- 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: For Catholics that went to Mass this weekend...
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:29 am to catholictigerfan
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:29 am to catholictigerfan
Protestants reject Fatima and other things like that as completely fake inventions or completely demonic apparitions, so, I don't know what your objective here might be.
Atheists, obviously, also reject Fatima and things like that.
Atheists, obviously, also reject Fatima and things like that.
1
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:33 am to Champagne
Happy to chime in on yours but as far as Foo, I’m kinda done. I’ve tried to engage with him but it constantly devolves into non-arguments, strawmen, category errors, etc. as squirrel said he’s either a moron or knows so much about what just isn’t true and won’t be honest with himself…
Our time is better served debating with Protestants with an open mind, atheists and each other to strengthen our beliefs and arguments.
Our time is better served debating with Protestants with an open mind, atheists and each other to strengthen our beliefs and arguments.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:36 am to Champagne
Just read it…
Well said.
Id also add that whether he realizes it or not, he is straight up calling Jesus a liar. But like I said before, I’m not willing to have that discussion with him because I know exactly what his response is gonna be and it’s surface level garbage at best.
Keep fighting the good fight brother.
Well said.
Id also add that whether he realizes it or not, he is straight up calling Jesus a liar. But like I said before, I’m not willing to have that discussion with him because I know exactly what his response is gonna be and it’s surface level garbage at best.
Keep fighting the good fight brother.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I reject that the Church "decides" in an authoritative sense rather than "receives" what God has inspired.
This is a very subtle and clever method to make the point that the Catholic Church's interpretations of God's Word are not authoritative because then the Church "decides" the interpretations, rather than the superior method of the individual on his own "receiving" directly from God the meaning of God's Word.
The Protestant Revolution eliminates this "middle man" Catholic Church. However, one "middle man" is replaced by another, whose name might be Calvin or Luther or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or whomever founded some other denomination.
It's fiction that there is no longer a "middle man" in your Theology. YOU are the "middle man" here on the Religion Board, for your particular brand and denomination. You may claim that there is no mask. It is your right for you to believe that.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:48 am to Champagne
quote:
Protestants reject Fatima and other things like that as completely fake inventions or completely demonic apparitions, so, I don't know what your objective here might be.
Atheists, obviously, also reject Fatima and things like that.
I found it as an insteresting video. No intention to get into a debate or anything like that.
My point was also that arguing alone isn't going to convince anyone, for the most part. It takes a personal encounter with God to convince someone.
I also wanted to point out that mircales seem to happen often in the Catholic Church, while I haven't heard protestants try and claim miracles happen for them. That could be that I'm Catholic and I don't hear about protestant miracles, but it could also be that they don't happen that often in protestant circles.
This post was edited on 4/23/26 at 9:51 am
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:53 am to Champagne
TLDR version: They are their own pope.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:55 am to METAL
The Protestant Revolution, at the beginning, was possessed of a fervent unity of thought and unity of purpose, and that was to smash the hegemony of the Roman Catholic Church, and they succeeded in doing that. The Revolution was greatly successful and the unified brotherhood of Reformers and Protestants won a great victory
But just as soon as the Roman Catholic hegemony in Western Civilization was indeed smashed, something happened to the unified brotherhood of the Reformers and Protestants - this unified brotherhood itself disintegrated and proved to be an illusion.
There was no "unity" other than the unified desire of very different people to smash the hegemony of the Catholic Church. And it is so TO THIS DAY as we see illustrated here on the Tigerdroppings Religion Board - the ONE topic that unifies the Protestants and Reformers is whatever topic or thread that bashes, criticized, attacks the Catholic Church and Catholic Theology. On THAT topic, Protestantism is wholly Unified, just as it was in the beginning of the Reformation.
Once THAT topic is off of the table and we move on to other theological topics, this Protestant Unity is no more. As such, I contend that it will be impossible to expect that we here on the Religion Board can move away from Catholic-bashing because to do so would destroy the illusion of Protestant Unity, and we won't do that around here.
Protestantism was founded in order to smash the Catholic Church and it can never completely move away from it's own core reason for existence.
That's not to say that we as individuals are guilty or good or bad or innocent - we will be Judged as individuals. I'm just making some personal historical and theological observations.
But just as soon as the Roman Catholic hegemony in Western Civilization was indeed smashed, something happened to the unified brotherhood of the Reformers and Protestants - this unified brotherhood itself disintegrated and proved to be an illusion.
There was no "unity" other than the unified desire of very different people to smash the hegemony of the Catholic Church. And it is so TO THIS DAY as we see illustrated here on the Tigerdroppings Religion Board - the ONE topic that unifies the Protestants and Reformers is whatever topic or thread that bashes, criticized, attacks the Catholic Church and Catholic Theology. On THAT topic, Protestantism is wholly Unified, just as it was in the beginning of the Reformation.
Once THAT topic is off of the table and we move on to other theological topics, this Protestant Unity is no more. As such, I contend that it will be impossible to expect that we here on the Religion Board can move away from Catholic-bashing because to do so would destroy the illusion of Protestant Unity, and we won't do that around here.
Protestantism was founded in order to smash the Catholic Church and it can never completely move away from it's own core reason for existence.
That's not to say that we as individuals are guilty or good or bad or innocent - we will be Judged as individuals. I'm just making some personal historical and theological observations.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 2:33 pm to METAL
quote:
-If objective moral truths exist (like real good and evil), where do they come from in a purely material universe?
They don’t.
quote:
-What caused the universe to begin? And if it began, how does something bound by space, time, and matter create itself?
Just because we don’t know exactly how the universe came into its present state doesn’t automatically mean the storm deity of the desert-dwelling Shasu tribe of the Sinai area created it. And no scientist believes the universe or matter created itself, though some Christians do belief matter was created from nothing by their deity.
quote:
-If the cause is outside space and time, what exactly is that cause in your view?
Don’t fall prey to the “God of the Gaps” fallacy, or the “special pleading” fallacy. Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean that your one specific particular God did it. And if everything needs a cause, what caused God? If you say God didn’t need a cause, then apply that same thing to the universe.
quote:
-The universe is incredibly fine-tuned for life. Do you see that as necessity, chance, or design? And why?
Can you live in outer space? On the moon? On the sun? On Mars? On other planets in the solar system or in other star systems? The universe is infinitesimally bigger than our third rock from the sun. And even on our rock, you can’t live in the ocean or at the north or south poles, or in the deserts. Only about 25% of the earth is habitable by humans. You start with a false presumption that the universe is fine tuned for life, and so your false presumption invalidates your question.
quote:
-Do you think consciousness and rational thought can fully arise from blind, unguided processes?
Ever heard of natural selection? That isn’t exactly an unguided process. It’s guided based on the principle that mutations that increase the ability to reproduce result in changes to genetic groups over successive generations.
quote:
-What’s your take on simulation theory? If we’re in a simulation, doesn’t that still point to a higher intelligence outside our reality?
I don’t think we are in the Matrix, but if we are in a simulation, it doesn’t mean Yahweh Sabaoth exists.
quote:
-If everything is ultimately accidental and without purpose, why should truth matter at all… including your own conclusions?
I don’t know.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 2:52 pm to Canon951
quote:
18 The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
You think quoting a scripture reference by itself as if it was authoritative is going to do anything for me? Come on, man.
Here’s a scripture for you to ponder, since we are quoting scripture.
quote:
‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ 19“Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.
So that was from Acts. I think all Christians can agree that Paul never met the man Jesus while he lived and preached on earth. What we learn is that Paul saw Jesus in a heavenly vision. I underlined and bolded the word in Acts, that is used in verb for in 1 Corinthians 15…
quote:
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
So Paul wrote that Jesus appeared (more accurately “was seen”) by Kepha “the rock”, then the 12, then the 500 brothers (Foo would commit special pleading fallacy here, arguing these 500 brothers are not literal biological brothers, but that when James is called a brother he wants him to be a biological brother), then to James, and then to Paul.
What started as the worship of a celestial dying and rising deity in the cosmos became the worship of a fictive Jewish handyman.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 3:10 pm to keks tadpole
quote:Yes, that's correct.
I’ve been once since I was told from the pulpit that Joseph and Mary were refugees
"When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” - Matthew 2:13-15
They fled government directed violence in Judea (a client kingdom of the Romans ruled by Herod the Great) and traveled to Egypt, a province of the Empire ruled by an imperial prefect, because Herod had no authority there.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 6:09 pm to Champagne
quote:It's not a distortion at all. The Reformers spoke about it a lot. They put their intentions in writing. Martin Luther initially sought to reform the RCC from errors that he thought existed, especially in regard to the abuses of indulgences.
This is a distortion of the Truth. It is a complete mischaracterization of the history of Christian Theology and the history of the Church.
The Reformers quoted the church fathers extensively to support their positions because they believed that the RCC lost its way, especially during the Medieval period when the Pope's power grew immensely and more and more doctrines developed that were not taught or practiced early on.
You can dislike the truth all you like, but your view of the Reformation is very much out of accord with the historical reality.
quote:Woah there. Who said that my denomination claimed to be the one, true Church? We believe we are part of the one, true Church, but we don't claim to be the only true branch, like Rome does. We believe there are more pure and less pure expressions of the one, true Church, which is why we differentiate ourselves from Methodists, Baptists, and Anglicans, etc., but we still believe that there are many true branches of the tree. We aren't exclusivists like Rome is.
The notion that YOUR Presbyterian Church, founded in the 1600s is the one true Church that reflects the Theology of the Early Christian Church, before the Early Church was corrupted by the Catholic Church, is a completely false notion that is clearly refuted by research into the matter.
Regarding our theology: we believe we more closely reflect the theology of the early church in many ways, and certainly the theology of the Bible, which is really what we're seeking to be conformed to. Our goal isn't to look exactly like the Church in the 3rd century, but to look like the Church that Christ founded and the apostles left instructions to in the Bible. While we're at it, though, even the RCC looks hardly anything like the Church from the 3rd century. Teaching the Pope was the singular head of the Church with jurisdiction over all of Christendom would have been laughable, for instance.
quote:Again, you're wrong. First, the doctrines are developed directly from Scripture. There isn't a single doctrine that the Reformers taught that they didn't support from the Bible. You may disagree with their interpretations, but you can't disagree that they at least believed that their views were supported by God's word.
This caricature that Protestants just started their own, a-historical movement is false" - no, it is true. Much of the "new" theology embraced by the Presbyterians and Covenanters can be shown to be new and novel interpretations of Scripture. In some cases it is a "re-hash" of ancient non-orthodox interpretations of Theology. In other cases, the theology is new and novel.
Second, as I already said, the Reformers quoted the ECFs constantly. They didn't think their teachings were novel at all, but only a developed understanding of what what taught and believed sporadically early on, which is not dissimilar to what Rome teaches regarding development of doctrine (except Rome has plainly created much of it out of thin air and said it came from undocumented tradition).
quote:I think you miss the point. For one, we don't believe that every denomination is equally "pure" in its doctrine and praxis, just like not every ECF was uniform in their understanding and teaching. For another, we don't believe that there needs to be perfect agreement in every respect in order to belong to the one Church of Jesus Christ.
This notion that the Protestant church is the One True Church and the True Early Church and that the Reformation was actually a Restoration of what the Early Church was before the Catholics perverted it is ridiculous on its face. All one needs to do is to look at the current state of "Protestant Truth" today in 2026. Is there ANY Protestant "Truth", with so many different denominations teaching Theological ideas that are diametrically opposed to one another?
We believe that the marks of a true church (congregation/denomination) are the faithful preaching of the word of God (the Gospel), the faithful administration of the sacraments (trinitarian baptism with water and the Lord's Supper), and the faithful execution of church discipline (correction, rebuke, and even suspension and excommunication as needed). That means there is a lot of diversity in Christ's one Church, just as Rome allows a diversity of belief and practice from parish to parish within the boundaries of its own teaching.
quote:I've researched it extensively. There is difference in belief about it, and the language of Christ's "flesh", "body", and "blood" is the same language that Protestant churches like my own use, so to say they unanimously agreed with the current teaching of the RCC is to assume they believed about that language what you believe, not what I believe. Regardless, we teach that it's the Bible that is the final authority, not Rome.
The Early Church was the Catholic/Orthodox Church. We know that from two basic examples - The Eucharist and Baptism. Research how the Early Church regarded the Eucharist and Baptism and there's your indication that the Early Church's view on these two issues is in alignment with Catholic/Orthodox positions on both today.
quote:So you're OK with just throwing out whatever comments you want here, regardless of whether or not they are true? I'll take the words of the Reformers (that they were seeking to purify the Church and reform it (thus the name...) rather than destroy it and create something new) over yours.
It's a very clever argument indeed that the Protestant Church is the same as the Early Church, but, it's a completely specious claim that has absolutely no historical or scholarly support, and, in fact is a very recent claim that has arisen in the last 150 years or so.
But no, the claim wasn't that the Protestant Church is the same as the Early Church, but that the Reformation was intending to remove the accretions and abuses that crept in over a thousand years and go back to the early church in substance, but improved according to the Scriptures and the 1500 years of study in the meantime.
quote:Come on... you love to talk about how this place shouldn't be used for religion while engaging in these discussions, yourself. Don't be a hypocrite on this issue.
Have a good day here on the TD Religion Board.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 6:12 pm to Champagne
quote:Factually not true. Luther is credited with starting the Reformation, and he didn't want to leave Catholicism. He was excommunicated for his attempts to reform the practices on indulgences in particular.
Protestantism was founded in order to smash the Catholic Church and it can never completely move away from it's own core reason for existence.
Learn some history.
Protestants' "core reason for existence" is to glorify God and worship Him, not to live in opposition to Rome. The opposition to that false-gospel-teaching organization is just a necessary outcome of glorifying God and worshipping Him.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 6:18 pm to Squirrelmeister
Your first two points…
On morality:
If objective moral truths don’t exist, then “good” and “evil” are just preferences. In that case, calling anything truly wrong (genocide, abuse, etc.) loses real meaning, it’s just opinion, but we don’t live like that. We all act as if some things are objectively wrong. The question isn’t if moral truth exists, it’s what grounds it.
So… if there’s no objective morality and no ultimate cause, then everything reduces to preference and brute fact. Do you actually believe that, or just argue from it?”
On the universe:
Agreed, “we don’t know” isn’t proof of God, but it isn’t an explanation either. If the universe began (which mainstream cosmology supports), then whatever caused it can’t be bound by space, time, or matter. That’s not “storm deity logic,” that’s basic causality. So what is that cause in your view?
Also, “created from nothing” is often misunderstood. Christianity doesn’t claim “nothing created something.” It claims a necessary, non-contingent reality (God) caused contingent reality (the universe). That’s a philosophical claim, not a gap-filler.
3rd point…
That’s not “God of the gaps.” I’m not saying “we don’t know, therefore God.” I’m saying the universe is contingent and began to exist, so it requires a cause that is not contingent. That’s a philosophical argument, not a scientific gap-fill.
Also, the “what caused God?” point misses the distinction. Not everything needs a cause, only things that begin to exist or are contingent. God, by definition, is not contingent, He’s a necessary being. The universe clearly isn’t, it changes, depends, and had a beginning.
So you can’t just “apply the same thing” to the universe unless you’re willing to argue the universe is eternal, uncaused, and necessary. But that runs against both modern cosmology and the fact that everything in it is contingent.
Why does something contingent exist at all instead of nothing?
4th point…
You’re mixing up habitability for humans with fine-tuning for life to exist at all. Those aren’t the same thing. Fine-tuning isn’t about how much of the universe we can comfortably live in, it’s about the underlying constants and conditions (gravity, cosmological constant, electromagnetic force, etc.) being within incredibly narrow ranges that allow any stars, chemistry, and life to exist in the first place. Change those even slightly and you don’t get a harsh universe, you get no universe capable of life at all.
So pointing out deserts or Mars doesn’t address the argument, it just changes the subject. Are you saying those constants had to be what they are (necessity), just happened to land that way (chance), or are you offering a different explanation? Because “most places aren’t livable for humans” doesn’t answer why a life-permitting universe exists at all.
5th point… (shorter now. I promise)
Natural selection explains how organisms change once you already have life. It doesn’t explain how consciousness or rational thought arise in the first place. Also, calling it “guided” is misleading. It’s not guided toward truth, it’s guided toward survival, but survival doesn’t guarantee true beliefs, just useful ones.
If our minds are the product of processes aimed at survival, not truth, why should we trust them to arrive at objective truth (which exists and Is stated anbove)…including the belief in naturalism itself?
6th…
A: True… it wouldn’t prove Yahweh specifically, but it does concede the key point… reality could depend on a higher intelligence outside our space-time. At that point, the debate isn’t whether something beyond the universe exists, it’s what it is.
If there is a mind behind reality, is it more reasonable to think it’s impersonal… or personal and rational, given we’re personal and rational?
Simulation theory doesn’t solve the question, it just pushes it back a level. So… what’s the nature of the ultimate cause behind everything?
Final point…
Thanks for the honest answer here. lol. I keed I keed.
If there’s no grounding for truth, then “I don’t know” isn’t just uncertainty, it’s all we can have, but you’re still reasoning, weighing arguments, and trying to land on what’s true… which means you’re already living like truth does matter.
So then… Why trust your mind to track truth at all if reality is ultimately purposeless and your thoughts are just survival byproducts? At some point, you either accept that truth is real and binding, which points beyond pure materialism, or you accept that everything, including your own conclusions, is just provisional and ultimately meaningless.
I dont think you subscribe to option 2…
On morality:
If objective moral truths don’t exist, then “good” and “evil” are just preferences. In that case, calling anything truly wrong (genocide, abuse, etc.) loses real meaning, it’s just opinion, but we don’t live like that. We all act as if some things are objectively wrong. The question isn’t if moral truth exists, it’s what grounds it.
So… if there’s no objective morality and no ultimate cause, then everything reduces to preference and brute fact. Do you actually believe that, or just argue from it?”
On the universe:
Agreed, “we don’t know” isn’t proof of God, but it isn’t an explanation either. If the universe began (which mainstream cosmology supports), then whatever caused it can’t be bound by space, time, or matter. That’s not “storm deity logic,” that’s basic causality. So what is that cause in your view?
Also, “created from nothing” is often misunderstood. Christianity doesn’t claim “nothing created something.” It claims a necessary, non-contingent reality (God) caused contingent reality (the universe). That’s a philosophical claim, not a gap-filler.
3rd point…
That’s not “God of the gaps.” I’m not saying “we don’t know, therefore God.” I’m saying the universe is contingent and began to exist, so it requires a cause that is not contingent. That’s a philosophical argument, not a scientific gap-fill.
Also, the “what caused God?” point misses the distinction. Not everything needs a cause, only things that begin to exist or are contingent. God, by definition, is not contingent, He’s a necessary being. The universe clearly isn’t, it changes, depends, and had a beginning.
So you can’t just “apply the same thing” to the universe unless you’re willing to argue the universe is eternal, uncaused, and necessary. But that runs against both modern cosmology and the fact that everything in it is contingent.
Why does something contingent exist at all instead of nothing?
4th point…
You’re mixing up habitability for humans with fine-tuning for life to exist at all. Those aren’t the same thing. Fine-tuning isn’t about how much of the universe we can comfortably live in, it’s about the underlying constants and conditions (gravity, cosmological constant, electromagnetic force, etc.) being within incredibly narrow ranges that allow any stars, chemistry, and life to exist in the first place. Change those even slightly and you don’t get a harsh universe, you get no universe capable of life at all.
So pointing out deserts or Mars doesn’t address the argument, it just changes the subject. Are you saying those constants had to be what they are (necessity), just happened to land that way (chance), or are you offering a different explanation? Because “most places aren’t livable for humans” doesn’t answer why a life-permitting universe exists at all.
5th point… (shorter now. I promise)
Natural selection explains how organisms change once you already have life. It doesn’t explain how consciousness or rational thought arise in the first place. Also, calling it “guided” is misleading. It’s not guided toward truth, it’s guided toward survival, but survival doesn’t guarantee true beliefs, just useful ones.
If our minds are the product of processes aimed at survival, not truth, why should we trust them to arrive at objective truth (which exists and Is stated anbove)…including the belief in naturalism itself?
6th…
A: True… it wouldn’t prove Yahweh specifically, but it does concede the key point… reality could depend on a higher intelligence outside our space-time. At that point, the debate isn’t whether something beyond the universe exists, it’s what it is.
If there is a mind behind reality, is it more reasonable to think it’s impersonal… or personal and rational, given we’re personal and rational?
Simulation theory doesn’t solve the question, it just pushes it back a level. So… what’s the nature of the ultimate cause behind everything?
Final point…
Thanks for the honest answer here. lol. I keed I keed.
If there’s no grounding for truth, then “I don’t know” isn’t just uncertainty, it’s all we can have, but you’re still reasoning, weighing arguments, and trying to land on what’s true… which means you’re already living like truth does matter.
So then… Why trust your mind to track truth at all if reality is ultimately purposeless and your thoughts are just survival byproducts? At some point, you either accept that truth is real and binding, which points beyond pure materialism, or you accept that everything, including your own conclusions, is just provisional and ultimately meaningless.
I dont think you subscribe to option 2…
Posted on 4/23/26 at 7:08 pm to SoWhat
No he did not.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 8:47 pm to Chuck Barris
quote:
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” - Matthew 2:13-15 They fled government directed violence in Judea (a client kingdom of the Romans ruled by Herod the Great) and traveled to Egypt, a province of the Empire ruled by an imperial prefect, because Herod had no authority there.
A literary creation by the authors of the gospels. “Mark” creates a problem - Jesus is a Nazorean. “Matthew” and “Luke” copy this tradition… in Acts, Paul is called a “ring leader of the sect of the Nazoreans”. Matthew and Luke preserved the word choice but thought it meant Jesus was literally from a town called Nazareth. Some scribe later edited Mark to make Jesus “from Nazareth in Galilee” instead of “a Nazorean from Galilee”.
But Matthew and Luke inherited a problem. Two traditions at that point. Jesus was supposed to be from Nazareth. But he was also supposed to be from Bethlehem. Both “Matthew” and “Luke” created their own stories of how to rectify the problem of how Jesus was supposed to be from Nazareth and from Bethlehem at the same time.
In Matthew, Joseph and Mary start out living in a house in Bethlehem and have to flee and detour in Egypt before trying to go back to their home and realizing they can’t go there they head north to Nazareth.
In Luke, they start out living in Nazareth and have to ride to Bethlehem to be counted for a census that never happened historically to count them in a place where they didn’t leave and and to count their property that they didn’t have. Oh yeah, everyone had to go back to the hometown of their ancestor from a thousand years earlier. Of course! Joseph is from the house of David!
Have you ever stopped to image the insanity? Hey all you Jews! Arbitrarily select a hometown of one of the male ancestors from a thousand years ago and go there where you don’t live and don’t have any stuff so we can count you and your stuff there that you don’t have. Besides, pretty much every single Jew would have been a descendant of David if David was a historical King.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 9:49 pm to METAL
quote:
On morality: If objective moral truths don’t exist, then “good” and “evil” are just preferences. In that case, calling anything truly wrong (genocide, abuse, etc.) loses real meaning, it’s just opinion, but we don’t live like that. We all act as if some things are objectively wrong. The question isn’t if moral truth exists, it’s what grounds it. So… if there’s no objective morality and no ultimate cause, then everything reduces to preference and brute fact. Do you actually believe that, or just argue from it?”
You don’t seem to be a fan of FooLaneCraig so I’d advise you not to repeat his fallacious arguments.
But I’ll tell you the same thing I tell him.
1. Even if the Bible were divinely inspired and “the God of the Bible” existed, there is nothing objectively right or wrong in the Bible. Yahweh says to sacrifice your firstborn child on the 8th day (ripping it away from its mother just as with the baby goats and calves). Yahweh says not to sacrifice your kids (pay their ransom so you don’t have to kill them). Yahweh says he gave the Israelites bad laws and he made them sacrifice their children (passing them through the fire). And Yahweh says he never commanded child sacrifice and it never entered his mind. Do you see the contradictions? If there’s no objectivity, then there isn’t any objectivity. On the subject of slaves… do you think owning another human as property is objectively wrong? Southern plantation slave owners used the Bible as their objective justification that slavery was moral and just.
2. Morality is subjective, even if we can usually almost always agree on some things. Taking someone’s life against their will is objectively wrong, every time, right? You think that’s objective? Have you taken philosophy 101 at the university level? Have you heard of the trolley problem? Look it up. Social norms dictate what is right and wrong, though there is no objective standard. It’s all opinions. Don’t mistake consensus of opinions for objectivity.
quote:
On the universe: Agreed, “we don’t know” isn’t proof of God, but it isn’t an explanation either. If the universe began (which mainstream cosmology supports), then whatever caused it can’t be bound by space, time, or matter. That’s not “storm deity logic,” that’s basic causality. So what is that cause in your view?
No mainstream legitimate scientist who studies the cosmos and has published peer reviewed literature says the universe began. What is the cause of the big bang hyper expansion of matter? No idea, and whatever was the cause, I can be sure it wasn’t the fictive Shasu storm and volcano deity.
quote:
Also, “created from nothing” is often misunderstood. Christianity doesn’t claim “nothing created something.” It claims a necessary, non-contingent reality (God) caused contingent reality (the universe). That’s a philosophical claim, not a gap-filler.
Have you read Genesis chapter 1 or chapter 2? Or the Babylonian creation myths? In each case, the hero deity (let’s call the Christian God “Yahweh Sabaoth”) doesn’t create the world. The earth already existed. The earth was formless and void. Yahweh Sabaoth or Elohim started putting it in order, turning chaos into order.
quote:
Also, the “what caused God?” point misses the distinction. Not everything needs a cause, only things that begin to exist or are contingent. God, by definition, is not contingent, He’s a necessary being
Special pleading. You’re doing it again.
quote:
You’re mixing up habitability for humans with fine-tuning for life to exist at all. Those aren’t the same thing. Fine-tuning isn’t about how much of the universe we can comfortably live in, it’s about the underlying constants and conditions (gravity, cosmological constant, electromagnetic force, etc.) being within incredibly narrow ranges that allow any stars, chemistry, and life to exist in the first place.
And whales seem to be fine tuned to live in the ocean and swim with flippers, except some still have rudimentary hip bones and feet bones and they can’t breath in the water and can drown.
Even if you can argue something fine tuned the universe, it’s still not an argument or evidence for your particular deity who had to kill his “only” son to atone for sins that he set in motion rather than just simply being able to forgive people.
quote:
Natural selection explains how organisms change once you already have life. It doesn’t explain how consciousness or rational thought arise in the first place.
Biogenesis - the start of life on this planet. Scientists actually know a lot about the natural formation of organic compound and amino acids and so on. But it doesn’t matter how life started. Evolution of species is a demonstrable fact of nature. Whether life started naturally or by some other supernatural means is still not evidence for your particular fanciful deity who had to be talked out of genociding the entire Israelite population due to it being a subject of future embarrassment for him in the presence of the Egyptian deities. Have you read exodus? Moses talks Yahweh out of murdering his entire population of acquired people - the Israelites - due to what the Egyptians would say about him. Moses said dude, the Egyptians will say you took all the slaves away just so you could kill them yourself.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 11:17 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I might disagree with METAL on a lot of things, but on this, I agree completely. This isn't a purely theological question, but a philosophical one.
You don’t seem to be a fan of FooLaneCraig so I’d advise you not to repeat his fallacious arguments.
Logically, if there is no objective standard to define morality, then morality must be subjective, and therefore derived from the human mind, either individually or collectively, but subjectively. The standard for "good", then, is whatever the individual or the collective determines for itself based on force ("might makes right"), and there is no true "good" or "evil", but only what society claims it to be at any given moment.
That's not fallacious, but the logical conclusion of subjectivity.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 9:05 pm to Squirrelmeister
Ok. Let’s go one topic at a time to avoid walls of text… not to mention you’re mixing a few different issues together just on the Morality one, so let’s separate them.
First, if morality is truly subjective, then calling anything “wrong” doesn’t mean anything beyond preference. Saying slavery or genocide is wrong would just be your opinion versus someone else’s, but you don’t actually live that way. You argue as if some things are really wrong, not just disliked. That only makes sense if there’s a standard above human opinion. Otherwise, the slave owner and the abolitionist are just expressing different tastes.
Second, your Bible objections rely on surface-level readings and category confusion which kind of shocked me, coming from you. The Old Testament contains descriptive accounts, judicial laws for a specific covenant people, and progressive revelation. God permitting something or regulating it in a fallen society is not the same as endorsing it as an ideal. Jesus Himself points this out with divorce in Matthew 19. And on child sacrifice, Scripture is explicit and consistent: it is condemned (Jeremiah 7:31). Quoting difficult passages without context doesn’t show contradiction, it shows complexity.
Third, appealing to misuse of the Bible proves nothing. People have justified evil with all kinds of ideologies, including atheistic ones. Misuse of a standard doesn’t invalidate the standard, it shows the need for it to be interpreted correctly.
Finally, the trolley problem doesn’t prove morality is subjective, it shows that moral reasoning can be difficult. Disagreement about application doesn’t eliminate objective truth any more than disagreement in math eliminates correct answers.
So the real question isn’t whether people disagree, It’s whether moral truth is grounded in something real or just floats on human opinion. If it’s the latter, then words like justice, evil, and human dignity lose any objective meaning.
And I don’t think you actually believe that.
First, if morality is truly subjective, then calling anything “wrong” doesn’t mean anything beyond preference. Saying slavery or genocide is wrong would just be your opinion versus someone else’s, but you don’t actually live that way. You argue as if some things are really wrong, not just disliked. That only makes sense if there’s a standard above human opinion. Otherwise, the slave owner and the abolitionist are just expressing different tastes.
Second, your Bible objections rely on surface-level readings and category confusion which kind of shocked me, coming from you. The Old Testament contains descriptive accounts, judicial laws for a specific covenant people, and progressive revelation. God permitting something or regulating it in a fallen society is not the same as endorsing it as an ideal. Jesus Himself points this out with divorce in Matthew 19. And on child sacrifice, Scripture is explicit and consistent: it is condemned (Jeremiah 7:31). Quoting difficult passages without context doesn’t show contradiction, it shows complexity.
Third, appealing to misuse of the Bible proves nothing. People have justified evil with all kinds of ideologies, including atheistic ones. Misuse of a standard doesn’t invalidate the standard, it shows the need for it to be interpreted correctly.
Finally, the trolley problem doesn’t prove morality is subjective, it shows that moral reasoning can be difficult. Disagreement about application doesn’t eliminate objective truth any more than disagreement in math eliminates correct answers.
So the real question isn’t whether people disagree, It’s whether moral truth is grounded in something real or just floats on human opinion. If it’s the latter, then words like justice, evil, and human dignity lose any objective meaning.
And I don’t think you actually believe that.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 9:56 pm to SoWhat
In a round about way…yes.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 10:46 pm to METAL
quote:
First, if morality is truly subjective, then calling anything “wrong” doesn’t mean anything beyond preference. Saying slavery or genocide is wrong would just be your opinion versus someone else’s, but you don’t actually live that way. You argue as if some things are really wrong, not just disliked. That only makes sense if there’s a standard above human opinion.
No, Foo, there can be good and bad with no god and no objective standard. For instance, chocolate ice cream can be good, while burnt popcorn can be bad. It’s all just opinion, but it is still meaningful. Some nasty bastard might like burnt popcorn, but it is still gross. I hope that analogy is helpful. It’s all moot though because Yahweh Sabaoth doesn’t exist, but even if he did, he didn’t give us an objective standard to begin with.
quote:
Otherwise, the slave owner and the abolitionist are just expressing different tastes.
Yes they are. For thousands of years people used the Bible to justify slavery. The Bible patently endorses slavery. Paul told slaves to obey their masters (so did Jesus basically).
quote:
Second, your Bible objections rely on surface-level readings and category confusion which kind of shocked me, coming from you. The Old Testament contains descriptive accounts, judicial laws for a specific covenant people,
You mean the everlasting/eternal covenant that Paul and Hebrews says was made obsolete?
quote:
God permitting something or regulating it in a fallen society is not the same as endorsing it as an ideal.
Thou shalt not own another person as property. He could have put that right next to the command not to covet thy neighbor’s arse. It would have been a profound moral directive. Instead, he wrote of how to enslave Israelites for debts, and how to enslave non-Israelites so that they could be passed down as inherited property.
He could have also said “Thou shalt not force thy penis into a woman against her will.” But instead we got that a man can rape an unmarried woman as long as he can pay her father the bride price.
quote:
And on child sacrifice, Scripture is explicit and consistent: it is condemned (Jeremiah 7:31). Quoting difficult passages without context doesn’t show contradiction, it shows complexity.
How can you say it is consistent, when you cleave verses like this?
quote:
29“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
Do you know what they did with oxen and sheep on the 8th day? They ripped it from its mother, slit its throat, and burned it on an altar. It says to do the same with your firstborn sons as with the firstborn oxen and sheep.
Yahweh bragged about it. He bragged about making the Israelites sacrifice their kids. You might think you are free from that barbaric covenant, but you are worshiping (an imaginary) deity who commanded innocent people to sacrifice their children. That’s sick. It’s psychotic and sociopathic. You even believed he sacrificed his own son. For what? Because he couldn’t just forgive people? Someone had to pay the price? He created the price. It’s sick.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News