Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Huggy Bear]

for instance the latin name for the Indian rhinoceros is "Rhinoceros Unicornis",...

This isn't accurate. Rhinoceros and unicornis are both latin words; however, Rhinoceros Unicornis is the scientific name for that species of rhinoceros.

Rhinoceros is the latin word for rhinoceros. I'm sure you'll find some way to be intellectually dishonest about this too.

Hold up wait...

Did you not see me specify INDIAN rhinoceros? What part of "the latin name for the Indian rhinoceros is "Rhinoceros Unicornis" is untrue?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's not a mistraslation, it's a LATIN word not english. for instance the latin name for the Indian rhinoceros is "Rhinoceros Unicornis", there are other latin words found in the old testament e.g. "Lucifer".

Then why were unicorns, not rhinoceruses, depicted in Christian art? The Latin was clearly mistranslated into the English of the time.

duplicate

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[loganonekenobi]

In the catagory of questions not answered.... God or no what IS real is the perception that this particular god is real to allot of citizens. This in turn could be put to the vote and, in a possible future, make this country a christian nation. There are a few very vocal people that want this. It is unlikely to happen but it could.
so in that catagory of questions.... what would my life look like should that happen. I read some where that the pope would not force conversion of non catholics but history proves that completely wrong....ask the hispanics that where former sun worshiping Aztecs.

[Randy Carson]

Very clever, Jenny. But I am becoming wise to the way the word games are played in this forum. In post 295, Nope said there is no God. That is a positive claim. But you know she never claimed to be able to prove it, so you asked the question in such a way as to make it look like no evidence is required. Very, very clever.
 

No, not particularly clever.  Very ordinary in fact.  That's the way all positive claims are dealt with, unicorns included.  If you say there are no unicorns, it's highly unlikely anyone will say prove it because that's not the way the burden of proof works. What we expect is for unicorn believers to prove unicorns.  It's only when we reach god that you want to turn the rules of burden of proof on their head.

As you also know, there IS evidence for the resurrection which would support Jesus' claims of divinity.

So, it's not that there is NO evidence...just none that you are willing to accept for reasons known only to yourself.

I'll be happy to tell you why.  The evidence for unicorns consists of descriptions of them in bestiaries, a few classical references, tapestries, and the missidentification of the the narwhal horn.   It's far from sufficient.  The evidence for the resurrection consists of three anonymous accounts (one of which has only an angle saying see empty tomb) written at least three decades after the event and obviously not  by eye witness, a faked shroud, and a vision by Paul.  Looks about even evidence to me with unicorns being the more likely of the two as a horned horse or deer isn't really all that unlikely though one that heals people with it's horn and only appears to virgins approaches the unlikelihood of the resurrection.  Joseph Smith's golden tablets are more likely as at least we have some actual eyewitness testimony.  Though given the claim, that's far from sufficient for the tablets either.

Are you willing to consider Mormonism, then?

[Randy Carson]

Are you ignoring me, Randy?

I asked you a direct question and I'd appreciate an answer.

I'm not online every day, so I've lost track.

What was the question? Post?

[Longhorn]

[Randy Carson]

[Longhorn]

Out in the open? No. I'll start by asking if you've ever had a personal revelation.