Posted on 10/27/2005 11:50:06 AM PDT by emiller
"No, that is a more apt discussion of yourself. I won the debate handily and have no reason to continue it. It is you who continues it, and continues it in a whinny fashion no less."
- LOL. Hold your head up high and breathe a sigh of relief! Vladimir the great has spoken! :D
"I understand both comments perfectly well. If you do not wish to respond then don't. You are under no obligation to do so. You may write "bye" as often and in as varied a number of ways you may conceive. That in no way means I must not respond when I see reason to. What part of that do you not understand? If you don't want to respond then don't."
- LOL. Ok. Then I’ll keep responding then. :D
"Yes, actually I proved quite a few things: 1) you have no idea of what you're talking about, 2) you know nothing about the relevant sources, 3) you can't think and therefore can't conceive of cause and effect in operation."
- Repeating the same nonsense over and over won’t make it come true. How’s that for cause and effect? :D
"Except that I used sources which are too reputable to simply be dismissed as "Christian biased"."
- LOL. No they aren’t. Prove it. :D
"Not apparently from reputable sources since you haven't cited ANY."
- LOL. I've cited from encyclopedias, the book of days, from one of your own sources on several occasions, the catholic encyclopedia...Nah...I haven’t cited any. :D
"I never claimed to be important, and you lie when you say I have. Also, what I posted was from a world class expert (you quoted none such)."
- LOL. This answer didn't address the truth in what I stated…and that’s no lie. :D
"no one believed it influenced Christianity in the least."
- LOL. Prove it. Demonstrate that not a single person has ever believed it. :D
"Right, no evidence whatsoever. Notice how you quote no one in your defense? Not a single person? Not one?"
- ROFL. So what you are saying is the 1/4 of 1 percent constitutes proof on your part? Defense!? I didn't make the ridiculous claim…that was you. :D
"So far it is irrefutable - since you have yet to offer evidence against it. And you can't stop posting about it to cover your embarrassment."
- A wee bit presumptuous. But since you can't prove your point only point out someone else’s opinion and try to state it as proof, I'll take your assessment with a grain of salt.
"I never left it."
- That is a matter of opinion and I've already stated I’m not interested in yours. :D
"I will talk about it to whomever I choose."
- When you continue to talk to people who aren't interested in listening and who have asked several times (nicely I might add) for you to desists, it’s called harassment.
"Sure you are. That's why you keep posting and posting and posting - even when you have nothing to say."
- HAHAHAHA. Well apparently, if I had nothing to say then I wouldn’t be posting would I? :D
"Read your Bible. Didn't Paul say it did? Didn't Peter say we are saved through baptism? Didn't the Church teach that baptism forgave sins?"
- This does not constitute proof. Show me the physical evidence. :D
"Transmutes? You misunderstand. No, you mean transubstantiation."
- Same difference. You still can't prove it. Show me the evidence. :D
"You misunderstand. He already forgave everyone for every sin. The priest extends that forgiveness to the sinner who repents and confesses (John 20:21-23)."
- I don't care what the bible says, it isn't proof of anything. Prove that this actually happens as you claim. Show me the evidence. :D
"Again, you misunderstand. God is not separate. He is ONE. There are three persons in the Triune Godhead."
- I get it…kind of like a rocket pop…red, white and blue all on the same stick. Again, you would need to prove this claim. Show me evidence. :D
"Actually you can. It has been shown that radicalized Muslims can be taught a more moderate form of Islam. We might be able to do that at the very moment he wants to kill himself, but it can be done."
- Your answer has nothing to do with the context of the question. Still, you cannot prove or show evidence. But, I wouldn’t stop you from trying…just give a 3 minutes to nuke a bag of popcorn :D
"Faith does not mean to believe in something that is essentially unknowable."
- Yes it does. Why would you need faith if you already knew the answer? I have faith that there is a brain inside your head case. :D
"True faith is impossible without the working of reason."
- First of all...who cares? People can find reason for anything. This does not prove anything. This is just as moronic and stupid a statement as libs saying that I must respect other people’s choices. Hitler found a way to reason away the death of millions of Jews. Furthermore there is no such thing as "true faith". Putting those two words together in succession is an oxymoron. Faith is nothing more than a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. This makes it irrational and illogical…kind of like your whole argument thus far :D
"It must be a pity to be as grossly ignorant as you. To think, your life has been a waste. You were forced to study you claim, and yet you obviously learned nothing. You went through what you seem to think was horrible suffering while studying, and yet you learned nothing. You life has been a waste. How sad."
- Again resorting to personal attacks. Have you learned nothing? This is hilarious. You presume to know my life and what it constitutes yet you have no basis for knowing. Prove your claim. Show me evidence. Prove that my whole life has been a waste. To give you a sporting chance though to test the level of your true faith…I’m holding something…tell me what it is I’m holding and which hand I’m holding it in. I have perfect “true” faith that you will not know the answer to that proposition. :D
This article is media-rot -- the priests are NOT asking to put in Hindu rituals as much as they are asking for Indian style rituals. In short -- like instead of kneeling they have cross-legged sitting, but stil worshipping Jesus not a false deity
You got that right!
JUst a side note.
Are you in Beacon, NY? I'm in CS, NY. If you are in Beacon, it is nice to know that there are other Hudson Valley Freepers.
God Bless.
The Catholic Church has been in India for almost 2000 years (Thomas the Apostle), why is this necessary now?
Someday they will look back on the traditions of the Hindu fathers and say that it is wrong to eat beef of Fridays.
Frenetic,
You wrote:
“LOL. Hold your head up high and breathe a sigh of relief! Vladimir the great has spoken!”
Your attempt at humor? Well, as long as we all remember who used the reputable source written by a world class scholar and that you never even found a single reputable source to back you up we will all know who won the debate.
”LOL. Ok. Then I’ll keep responding then.”
Thanks for proving my point. You were never interested in the truth in the first place.
”Repeating the same nonsense over and over won’t make it come true. How’s that for cause and effect?”
Absolutely true, but I am not merely repeating comments. I am repeating facts that you are not even contesting. I used reputable sources and you did not. You deliberately misrepresented what sources said. You claimed they said one thing when they said another. Those are all facts and I documented that at length.
”LOL. No they aren’t. Prove it.”
No, it is up to you to prove they are biased. Prove for instance that Claussen is biased in favor of Christians when he teaches at a secular university in Germany. I made this point before and you of course never even attempted to prove he was biased. The simple fact is you have no idea of what you are talking about as I have demnonstrated again and again using your own words.
” LOL. I've cited from encyclopedias, the book of days, from one of your own sources on several occasions, the catholic encyclopedia...Nah...I haven’t cited any.”
Incorrect. Here we see your problem telling the truth again. You used the Catholic Encyclopedia, but actually ignored the passage that entirely disagreed with your thesis. You did this with some of the sources I used as well. I would link to a reputable source that actually contained evidence (unlike the sources you came up with on your own) and you would deliberately distort them. You actually claimed they said one thing when they said another. I documented this at length using the actual quotes.
”LOL. This answer didn't address the truth in what I stated…and that’s no lie.”
You can’t recognize the truth. That has already been made clear.
”LOL. Prove it. Demonstrate that not a single person has ever believed it.”
No, the burden is yours. You mentioned, however, a time frame in which no one or almost no one even knew about or discussed Mithraism. That in itself would preclude the theories you hold. Again, cause and effect. If no one, or almost no one, even knew mithraism existed in the time frame you selected then how many people would believe it influenced Christianity?
”ROFL. So what you are saying is the 1/4 of 1 percent constitutes proof on your part? Defense!? I didn't make the ridiculous claim…that was you.”
Present all the quotes from other posters that show they believe you are interested in truth. Please do so here.
”A wee bit presumptuous. But since you can't prove your point only point out someone else’s opinion and try to state it as proof, I'll take your assessment with a grain of salt.”
Again, if you believe you have a case from the other posters’ opinion of you then post their supportive comments here about your desire to know the truth. Please do so.
”That is a matter of opinion and I've already stated I’m not interested in yours.”
It is a matter of fact. Whether or not you recognize that doesn’t change that fact.
"When you continue to talk to people who aren't interested in listening and who have asked several times (nicely I might add) for you to desists, it’s called harassment.”
Wrong. If you post to me I can post in return. You just said you would not stop posting to me: “LOL. Ok. Then I’ll keep responding then.” Clearly you not only want to continue this thread but you are laughing about it (“LOL”) and no one being harrassed would react in such a way. Are you going to lie now and say that I am harrassing you when you yourself clearly show it is you who are insistant on responding and laughing about it as well? I guess you’ll try anything to hide your embarrassment, huh Frenetic? That’s sad. Like I said many posts ago – you’re a liberal.
“HAHAHAHA. Well apparently, if I had nothing to say then I wouldn’t be posting would I?”
No, you post because you have nothing else. You’ve lost everything else.
”This does not constitute proof. Show me the physical evidence.”
Physical evidence? Written texts are not evidence enough? If you say they are not then you don’t even believe in the “evidence” you have been trying to pass off as reputable in this debate thus far. How about trying to be consistent? If we are going to talk about Christian doctrines there is no reason why the Bible should not be used. I guess you’ll resort to any and every tactic to dismiss arguments that so easily defeat your ideas.
” Same difference. You still can't prove it. Show me the evidence.”
No, it is not the same. As GK Chesterton once quipped along the lines of: Being struck by lightening and a lightening bug are two entirely different things. If you want proof of transubstantiation then look at the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. Ever hear of it?
”I don't care what the bible says, it isn't proof of anything. Prove that this actually happens as you claim. Show me the evidence.”
I need only prove that it is a Christian doctrine and I already showed it is scriptural. Whether or not you choose to believe the reality that it exists is another issue that is tied more into your overall dismissal of truth and evidence than in anything encumbent on me.
”I get it…kind of like a rocket pop…red, white and blue all on the same stick. Again, you would need to prove this claim. Show me evidence.”
Simply open the NT and read. God is one God. He is also three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Do you have any early Christian evidence to the contrary?
”Your answer has nothing to do with the context of the question. Still, you cannot prove or show evidence. But, I wouldn’t stop you from trying…just give a 3 minutes to nuke a bag of popcorn.”
No, it is encumbent upon you to show otherwise. Again, radical Muslims have left radical Islam and become moderates. Some have even become Christians.
”Yes it does. Why would you need faith if you already knew the answer?”
You’ve got to be kidding? How can you have faith in something you have no mental concept of at all? You can’t. If you don’t know something on some level than you can’t have faith in it because it doesn’t exist, cannot exist, in your mind for you to have faith in it. Didn’t this essential idea ever occur to you? People have faith in God at least in part because they know Him or believe they know Him. If they could not possibly know Him in any way then they could have no faith in Him whatsoever because they could never even have a thought about Him to put faith in Him. I can’t believe you actually claim to have studied oh so hard when you were young and yet you make these basic logic errors. Remember the Baltimore Catechism? “Q. 150. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.”
You can’t love or serve (or have faith in) what you don’t know, or don’t believe you know, on some level.
“I have faith that there is a brain inside your head case.”
And you would be correct that I have a brain. And I use mine. I wish you would use yours.
”First of all...who cares?”
Anyone who cares about truth cares about faith and reason. You don’t.
“People can find reason for anything. This does not prove anything. This is just as moronic and stupid a statement as libs saying that I must respect other people’s choices.”
Frenetic, you ARE a liberal. You think just like they do. You dismiss faith, you dismiss reason, you dismiss Christianity, you can’t use cause and effect to save your life. You ARE a liberal.
“Hitler found a way to reason away the death of millions of Jews.”
No, he rationalized away the deaths of millions of people. He did not use reason. Rationalizations are conveniences that support poor decisions and immorality. Reason is grounded in absolutes and is about truth and not convenience and is supportive of good, sound decisions and morality. Again, the very idea that you think Hitler was reasonable shows you don’t understand the words you use or you are simply a “feeling” liberal who fears reason.
“Furthermore there is no such thing as "true faith". Putting those two words together in succession is an oxymoron.”
Incorrect. If there is a God, then He is true for there can only be one God. If there is a way of viewing that God that is correct – and by the laws of logic there must be – then there is a true faith because that true faith would be the proper way to view God.
“Faith is nothing more than a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
There you go again, mixing two different definitions of a word as if they were the same. True faith is a refernce to an absolute, objective. The other faith you are talking about is subjective. You really don’t know the difference to you?
“This makes it irrational and illogical…kind of like your whole argument thus far”
Your inability to use words properly is what makes things irrational and illogical Frenetic. Again and again, we see that your education, which you swore you worked so hard at while you were a child actually wasn’t very good. You don’t even know how to understand basic terminology well. How sad.
”Again resorting to personal attacks.”
How on earth is expressing pity at your wasted life a personal attack? Your life, in terms of your oh so terrible, horrible, it was so hard that priests were shocked, blah, blah, education was clearly a waste. You lament your suffering, but your suffering seems to have been in vain. You can’t even understand faith.
“Have you learned nothing? This is hilarious. You presume to know my life and what it constitutes yet you have no basis for knowing.”
So your own posts about your youth and your oh so harsh education were all lies? Is that what you’re now saying?
“Prove your claim. Show me evidence. Prove that my whole life has been a waste.”
If reading your own posts where you can’t even get basic terminology right isn’t proof enough then what else could be? Please explain then why you do not understand “faith”.
“To give you a sporting chance though to test the level of your true faith…I’m holding something…tell me what it is I’m holding and which hand I’m holding it in. I have perfect “true” faith that you will not know the answer to that proposition.”
Frenetic, nice try, but we both know your education obviously stunk in regard to religion, logic, history, the Bible, common sense and the fourth commandment.
" attempt at humor? Well, as long as we all remember who used the reputable source written by a world class scholar and that you never even found a single reputable source to back you up we will all know who won the debate."
- And I've already posted several reputable sources including your own that say otherwise. Try harder. :D
"Thanks for proving my point. You were never interested in the truth in the first place."
- Yor claim is baseless. Try harder. :D
"It is a matter of fact. Whether or not you recognize that doesn’t change that fact."
- No. It is a matter of opinion. I don't need to recognize opinions nor do I have to accept them as fact. Try harder :D
"Absolutely true, but I am not merely repeating comments. I am repeating facts that you are not even contesting. I used reputable sources and you did not. You deliberately misrepresented what sources said. You claimed they said one thing when they said another. Those are all facts and I documented that at length."
- You provided peoples opinions, not fact. You provided biased sources claiming they are reputable, they are not. I quoted from the same sources you provided in exact refuting your claims, you claim they dont't. Try Harder :D
"No, it is up to you to prove they are biased. Prove for instance that Claussen is biased in favor of Christians when he teaches at a secular university in Germany. I made this point before and you of course never even attempted to prove he was biased. The simple fact is you have no idea of what you are talking about as I have demnonstrated again and again using your own words."
- No it isn't. It's a matter of opinion. I don't have to prove anything. Try harder :D
"Incorrect. Here we see your problem telling the truth again. You used the Catholic Encyclopedia, but actually ignored the passage that entirely disagreed with your thesis. You did this with some of the sources I used as well. I would link to a reputable source that actually contained evidence (unlike the sources you came up with on your own) and you would deliberately distort them. You actually claimed they said one thing when they said another. I documented this at length using the actual quotes."
- It's the other way around. You ignored the parts sghowing that the church was indeed influenced by pagan practices. Try Harder :D
"You can’t recognize the truth. That has already been made clear"
- Right back at you. Try harder :D
"No, the burden is yours. You mentioned, however, a time frame in which no one or almost no one even knew about or discussed Mithraism. That in itself would preclude the theories you hold. Again, cause and effect. If no one, or almost no one, even knew mithraism existed in the time frame you selected then how many people would believe it influenced Christianity?"
- No it's not. You made the claim...back it up. This is another Blatent lie on your part. Your own source say otherwise. Try Harder :D
"Present all the quotes from other posters that show they believe you are interested in truth. Please do so here. "
- I don't have to. You made the claim that "everyone here knows". Prove it. Demonstrate how .23% constitutes "everyone" or rewrite the English language. Try harder :D
"Again, if you believe you have a case from the other posters’ opinion of you then post their supportive comments here about your desire to know the truth. Please do so."
- Completely irrelevant. Other people’s opinion don't prove anything. Try harder :D
"Wrong. If you post to me I can post in return. You just said you would not stop posting to me: “LOL. Ok. Then I’ll keep responding then.” Clearly you not only want to continue this thread but you are laughing about it (“LOL”) and no one being harrassed would react in such a way. Are you going to lie now and say that I am harrassing you when you yourself clearly show it is you who are insistant on responding and laughing about it as well? I guess you’ll try anything to hide your embarrassment, huh Frenetic? That’s sad. Like I said many posts ago – you’re a liberal."
- I am having fun making you spin your wheels...so I'll keep going until you get tired of it. I'm still laughing...doesn't make me a liberal though. That one you keep getting completely wrong. Try Harder :D
"No, you post because you have nothing else. You’ve lost everything else."
- That’s also a matter of opinion, and not only am I not interested in yours, but it is my opinion that you lost a long time ago when you resorted to personal attacks and had several of your posts removed by moderators. LOL. Try Harder :D
"Physical evidence? Written texts are not evidence enough? If you say they are not then you don’t even believe in the “evidence” you have been trying to pass off as reputable in this debate thus far. How about trying to be consistent? If we are going to talk about Christian doctrines there is no reason why the Bible should not be used. I guess you’ll resort to any and every tactic to dismiss arguments that so easily defeat your ideas."
- Nope they are not. There are written text regarding aliens and UFOs...they don't constitute proof of extraterrestrial life either. Try harder :D
"No, it is not the same. As GK Chesterton once quipped along the lines of: Being struck by lightening and a lightening bug are two entirely different things. If you want proof of transubstantiation then look at the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. Ever hear of it?"
- Sorry, not interested in parlor tricks. Try harder :D
"I need only prove that it is a Christian doctrine and I already showed it is scriptural. Whether or not you choose to believe the reality that it exists is another issue that is tied more into your overall dismissal of truth and evidence than in anything incumbent on me."
- The problem is that you can't prove the Christian doctrine. The concepts of good and evil can be proven through logic, but there are several religions that share the concept of good and evil, these concepts aren’t exclusive to Christianity. Everything else is just gobilygook. I don't have to believe it because there is no evidence that it is the truth. Try harder :D
"Anyone who cares about truth cares about faith and reason. You don’t"
- False. I care a bout truth. I know for a fact that using reason to attempt to prove faith does not constitute truth, it is an effort in irrationality. Try harder :D
"Simply open the NT and read. God is one God. He is also three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Do you have any early Christian evidence to the contrary?"
- I don't care because you can't prove what you claim. The NT doesn't constitute proof. Try Harder :D
"No, he rationalized away the deaths of millions of people. He did not use reason. Rationalizations are conveniences that support poor decisions and immorality. Reason is grounded in absolutes and is about truth and not convenience and is supportive of good, sound decisions and morality. Again, the very idea that you think Hitler was reasonable shows you don’t understand the words you use or you are simply a “feeling” liberal who fears reason."
- Nothing but semantics. Hitler had a reason to do what he did. Reason isn't mutually exclusive for "good" rather than evil. Try harder :D
"No, it is incumbent upon you to show otherwise. Again, radical Muslims have left radical Islam and become moderates. Some have even become Christians."
- And Christians have become Muslims...who cares? Still out of context. Try harder :D
"You’ve got to be kidding? How can you have faith in something you have no mental concept of at all?...yadayadayada"
- All mental concepts are learned. So is faith. Besides the fact that what you said is irrelevant, it still doesn’t address the fact faith requires belief in something without the burden of proof. It is up to the individual to choose it. It doesn’t matter what mental concept you choose to believe in.
“Frenetic, you ARE a liberal. You think just like they do. You dismiss faith, you dismiss reason, you dismiss Christianity, you can’t use cause and effect to save your life. You ARE a liberal.”
- More baseless claims. For all you know I could be just pulling your leg this entire time just to get a rise out of you.
“Incorrect. If there is a God, then He is true for there can only be one God.”
- How do you know there is only one god? Have you died and had the opportunity to verify? LOL. Try harder :D
“There you go again, mixing two different definitions of a word as if they were the same. True faith is a reference to an absolute, objective. The other faith you are talking about is subjective. You really don’t know the difference to you?”
- Perhaps I should list the definition of “faith” from multiple dictionaries in order to drill it into your skull what it means. Try harder :D
“Your inability to use words properly is what makes things irrational and illogical Frenetic. Again and again, we see that your education, which you swore you worked so hard at while you were a child actually wasn’t very good. You don’t even know how to understand basic terminology well. How sad.”
- </Yawn> Are you pretending to know me and my childhood again. And you lecture me on irrational and illogical. How sad is that!? Try harder :D
“How on earth is expressing pity at your wasted life a personal attack? Your life, in terms of your oh so terrible, horrible, it was so hard that priests were shocked, blah, blah, education was clearly a waste. You lament your suffering, but your suffering seems to have been in vain. You can’t even understand faith.”
- My life isn’t wasted. And you are not acting very much like a Christian.
“So your own posts about your youth and your oh so harsh education were all lies? Is that what you’re now saying?”
- Nope, only that you know only what I’ve chosen to reveal. It doesn’t make you an expert on my life or give you ample knowledge to make conclusions based on it. The fact is you haven’t the slightest idea of who I am…suggesting that you do is the trademark of a narcissist.
“If reading your own posts where you can’t even get basic terminology right isn’t proof enough then what else could be? Please explain then why you do not understand “faith”.”
- I understand it just fine, it is who you fail to acknowledge that faith requires belief in something without the burden of proof.
“Frenetic, nice try, but we both know your education obviously stunk in regard to religion, logic, history, the Bible, common sense and the fourth commandment.”
- Again, a matter of opinion that has no basis in either fact or context to the original argument. Nice try.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.