- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Venial Sin my butt!
Posted on 3/24/24 at 8:30 am to TN Tygah
Posted on 3/24/24 at 8:30 am to TN Tygah
quote:
Thou shalt have gang bangs with many goats on my flat earth” is for sure the hardest one to follow.
Well actually, on the flat earth, the penalty for screwing a goat is death… not only to the goat rapist, but to the goat too.
0
Posted on 3/24/24 at 8:38 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:quote:
God created man to be herbivores
Yeah and T-Rex and sabretooth cat and great white shark. All those sharp pointy teeth were great for grinding plant matter before the fall of man!
Posted on 3/24/24 at 8:41 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
God who loved us so much that He gave His ONLY Son to sacrifice Him
Serious question not meant to mock:
Have you ever read Genesis 6? Deuteronomy 32:8-9? Psalms 82 and 89?
If you haven’t, I’d be interested in seeing what your thoughts were of “only son” after reading those verses.
Posted on 3/24/24 at 9:04 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Have you ever read Genesis 6? Deuteronomy 32:8-9? Psalms 82 and 89?
If you haven’t, I’d be interested in seeing what your thoughts were of “only son” after reading those verses.
I am no authority here, but I take them to mean Angels. The Son of God IS God.
Posted on 3/24/24 at 9:19 am to FooManChoo
Foo, I asked this in another thread, and the thread was deleted before I could see if you ever responded.
What is your take on the flood being global vs local?
What is your take on the flood being global vs local?
Posted on 3/24/24 at 9:20 am to Stitches
He believes it was global.
Posted on 3/24/24 at 9:26 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I am no authority here, but I take them to mean Angels. The Son of God IS God.
Seems like you are presupposing a theology and ignoring the plain meaning of the text. They had a word in Hebrew “Malach” and in Greek “angelos”, yet those words were not used in the text I mentioned. On the other hand, Paul describes Jesus as an angel and uses that word in Galatians 4:14. So often in English (prayers and such) “only begotten” gets shortened to “only”, but the Greek word “monogenes” is more accurately literally “one of a kind” or equally accurate but less literally translated as “unique”.
Sounds like you have some more research to do.
Posted on 3/24/24 at 1:04 pm to Squirrelmeister
Happy Palm Sunday Baws. Big week ahead. God bless!
Posted on 3/24/24 at 8:42 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I don’t consider a proclamation that something is true as evidence.
So, historical claims that have been verified by modern science have no validity in your opinion? Interesting.
quote:
the consensus of scientific scholarship today doesn’t argue that the universe had a beginning
Source? When did they stop teaching Big Bang cosmology? Have the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin and Hawking/Penrose/Ellis theorems been supplanted? The last I read, some are just doubling the age of the universe to 26.7 billion years (probably so they can justify random, unguided evolution
)While we’re at it, let me tell you what I think about the scientific consensus of today. They’re a bunch of frauds. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
Science (and politics) is the new religion. And, just like those who distort religion in order to gain power/wealth and control people, those in control of the narrative of science (and politics) are cut from the same cloth. But I digress. Moving on.
quote:
Dr. William Lane Craig, that is a fallacy, as matter and energy did not come into existence
Prove it. Prove the premise wrong. Show me one example, Mr. Empirical Data Man, of anything beginning to exist- without a prior, external cause.
quote:
If your book accidentally aligns with scientific theories
quote:
does not mean your book can be used as evidence on the subject
I’m not suggesting that we use the Bible as evidence. I’m stating that the evidence supports the truth of the Bible.
quote:
NRSV
Aka “the most liberal modern scholarly translation of the Bible.” No, thanks.
I’ve said too much. Let’s focus on the philosophical argument. Unless, of course, you’d rather not. I won’t hold it against you.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 4:27 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
That said, it is my understanding that the Roman Catholic teaching on the inerrancy of scripture is limited. While I do not agree, for the sake of discussion I will not attempt to argue against the point. I do not see one’s position on either the inerrancy of scripture, nor one’s position on evolution vs creationism as being the basis upon which salvation is lost or attained.
I agree that it is up to discussion and has no impact on our salvation.
Thanks for your input.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 11:05 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
I agree that it is up to discussion and has no impact on our salvation.
Discussion, sure. But, I wouldn’t say that it has no impact on salvation.
Let’s say that you ordered one of those nice outdoor playhouses (multiple slides and ladders, swingset, etc). It has thousands of parts, many of which are nearly identical, but have specific intended uses. For the sake of illustration, let’s also assume that you are not at all mechanically inclined. That said, it is entirely possible, although highly improbable, that you could manage to correctly assemble the playhouse- with little to no reference to the manufacturer’s instructions. But, it’s far more likely that you would make a series of mistakes, have left over parts, not enough parts, and so on. And, it’s likely that some of these mistakes would diminish the structural integrity of the playhouse- to the detriment of the children who would be playing on it.
As a second option in this scenario, let’s say that, instead of reading and understanding the manufacturer’s instructions, you decided to follow the verbal instructions of an employee of the manufacturer. How do you know he’s right? When he tells you that there are supposed to be x amount of leftover parts, how do you verify that? If you had the instructions, would you not verify that what he was telling you to do was correct? After all- it’s your children that will be playing on it, and therefore it’s your responsibility to ensure that it’s built properly.
The first segment of this illustration is a warning to those who would dismiss inerrancy in favor of their own understanding. The second, is a warning to those who would blindly follow the teachings of fallible men- and not “test all things” to see if they are from God. I see many examples of both behaviors, both in the Roman Catholic and Protestant communities.
So, while it is possible, that dismissal of inerrancy could fail to negatively impact salvation- it is far more likely that it would lead to a faulty foundation that is built on sand. This can be avoided by reading, understanding, and properly applying the Manufacturer’s instructions.
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 11:08 am
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:22 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious; only viciously circular reasoning is fallacious.
The fallacy of circular logic - we know the Bible is the truth because it is Bible, and the Bible says it is the truth
Secondly, if God is God, and the Bible is His Word, then you can't appeal to anything greater than the Bible because there is no higher authority than God, Himself.
While you might not care about the claims about the Bible being God's Word, Champagne should, because he is Roman Catholic. The Bible being God's Word should mean something to him.
quote:I'll take this as a compliment. What's concerning is not your agreement (I expect you to belittle the Christian commitment to the Bible), but Champagne's belittling of such a commitment.quote:You are correct.
No amount of Biology, Geology, Anthropology, Astronomy, Chemistry or Paleology that anybody can cite now, or in the future, will ever shake him from his belief in his declaration.
quote:Since Christianity is not opposed to reason but instead is the very foundation for it, I reject the claim that a reasonable debate/discussion cannot be had with me. I've done so many times in the past and will continue to do so into the future, because I value reason as a reflection of the very mind of God.
You’re right. A reasonable discussion is not possible with that one.
What you and Champagne are actually saying in this is that because I don't accept your premises, you believe I'm not being reasonable. That's different from actually being unreasonable, since I assume you both believe you are being reasonable while rejecting the premises I offer.
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 3/25/24 at 1:44 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious; only viciously circular reasoning if fallacious.
Your circular reasoning is a vicious circle. You are the master of begging the question on this site. No one presupposes the veracity of his conclusions in the question quite like you. You’re like TD’s very own version of William Lane Craig. Don’t take that as a compliment.
quote:
if God is God, and the Bible is His Word, then you can't appeal to anything greater than the Bible because there is no higher authority than God, Himself.
“And because the Bible is God’s word, it is the highest authority!”
quote:
While you might not care about the claims about the Bible being God's Word, Champagne should, because he is Roman Catholic. The Bible being God's Word should mean something to him.
You ever thought it possible that two Christians could read the same Bible and interpret it differently? Maybe he believes it is more allegorical while you believe it is literal, despite the verifiable facts set in front of you. His excuses and rationalization of absurdities is just different than yours maybe.
quote:
Since Christianity is not opposed to reason but instead is the very foundation for it,
God, who created a perfect creation with a perfect plan, had to kill everything with the breath of life when it went awry to get rid of sin. When his plan backfired like it normally does, and sin returned, he had to think of another plan. Oh crap they are building a tower to heaven - we (the gods) need to take the people down a peg by confusing their language. They’ll never be able to get to heaven now. Then God had to send himself to be sacrificed to pay himself off as a ransom for the sins of his perfect creation that he made incapable of following his rules and incapable of not sinning… all because he was incapable of simply forgiving his creation… all to save his creations from an afterlife of torture and misery that he himself created. And it’s funny, now that there are skyscrapers all over the world, and jumbo jets, satellites, spaceships, I wonder why he’s not scrambling our brains again.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 1:54 pm to Cheese Grits
It's never a sin to eat meat.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 2:57 pm to FooManChoo
LINK
This link is from Catholic Answers, and is in response to the Protestant challenge:
"Catholicism is false because it bases its teachings on things other than the Bible—the word of God.”"
Jesus Christ is The Word of God. We know that from the Book of John. As such, all that Jesus preached, taught, practiced and handed down to His Church through the Apostles is The Word of God.
The Holy Bible is The Word of God - not the Bible that Martin Luther and John Calvin edited by ripping out 7 books of the Old Testament, no. The Holy Bible includes those OT books because the Christian Church said that these books are The Word of God, and that was decided by Christ's Church in the 4th Century A.D.
I maintain that by defending the COMPLETE Word of God and not just the Protestant Bible edited and truncated Word of God, I am a much more worthy Christian and Defender of the Christian Faith than Dwight Schrute (Foo) or anybody like Dwight.
Catholics embrace the ENTIRE Word of God, not just the part of the Holy Bible that John Calvin says is the Word of God. Protestants always intentionally pretend to misunderstand this position because it suits their own agenda, which is to attack and discredit Catholics, and the Catholic Church. So, to that end, Atheists and Protestants both are on the same team.
The ENTIRE Word of God teaches us that The Last Supper was the very first Catholic Mass. Squirrelmeister and all Protestants are on the same team in saying that's nonsense.
This link is from Catholic Answers, and is in response to the Protestant challenge:
"Catholicism is false because it bases its teachings on things other than the Bible—the word of God.”"
Jesus Christ is The Word of God. We know that from the Book of John. As such, all that Jesus preached, taught, practiced and handed down to His Church through the Apostles is The Word of God.
The Holy Bible is The Word of God - not the Bible that Martin Luther and John Calvin edited by ripping out 7 books of the Old Testament, no. The Holy Bible includes those OT books because the Christian Church said that these books are The Word of God, and that was decided by Christ's Church in the 4th Century A.D.
I maintain that by defending the COMPLETE Word of God and not just the Protestant Bible edited and truncated Word of God, I am a much more worthy Christian and Defender of the Christian Faith than Dwight Schrute (Foo) or anybody like Dwight.
Catholics embrace the ENTIRE Word of God, not just the part of the Holy Bible that John Calvin says is the Word of God. Protestants always intentionally pretend to misunderstand this position because it suits their own agenda, which is to attack and discredit Catholics, and the Catholic Church. So, to that end, Atheists and Protestants both are on the same team.
The ENTIRE Word of God teaches us that The Last Supper was the very first Catholic Mass. Squirrelmeister and all Protestants are on the same team in saying that's nonsense.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 3:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Since Christianity is not opposed to reason but instead is the very foundation for it,
You've made this ridiculous statement before. It is simply not true. The fact that it comes from someone who has admitted they they believe the Earth is 6000 years old makes it even more laughable.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 3:09 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
So, historical claims that have been verified by modern science have no validity in your opinion? Interesting.
Straw man
quote:
Source? When did they stop teaching Big Bang cosmology?
Universe existed before cosmic inflation
quote:
scientific consensus of today. They’re a bunch of frauds.
You’re Mac
quote:
Prove it. Prove the premise wrong. Show me one example, Mr. Empirical Data Man, of anything beginning to exist- without a prior, external cause.
The smartest guys on the planet haven’t men able to create matter or energy. In fact we have this thing called the law of conservation of mass and energy, or the first law of thermodynamics that describes the phenomenon. The truth is that even if matter and energy were created, no one knows how or why. To say that you know that your God did it puts the burden of proof on you, not me.
quote:
I’m stating that the evidence supports the truth of the Bible.
Begging the question
quote:
Aka “the most liberal modern scholarly translation of the Bible.” No, thanks.
That is your choice to ignore the clear evidence that Genesis 1 is a retelling the the Mesopotamian myth whereby Marduk finds a world of chaos, kills the chaos water dragon, then uses the carcass to make the sky like a firm tent to separate the waters and used the wind to blow to make dry land appear. You are ignoring the context of the source material and ignoring the context of the Biblical Hebrew.
When God began to shape the heavens and the earth…
…the earth was formless and void…
By Edward L Greenstein, professor emeritus of biblical studies at Bar-Ilan University
In the context, and with the correct understanding of Hebrew grammar, doesn’t it make sense that God began to shape that which was formless, rather than creating something that was formless, and then later giving it shape? Don’t answer that.
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 3/25/24 at 3:18 pm to Stitches
quote:I responded but it got zapped with the thread.
Foo, I asked this in another thread, and the thread was deleted before I could see if you ever responded.
What is your take on the flood being global vs local?
I believe the flood was global. It doesn't make sense for it to be merely local for many reasons. Instead of having to build a giant boat and bring animals onboard to save them, God could have told Noah and his family simply to move away, like Lot. Also, God promised never to destroy the earth again with water. Either that statement makes no sense at all if it were a local flood (God wouldn't have destroyed the whole earth in that case), or God has broken His word who knows how many times by flooding parts of the earth in localized areas.
From my perspective, you either have to take the Bible at its word regarding a global flood, or you have to toss out the entire story altogether.
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 3/25/24 at 3:19 pm to FooManChoo
What do you think of Trump comparing himself to Jesus today?
Posted on 3/25/24 at 3:30 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I'd like you defend the premise that logic exists without using/appealing to logic in that defense.
Your circular reasoning is a vicious circle. You are the master of begging the question on this site. No one presupposes the veracity of his conclusions in the question quite like you. You’re like TD’s very own version of William Lane Craig. Don’t take that as a compliment.
If God is the highest standard there is (if He exists, He must by definition be the highest standard since He is perfect in all His qualities and being), then there is nothing higher to appeal to (human reasoning or anything else).
Just because you don't like that doesn't mean it's not true.
quote:If you want to engage in a presuppositional debate every time we chat, we can do that, but I've already done that time and time again. If you don't understand that your anti-God worldview is irrational on its face, then I don't know what else to tell you. For someone who adheres to a completely arbitrary and irrational worldview, you sure are quick to throw stones.
“And because the Bible is God’s word, it is the highest authority!”
quote:I'm not going to bother arguing with you about this as it won't do a thing to change your mind. You don't want to hear the truth because you simply can't admit that the God who created you exists and you are rebelling against Him. You want to be a god over your own life and hate that there might be a God that will judge you for living your life as you want to rather than as He has commanded.
You ever thought it possible that two Christians could read the same Bible and interpret it differently? Maybe he believes it is more allegorical while you believe it is literal, despite the verifiable facts set in front of you. His excuses and rationalization of absurdities is just different than yours maybe.[quote]Oh it's quite possible that two people can interpret the Bible differently. That's not the point. The point is what the intention of the author (God) is. We can think a text means anything we want it to, but it doesn't mean that's what the text means.
But more to the point, it's not even a difference in interpretation that is in question with Champagne. He isn't saying that he merely holds to a different interpretation of the text. He's essentially ridiculing me for believing a natural reading of the text by itself. He is being critical of me because I'm not changing my interpretation of the Bible to conform to other man-made theories. That isn't merely an interpretational issue, but an issue of authority.
[quote]God, who created a perfect creation with a perfect plan, had to kill everything with the breath of life when it went awry to get rid of sin. When his plan backfired like it normally does, and sin returned, he had to think of another plan. Oh crap they are building a tower to heaven - we (the gods) need to take the people down a peg by confusing their language. They’ll never be able to get to heaven now. Then God had to send himself to be sacrificed to pay himself off as a ransom for the sins of his perfect creation that he made incapable of following his rules and incapable of not sinning… all because he was incapable of simply forgiving his creation… all to save his creations from an afterlife of torture and misery that he himself created. And it’s funny, now that there are skyscrapers all over the world, and jumbo jets, satellites, spaceships, I wonder why he’s not scrambling our brains again.
Page 16 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News