to be saved. I agree with Dr. Craig's approach on the subject generally, which is also very Augustino-Thomistic, and places Logic and Reason in its proper place.

-and if he didn't, then he's in the other place, according to your understanding of a fairy tale.  

The sign off at the end, though, about logic and reason being put in it's proper place, is closer to what and why you actually believe.  Not based upon arguments or debate, no more so than anyone else..or, in fact, any of the atheists here. You're swirling the drain of contemporary cultural framing..where people who believe and people who don't argue over who has the better claim to reason, not who better argued their way into either position - because none of us did. Both sides in that disagreement have come to see the value of reason as determinative, even when it isn't operative. In this, you're as secularized as the next atheist in line, and facing the same fate as flew, in your understanding.

Do you want to be a good..or at least proficient.... advocate and disseminator for your faith? Cut all this horseshit out. You know you didn't argue your way into it. You know you've never argued anyone else into it, and you know you've never met anyone who's been argued into it. Lean into world building. Lean into moral community. Talk about the world as you wish it were, as you think it should be. Every moment you spend arguing with reality as it is is completely wasted and thoroughly counterproductive. Just you taking up doomed positions for fear that without them, your worldview will crumble. If your worldview is so uninteresting that you won't talk about it, and so fragile that it needs a cretins defense...then nvm. Forget everything I said, you have nothing worth sharing, nothing worth calling a religion, and nothing worthy of a god, if there were one. Continue along, as per your usual, the butt of a joke that you're not in on.

[Angrboda]

Here is Saint Thomas: "Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15." https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm

Which, as has already been noted, is not authoritative. You just keep repeating the points that already have defeaters. You are not arguing in good faith.

[Bucky Ball]

I don't give a shit about Aquinas.

You can do all the quotes you want, you are denying the effectiveness of the Baptism of Desire.
You, dishonestly attempting to claim I am attempting "wrest out of control" is nothing but dishonesty. The Catechism says what it does. Period.
It also says that humans absolutely have freedom of conscience .. if someone honestly does not believe, and acting in good conscience, they are saved.
How is it you are so ignorant of what your church teaches ?

No one said anything about belief, idiot. You just revel in the idea only believers go to heaven. That is not what your church teaches.
The Catechism says you're wrong. So does St. Paul :
Romans 3:22 "This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Nothing about baptism.
When the young man in Matthew asked what he has to do to gain eternal life, Jesus told him, "Keep the commandments". That's it. Period.

Oh well, we can sign you up for Catholicism 101.

Aquinas said some pretty stupid shit.
He said he thought women were stupid. "The reason the tempter went to Eve first was that the light of reason shone less brightly in her". LOLOL
He said going to heaven and seeing god was not quite all it was cracked up to be. You could be happier, and in fact you got to be so according the vindictive Angelic Doctor :
You got to see the suffering of your enemies in hell, and that idea made him happy and would make those in heaven happier. LOLOL
Best to make some enemies, so you can watch them suffer.

[Nishant Xavier]

St. Thomas is not authoritative as to what Catholic Teaching is? According to whom? He is the Church's Angelic Doctor and Model Theologian. You should read what Pope Leo XIII says in praise of him and Scholastic Theology in general: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/...atris.html

---

16. Although these words seem to bear reference solely to Scholastic theology, nevertheless they may plainly be accepted as equally true of philosophy and its praises. For, the noble endowments which make the Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth-to wit, as the same Pontiff adds, "that ready and close coherence of cause and effect, that order and array as of a disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that strength of argument and those keen discussions, by which light is distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and strip naked, as it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges and fallacies"(33) - those noble and admirable endowments, We say, are only to be found in a right use of that philosophy which the Scholastic teachers have been accustomed carefully and prudently to make use of even in theological disputations ...

22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

---

Yeah, sure. The Summa Theologica, which the Catholic Church placed on the Altar in the Council of Trent, next to Sacred Scripture, and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, is not authoritative in the Catholic Church. Next.
Just what are you arguing for anyway, Angrboda? That there is no distinction between mortal sin, and venial sin, and temporal punishment for sin? I doubt you understand these technical matters of Theology, so your false accusation is unwarranted. I considered being a Priest for a certain time before I decided to become an Investment Banker. If if were not in IB, I would be a Priest.
Anyway, I quoted the Catechism establishing the same point. The Catechism certainly is authoritative and it explains the matter clearly enough.
GN, I came to personal faith in Christ after I experienced His Love in my heart after Holy Communion. I knew God exists and was real, and that His Love was wonderful, even apart from any philosophy. Dr. Craig came to faith in a similar way. Then later on, we discovered Theological Arguments, with what even Dr. Craig calls "A Great Tradition", referring to those like Augustine and Thomas. Read what Pope Leo XIII said about Scholastic Theology in general. The Scholastic/Medieval Doctors of Theology were always accustomed to use Reason in Theological Disputations.

[Angrboda]

We debate and discuss these weighty matters of God's Creation and Design, of Objective Morality, Christ's Resurrection, and Personal Religious Experience, because things of such great value are at stake.

It's special to you because you lack something when it comes to the faculty of judgment. As a consequence, you lack perspective and humility.

[Bucky Ball]

Oh pls. You obviously have never read this: "161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end." http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm

Believing in Jesus is necessary for attaining Salvation. It's that simple. If Baptism is out of reach, one can make an act of Contrition. When Baptism is within reach, one is strictly commanded by Christ to do all in one's power to receive it: "1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC 1257).

You don't understand the one or two passages you try to wrest out of context. That is speaking of hypothetical cases like the proverbial virtuous pagan on a native pagan island who has not yet heard the Gospel of Christ. They are bound to serve God according to their Conscience. They are not bound to more than that, until they have heard the Gospel. Even Christ said: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

You should read the incidents in Church History about those proverbial virtuous pagans. I recall one of them well: Priests who were laboring in distant mission fields to bring souls to Baptism and Salvation came upon a native tribe: This tribe already worshipped whom they called "The Great Spirit". The Priests were amazed at the simple faith of these simple men. The people gave thanks, "that the Great Spirit" had sent "Black Robes" (by which they meant, Christian Priests), to show them the way to Salvation. The Priests marveled and gave them Baptism, and taught them faith in Christ, and contrasted their piety, humility, simplicity and nobility to the proud godlessness that Atheism and such related opinions lead to.

St. Thomas is not authoritative as to what Catholic Teaching is? According to whom? He is the Church's Angelic Doctor and Model Theologian. You should read what Pope Leo XIII says in praise of him and Scholastic Theology in general: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/...atris.html




Yeah, sure. The Summa Theologica, which the Catholic Church placed on the Altar in the Council of Trent, next to Sacred Scripture, and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, is not authoritative in the Catholic Church. Next.
Just what are you arguing for anyway, Angrboda? That there is no distinction between mortal sin, and venial sin, and temporal punishment for sin? I doubt you understand these technical matters of Theology, so your false accusation is unwarranted. I considered being a Priest for a certain time before I decided to become an Investment Banker. If if were not in IB, I would be a Priest.
Anyway, I quoted the Catechism establishing the same point. The Catechism certainly is authoritative and it explains the matter clearly enough.
GN, I came to personal faith in Christ after I experienced His Love in my heart after Holy Communion. I knew God exists and was real, and that His Love was wonderful, even apart from any philosophy. Dr. Craig came to faith in a similar way. Then later on, we discovered Theological Arguments, with what even Dr. Craig calls "A Great Tradition", referring to those like Augustine and Thomas. Read what Pope Leo XIII said about Scholastic Theology in general. The Scholastic/Medieval Doctors of Theology were always accustomed to use Reason in Theological Disputations.

I don't give a shit about Aquinas, I don't give a shit about Pope Leo. 
Tell me what document, dogma or Papal Proclamation you are talking about, that proclaims Aquinas authoritative on all matters ? 
Hint :Encyclicals are not infallible.
"Encyclicals are not necessarily “infallible” statements—although they can be if the pope wants to go through that process."
Take your time.

[Nishant Xavier]

CCC 1263 on the effects of Baptism: "1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God." (CCC 1263).

I may lack many things, Angrboda, but the discussion is not about me. [I am striving for Sanctity, but I don't claim to be a saint. God will make Saints of those who surrender their lives to Him and live in obedience to Him.] The discussion is about whether a First Cause of the Universe exists, an Eternal First Being who caused all Temporal Beings to begin to exist. The evidences given earlier in this thread fairly make the case for that. Since Bn depends on Bn-1 for all temporal n, this series could not go on until infinity. Granted that we got here, there was a being B2, who depended on a non-Temporal, i.e. Eternal B1. Since there was no B0, B1 is Eternal, i.e. has no Beginning or End.

The reasons for this were given earlier. Anyone who actually ends up counting to infinity may show me his results, and I'll concede the Argument. Lol.