T1B

I think he fell.

poptart wrote:He came from Adam.

He is completely fallible.

Make no mistake.

And the doctrine of Papal Infallibility doesn't suggest otherwise. It's more or less analagous to a President's VETO power. Rarely used and only exercised under extreme circumstances as it pertains to Roman Catholicism's dogma/doctrine.

Wags wrote:I don't understand how people can consider the world around them and not consider it the work of a power greater than oneself.

Hmmm...

-Genocide
-Serial killers
-Priests and other religious leaders raping children
-Rap music
-Adolph Hitler
-Drunk drivers who kill people's wives
-Crushing worldwide poverty
-Pestilence running rampant
-American Idol
-Chernobyl
-Wolfie posts
-Missouri football

Yeah, you may have a point. Our world does seem to be the work of a power greater than ourselves: Satan.

And in what matters does Catholic Doctrine hold the Pope infallible, you may ask?

Faith and morality, of course.


Seeing as this pope is hell-bent on pointing out the inanity of this doctrine, doesn't the Friends Meeting House seem like a better place for good folks to congregate of a clear conscience? Make a clean break?

Van wrote: Our world does seem to be the work of a power greater than ourselves: Satan.

RACK all Church Lady resets.

PSUFAN wrote:And in what matters does Catholic Doctrine hold the Pope infallible, you may ask?

Faith and morality, of course.


Seeing as this pope is hell-bent on pointing out the inanity of this doctrine, doesn't the Friends Meeting House seem like a better place for good folks to congregate of a clear conscience? Make a clean break?

Remains to be seen. The Roman Catholic Church has been through many trials, tribulations, changes and reformations as an institution. I do think this has the most potential of anything to be the impetus of such a change, but I can't tell the future.

It is an imperfect institution amidst an imperfect world. Quite frankly this actually causes me some concern from an apocolyptic point of view because this might just be a cleansing and a "reshuffling" as it were by the hand of God.

Satan is the father of lies and deception and it is quite evident that there have been a whole lot of lies and deception going on with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

God is Truth. One of the many issues protestant faiths have against the Catholic Church is that it often seems to be "about the church" rather than about God, Christ, and Holy Spirit. It is His Church to destroy or sustain at His will.

Tom, why would the true Word of God ever require reformation?

Van wrote:Tom, why would the true Word of God ever require reformation?

I was referring to the institution of the Catholic Church. Not the word of God.

The problem is that I - a sinner - can read the word of God and misinterpret it to satisfy my own fallible nature.

The book says what it says. The RC holds that Jesus Christ established "The Church", gave sacraments, and bestowed upon Peter the Apostle the responsibility of leading it. POOF - YOU'RE A POPE, DENIER.

So the institution was formed to "spread the good word" and "do christ's work" tending to the needy in both the corporal sense and the spiritual sense. That means it needs money. When you have money, you have temptation. When you have money you have power and that means temptation. So rules and traditions are formed.

It is those rules and traditions that have been called into question throughout history and require changing. The "human induced" stuff. Not God's word.


although Poptart will be the first to tell you that in many folks' eyes the Catholic Church is by far the most egregious (due to its power) of twisting the word into justification for some pretty despicable things - historically and that it focuses too much attention on itself as an institution and not enough on God's word.

It is an imperfect institution amidst an imperfect world.

You and I are not Catholics, Tom. We can agree with your statement.

The point is that the Church doesn't agree - the doctrine holds the Pope to be infallible, at least in some areas.

Doesn't it seem like the Church has lost its way?

PSUFAN wrote: Doesn't it seem like the Church has lost its way?

Yes. Which is why I believe they are right now - being humbled in front of all to see - at the hands of God.

I don't believe this is coincidental. Nor do I share in the notion that this is somehow the work of the Devil. The Truth, is coming out for all to see.

God shines light, he does not darken or deceive.

Tom In VA wrote:

Van wrote:Tom, why would the true Word of God ever require reformation?

I was referring to the institution of the Catholic Church. Not the word of God.

There is no difference, according to the Catholic church, so unless God's Word has changed multiple times over the centuries there should've been no need for any reformation.

The reason for reformation is simple: They're man's words, not God's, and man can't decide on what they need to say.

The problem is that I - a sinner - can read the word of God and misinterpret it to satisfy my own fallible nature.

But the Pope isn't fallible regarding those issues, so today's Word should be identical to the Word from 850 A.D. There should never be a need for discussion regarding change to the Word.

The book says what it says.

Yet what it says has changed over time, as has the infallible Pope's interpretations of what it says.

Tom wrote:The RC holds that Jesus Christ established "The Church", gave sacraments, and bestowed upon Peter the Apostle the responsibility of leading it.

They went BADLY off the rails from the fundamental starting point of realizing what Matthew 16 and 17 is about - and "the catholic church" will crumble and fail completely.

imo

I could elaborate, but this is probably not the place for it.
Maybe one day I'll take it up in that other forum.


Christ's "Church" is made up of the individual believers who have confessed Him and received Him.

This "Church" will NEVER fail.

88 wrote:Tom-

Faith means a belief based on an absence of proof. By definition, God's existence is beyond proof. You are required to accept his existence solely on faith. It is thus impossible for science (which, by definition, is based on and requires proofs) to intersect with faith (which, by definition, is not provable). Similarly, one cannot apply reason (logic and rational thought) to matters of faith. Faith requires a disconnect from logic. It requires a belief in something that is, by definition, incapable of proof. And intellect connotes an ability to reason or to learn. One cannot reason or learn about matters of faith (And I'm discussing the concept of faith, not the historical underpinnings regarding a particular faith or the various tenets taught by the faith - one can certainly learn about such things, but they do not involve issues of science or proof).

Lot of good stuff. I'd like to address it some time. Right now "reason" is telling me to go to sleep. But appreciate the vine and explanation. Of course, I disagree completely :D

poptart wrote:He came from Adam.

He is completely fallible.

Make no mistake.

You're condifent in that but skeptical about Obama's citizenship. Your ability to sift through and process evidence is breathtaking.

No, what I am CERTAIN of is that Barry has not released his birth certificate.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:I've received Him.

In which orifice?

a blood covered one, apparently.

poptart wrote:No, what I am CERTAIN of is that Barry has not released his birth certificate.

You are a fucking moron.

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:No, what I am CERTAIN of is that Barry has not released his birth certificate.

You are a fucking moron.

no birther here, but, that example being passed around just fuels their argument. it looks like a birth certificate from 2001, not 1961. Fill in the blank documents from that era do not have matching text as the blank parts are typed on a typewriter or filled in by hand. this document does not have that look.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:No, what I am CERTAIN of is that Barry has not released his birth certificate.

You are a fucking moron.

no birther here, but, that example being passed around just fuels their argument. it looks like a birth certificate from 2001, not 1961. Fill in the blank documents from that era do not have matching text as the blank parts are typed on a typewriter or filled in by hand. this document does not have that look.

Nobody ever said that was the exact actual certificate filed in 1961. If you go to get a passport today and you need to get a certified copy of your birth certificate, that document above is the kind of document that your county registrar's office will provide to you. They won't be giving you an exact replica of your original. They never have and they never will.

Smackie, that thing we see was generated in modern days, but it is said to contain info which would be found on Barry's 1961 document.

I'm not going to get into any more of the Barry birth certificate discussion in this thread other than to say that, Bri, if you think what B.O. posted on the interweb = him releasing his birth certificate, you are one pitifully delusional clown.

poptart wrote:Smackie, that thing we see was generated in modern days, but it is said to contain info which would be found on Barry's 1961 document.

I'm not going to get into any more of the Barry birth certificate discussion in this thread other than to say that, Bri, if you think what B.O. posted on the interweb = him releasing his birth certificate, you are one pitifully delusional clown.

OK, you had your chance. Never mind that the state of Hawaii has repeated vouched for the document that Obama released. Never mind that the family paid for a birth announcement that also said he was born in Hawaii. Never mind that not a single even remotely reputable source has ever been able to demonstrate that Obama was born anywhere BUT the State of Hawaii in 1961. Nope, you're just going to continue to spew forth poorly reasoned verbal diarrhea in hopes that some of it will stick. You sir are an idiot of the highest order.

They won't be giving you an exact replica of your original. They never have and they never will.

Interesting. When I retired from teaching in 1994 I had to get a duplicate sealed copy of my birth certificate from Onondaga County. I used it later to obtain a passport. I have it in my safe. If need be I'll photograph it and show you. Save your "can you photograph rocks e-mails-- I'm not going to read them." One item on it that surprised me was that my Mom and Dad were living at my Grandmother's house when I was born and that my Dad was working as a laborer for the county. I did not know that.

Wolfman wrote:They won't be giving you an exact replica of your original. They never have and they never will.

Interesting. When I retired from teaching in 1994 I had to get a duplicate sealed copy of my birth certificate from Onondaga County. I used it later to obtain a passport. I have it in my safe. If need be I'll photograph it and show you. Save your "can you photograph rocks e-mails-- I'm not going to read them." One item on it that surprised me was that my Mom and Dad were living at my Grandmother's house when I was born and that my Dad was working as a laborer for the county. I did not know that.

You had to get a copy of your birth certificate in order to retire?

Be that as it may, a few years back I had to provide my birth certificate to my employer. I was in the process of moving and didn't feel like digging through the mountain of boxes to find my original. So I went to the county records office. They had a certified copy printed off in a matter of a minute for a 10 dollar charge. Later on, after the move was done, I found the original and it, and my copy are in a safe in my house. I can assure you that those two documents are only similar in that they record the same information of where I was born, who my parents are and what date and time the blessed event occurred. My original was typed, my certified copy was printed on an ink jet printer. The original was printed on a 5x7 sized piece of paper with a blue border, my certified copy was printed on an 8.5x11 standard sheet of paper with no border. The original had my parent's address at the time of birth, the certified copy did not.

So what? Did Monroe County give me a fraudulent copy? Is it possible that just maybe Hawaii has changed their form in the last 46 years as well?

88,


First. You're a lawyer. As such I will have to yield to your intellect and self-discipline being superior to mine. As such, I do not believe I am qualified to shed any light on the topic of 'faith" and "God". It would be like a mechanic trying to help someone with a medical issue. Your assessment of me needing faith due to some sort of deficiency, be it intellectual, emotional, and mental - or all of the above - would be spot on and 100% accurate. Don't like admitting it, but it is what it is and I am what I am (Mikey this is not a "front").

Second. There are men and women who ARE your peers, equal and perhaps superior to your intellect, ability to reason, etc.. who do possess great faith, belief in God, and SPIRITUAL discipline. They would be more qualified to make the case I am trying to make and potentially succeed, but that is based on your open mindedness and willingness/desire for faith. If you have none of that, then there is no point at all.

Third. I do believe your use of definitions was somewhat selective and akin to "that depends on what your definition of is, is". When you define "faith" vs. "science", and the need for evidence etc.. etc.. I think your missing the whole point of human nature's awareness and concept of God. You seem to be expecting parlor tricks, burning bushes, and huge displacements in the corporal world and nature of things caused by some visible entity "from out of this world". The God in whom I have faith does not work that way. He is not an errand boy or a magician at some carnival. The proof that been given to me, has been given to me by people - many of whom fit into the one I defined in item number 2 of this post - and their personal testimony. While I surrender the fact there is little to no "physical" evidence they provided, the "evidence" provided was testimony to a spiritual "shift" in their hearts, their souls. God might or might not choose to reveal himself to people through manifestations of supernatural events occuring and having an impact on the natural world. I don't know that he does so based on a command or desire of an individual to have God "prove" Himself. He did not, in my case. Yet He did prove His existence to me in a very deep and compelling manner within my spirit.

Last. If you truly seek and desire to come to know Him, and humbly ask Him to reveal Himself to you - He will. It might not come on YOUR terms or in a manner through which YOU think it should be ... but it will and you will intuitively know it is Truth. But that requires an exercise in free will, choice, and a sincere desire to develop a relationship with the Creator.

It's yours if you want it. If you don't want it then, you don't want it.

Regardless of believers or non-believers, I pray all receive the blessings and mercy of God that I have received in my life. For if God were to enact justice in the manner - I as a human being perceives Justice - I wouldn't be here right now. I wouldn't have my son, twins on the way, a wife that loves me today, and family that is proud to call me "Son", "Brother", "Cousin" etc.. etc..

Just as I cannot prove God to you, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to prove that those things were made possible by a merciful, loving God who does not make too hard requirements for those that earnestly seek Him.

With all sincerity, God Bless.

You had to get a copy of your birth certificate in order to retire?

Yes, it was a requirement for the NY State Teacher's Retirement System. My original was filled in with real writing, not even typed. It is a photocopy of the original and looks like a black and white blueprint, it still has the mechanical document imprint stamp on it. Maybe record keeping in Hawaii is more difficult than in New York.

Nothing beats a thread within a thread within a thread......

Wolfman wrote:
My original was filled in with real writing, not even typed.

Pre-typewriter?

Tom wrote:If you truly seek and desire to come to know Him, and humbly ask Him to reveal Himself to you - He will.

Or He won't. You have no idea as to what the specific outcomes will be. You also have no idea as to God's requirements for humility, earnestness, desire or anything else that might affect an individual's worthiness to receive revelation from Him.

It might not come on YOUR terms or in a manner through which YOU think it should be ... but it will and you will intuitively know it is Truth.

And you know this to be the case for all people...how?

But that requires an exercise in free will, choice, and a sincere desire to develop a relationship with the Creator.

When it comes to the spiritual realm, you have no idea what anything requires, and you have no idea whether anything will or will not work for other people. All you're doing in making these broadbrush statements is passing along your own brand of good will and wishful thinking.

If my post implied a sense of objective "knowledge" as opposed to subjective "in my experience" and the experience I've heard from others who have born witness. That is my failing to properly qualify my post.

Please accept my apologies Van.

Wolfman wrote:You had to get a copy of your birth certificate in order to retire?

Yes, it was a requirement for the NY State Teacher's Retirement System. My original was filled in with real writing, not even typed. It is a photocopy of the original and looks like a black and white blueprint, it still has the mechanical document imprint stamp on it. Maybe record keeping in Hawaii is more difficult than in New York.

Nothing beats a thread within a thread within a thread......

For starters, if you told me your original birth certificate was written on a a papyrus scroll by ancient scribes, I'd probably believe you.

Second, record keeping in Hawaii, as in Monroe County, has advanced to the point where these kind of records are kept in these newfangled things called "databases". And, when a citizen requests a certified copy of these records kept in the database, instead of sending a county employee deep into the catacombs of some musty old records storage facility to find the one and only copy of said record, they have this fancy thing called a "computer" (as opposed to a Mac) that will find that data, print it to a document template and export that template to a printer.

I still can't believe you had to get a birth certificate to retire. What if you didn't find it? Would they have made you keep working? Unreal.

Tom, no problem. Just keep this in mind: You seem to only be counting in your experiences those examples you see as successes. You hear "good news" stories from people, and you chalk them up as examples of how it needs to be done. Meanwhile, you simply ignore the countless other examples of people who never did receive revelation. Worse, you and people like Wags attempt to assign blame to those individuals, as if it's their fault that they haven't received the gift of faith.

It's not a competition. Someone's method or skill in pleading should not be a factor in whether God favors them with some sort of visit.

Because you do this, of course you see a clear path to enlightenment. To your way of thinking, all people fall into one of two categories: 1-Those who did it right and therefore received faith. 2-Those who did it wrong and therefore haven't received faith.

For you there are no examples of the program not working; there are only people who haven't properly completed their assignment.

Mikey wrote:

Wolfman wrote:
My original was filled in with real writing, not even typed.

Pre-typewriter?

You know who you're talking to, right? Cuneiform is newfangled to this old coot.

Van,

I can understand how you would perceive some sort of unintended arrogance there Van. I assure you in my case and I'd be willing to bet in Wags case as well there is no such intent to be arrogant or even imply the person in question ALWAYS 'isn't doing it right'.

You would be absolutely correct by stating that in the end it is entirely up God as to how and when. All we can do is be open to the experience. That is where the human's exercise of free will comes into play, are they willing, are they open, are they seeking in earnest ? If the answers to all those questions are "yes" and they have yet to experience something that instills within them a firm faith ... then it is probably God who for some reason is making them wait. Long ago there was an article about Mother Teresa, obviously a far more spiritual being and holy being than I will ever be. In it, it revealed that there were times where she felt an absence of God's presence within her. If that happens to her, of all people, I'm quite sure it happens to others from time to time and will probably happen to me as well at some point. Her faith saw her through. I've rambled, sorry.

Once again, it isn't my intent to suggest someone is "doing it wrong" when they're willing, sincere and open. I think it's quite the opposite, if they continue to remain willing, sincere, and open. I would propose that the people to whom you refer, those willing, open, seeking in earnest and perservere through the lack of perceived results and have yet to "feel" or "sense" an awareness of God in their life are actually displaying a faith stronger than one that I have ever known.

I am much like Thomas the Apostle. True to my namesake. My faith was lacking, weak, dead, and it did take God "proving" Himself somewhat. Unfortunately that "proof" is not within the corporal world and I cannot offer it to anyone save for conveying my experience. That kind of anecdotal evidence is not the evidence someone like 88 seeks. Further, as I stated, my intellectual limitations and emotional immaturity in general would bar him from considering it at all. Which is why I was suggesting there are others that perhaps he could listen to people who meet him on the same grounds of intellect and reason. Whether or not he finds their "proof" compelling enough is a different story, but it would at least, potentially, refute his assertions that all those without faith lack reason, intellect, and the ability to see the union of Gods creation and science's discovery of all the detail and delicate balances that exist within it.

Sending some wishful thinking and goodwill your way. :)

Tom, I'm pretty sure that 88 doesn't think believers or nonbelievers lack intellect or reason. It's more a case of saying that the application of intellect and reason are not the means by which someone will acquire faith. Faith must be acquired in the absence of reason, and mere reasoning cannot bring someone to faith.

He'll correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been his stance all along, as well as mine and mvscal's. Where I differ from them, since they're atheists and I'm agnostic, is that I apply that same fact-based logic in both directions. They have faith in atheism; I don't.

mvscal would argue that faith in atheism is an oxymoron, yet the fact remains that atheism is still a belief in something utterly unknowable; it's not a proven fact. For all its reliance on scientific proofs, it can offer none regarding the basic Big Picture issues.

Van wrote:Tom, I'm pretty sure that 88 doesn't think believers or nonbelievers lack intellect or reason. It's more a case of saying that the application of intellect and reason are not the means by which someone will acquire faith. Faith must be acquired in the absence of reason, and mere reasoning cannot bring someone to faith.

He'll correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been his stance all along, as well as mine and mvscal's. Where I differ from them, since they're atheists and I'm agnostic, is that I apply that same fact-based logic in both directions. They have faith in atheism; I don't.

mvscal would argue that faith in atheism is an oxymoron, yet the fact remains that atheism is still a belief in something utterly unknowable; it's not a proven fact. For all its reliance on scientific proofs, it can offer none regarding the basic Big Picture issues.

Para 1. Good point. There is that notion of a "leap" of faith. But for many intellect and reason brought them to that edge.

Paras 2-3. Atheism is NO GOD, Agnosticsm is I DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF .... or "Without knowledge of ..."

There are Agnostic Atheists without knowledge and without faith and Agnostic Theists without knowledge but with faith (I considered myself the latter), I have faith that there is, but I do not have knowledge of or about.

Sudden Sam wrote:
Talk about KYOA!!!

Yet it's manna to Bama folk, Sam.

Sudden Sam wrote:
Talk about KYOA!!!

This also explains Raiderfan.

Tom wrote:There are Agnostic Atheists without knowledge and without faith

Oxymoron. Being agnostic means you're not atheist. Atheism means you do have faith in something without having any knowledge of it.

and Agnostic Theists without knowledge but with faith (I considered myself the latter), I have faith that there is, but I do not have knowledge of or about.

Oxymoron. You're no different than any other Theist. You have no knowledge, yet you have faith. You're not agnostic.

I'm agnostic. I have neither knowledge nor faith. I simply don't know, and I don't believe in anything...and that's all I know. That's agnosticism.

I don't think so Van.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheis ... ism101.htm

What’s the Difference Between Atheism & Agnosticism?:

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Atheism vs. Agnosticism...

Theists - believe
ATheists - do not

Agnostics - don't know. They can either lean towards the believers side of things or the non believers.

Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

Mikey wrote:

Wolfman wrote:
My original was filled in with real writing, not even typed.

Pre-typewriter?

Tom, that article was pure pablum.

No one who believes actually knows, so an agnostic theist is no different than a garden-variety believer. He's a theist. Period. Same with an agnostic atheist. Either term is merely an attempt at feel-good fence-straddling.

Agnostics don't have sufficient knowledge to be theists or atheists. Once they acquire faith in either thing, they are no longer agnostic; they're believers.