Part 8 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Well of course not. See 1 Corinthians 12: 1 - 11.
Through the Holy Spirit.

I have not coined a term for it, but it is most commonly referred to as the 'Body of Christ".

I would not call it a 'Secret Society' as it is common knowledge to those that follow the teachings of Jesus. What is your point of reference and meaning in the phrase "meetings of like kinds" when followed immediately after the comment referencing 'secret society'? Are you attempting to ensnare by the use of precise words placed in correlation to other terms?

Oh come on. Everybody has little secrets that they don't want others to know about. Surely you are no different than the average human being. Are you suggesting that you have never entertained a thought that you would not share with the whole world?

Unfortunately for your misunderstanding. I don't belong to any "special society". To place myself in such a category would be succumbing to the wiles of the devil disguised as 'ego'. I am Christian. If you think that makes me a member of some society, then that is your perception and one which you will have to deal with.

Yes I occupy a humanoid body otherwise known as human.

Gee that sounds like my last statement made to you in the previous post to you on this thread.

 

Why don't you try that again and this time correct your quote errors. Your errors in quotations makes it inconvenient to have to decipher and redact from your posting things that I said which were improperly handled by your manipulation of the quote function..

 

I knew it would take a while to wrap your little mind around the idea that you can disprove a theory but not prove it.

It is a simple basic concept so keep trying. Like the little engine that could?

That a grown man could really think there was a noahs ark, and lacks the education to know
that it has been disproved a thousand times over is kind of funny, but, mostly it is pathetic.

 

You can't explain quarks, hardons? Because it is too sophisticated for the regular joe but as long as we believe then it is there even though we can not see, touch or feel it "quarks have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, color charge, mass, and spin. Quarks are the only elementary particles in the Standard Model of particle physics to experience all four fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravitation, strong interaction, and weak interaction), as well as the only known particles whose electric charges are not integer multiples of the elementary charge. For every quark flavor there is a corresponding type of antiparticle, known as an antiquark, that differs from the quark only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign".

God has been teaching us about science way before scientist learn about quarks, protons, atoms etc. That is why the first early scientist were the monks and other church fathers.

 

Yes, you are right the Apostles did not wrote the New Testament it was written by individuals who had first hand knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ this individuals were the scribes of the Apostles and how can we know the accuracy of what has been written, the accuracy is that all the Gospels have conformity with the events in spite of the fact that Gospel writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all far apart from each other their Gospels all communicate consistency and historians have confirm the events of what is written.Such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the travel and persecution and death of the Apostles and Christians, the characters and places. Both the NT and OT are scientific blueprint of modern science.

There were outside sources that were mainly written about Jesus Christ not as God but as a man that was persecuted by the Pharisees and since the Pharisees does not want any of Christ teachings to be made public they made sure nothing has been written about him that is why the only reliable source about Jesus Christ is the Holy Bible. What the Apostles believe and eventually thousands believe were later to become known as Christians because what they believe is real very real just like today's discovery of the quark or Higgs-boson "God-particle" even though it is invisible they know it exist and it is real.

Those Apostles and Jesus Christ were recognize by secular historians as factual historical characters that were instrumental in influencing and changing the Roman empire. Notice I did not include church tradition when in fact I should because just like science how can you proof the existence of the Higgs-boson particle without using science?

If you accept Jesus Christ is a real person then why are you questioning who established his existence or the Apostles? You accept he and they did existed because of historical records forget about church records since you don't believe and have already disregarded any church records not to mention that secular records of Christ and the Apostles were able to be made available thanks to the records keeping of the church.

Physicist had to use some unseen beam and use mathematical calculations with a,z,x,y etc. formula to calculate something that only they can see. The Higgs-boson is as invisible as God and the discovery was made from human intervention with the use of sophisticated machinery that is called the Large PARTCLE COLLIDER that smash atoms into atoms into atoms until there is nothing left to smash and the last atoms left standing is the Higgs or quarks in fact scientist are not sure if this is the last of the last atom or particle. The boson particle is suppose to be a massless particle as a massless particle one can not physically see it, measure it or touch it.

It isn't an atom per se it originated from an atom or part of an atom's "anatomy".

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...inning-string-theory-and-answer-why-were-here
Physicists at CERN have been studying a class of particle called B mesons, which are heavy objects made up of two different quarks (one antimatter and one regular matter) that decay into other particles. Their heaviness gives them several decay options, which makes them useful for studying matter-antimatter asymmetry.

This asymmetry explains why everything exists — which, from a mathematical point of view, it should not. Equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang, and the two types would have annihilated each other, leaving nothing behind. But somehow matter won out, meaning there was an imbalance between matter and antimatter at some point.

Supersymmetry is one way to explain this. Supersymmetric particles, which have names like squarks and selectrons, exist for every particle and have slightly different characteristics than their counterparts.

Understanding all these physics is more complicated and actually more unbelievable than understanding the existence of God.

 

That's ridiculous...............

 

If the UN will apply the 300 mile rule the Senjaju Islands are out of Japan's territorial boundary

140 kilometres (76 nmi; 87 mi) east of Pengjia Islet, ROC [36]
170 kilometres (92 nmi; 110 mi) north of Ishigaki Island, Japan
186 kilometres (100 nmi; 116 mi) northeast of Keelung, ROC
410 kilometres (220 nmi; 250 mi) west of Okinawa Island, Japan

 

Wow, indeed, since I never said that.

I did in my last post.

The latter.

Once again, I did.

They are inherently linked.

How is this a desperate attempt? The only desperation I see is from the person looking for any mistake or indiscretion to go on a tirade against how foolish atheists are.

There is nothing wrong with rationalization, why do I get the feeling that you're using it pejoratively? Do you actually have a rebuttal against my rationalization for the misuse of the word "proof" in the context of science?

 

There you go doing it again. Messing with the code which now makes it appear that I have stated something that you actually stated. Try this. Get with one of the moderators and receive instructions from that moderator on how to correct the problem. Until you learn how to properly post without messing up the coding on the quote function, then I will not be answering your postings.

 

The reason science was conducted by priests and monks during the Middle Ages is because they had the funds and time to waste. Scientists, however, existed for far longer than the existence of Christianity.

 

Let's start here:
"ra·tion·al·ize (rsh-n-lz)
v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To make rational.
2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.
3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): "Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments" (Janice Castro)."
www.thefreedictionary.com/rationalize

Pay particular attention to definition #3.
Do I need to say more?

 

Why do you believe this?

Which would be evidence if:

A) the Gospels were written at the same time instead of years and years apart

B) the books were not hand picked by the Church out of dozens of Gospels that were not consistent

C) the Gospels were actually consistent. They aren't. There is a reason why the entire field of Apologetics exists.

The persecution of the Apostles is Church legend, not documented history. Secondly, the stories of Greek myth also have aspects that are true. Thirdly, what parts of the Bible are scientific blueprints?

Which would make him probably one of many.

The Pharisees have no power beyond the region of Jerusalem, so that's a poor excuse.

So you claim.

And I see no reason why Church tradition is a reliable source of anything. Science proves itself to be a useful tool, that's why we use it. Church tradition is just that, tradition.

Huh? How am I questioning who established that he existed?

Small doesn't mean invisible. There are means of measuring the Higgs without touching it with your hand.

No, it isn't a part of an atom either. It's a particle. They aren't the same things. Stop trying to justify your ignorance, just admit you made a mistake and move on.

 

If you're claiming I incorrectly justified the use of the word proof in the context of science, I expect an explanation for why it was incorrect. I already requested this in my last post, so let's see if you actually address it in your next post.

 

Definitively you did. That is why I posted the definition of rationalize. Notice also in that set of definitions, definition number 1. "To make rational". To make something is to force it into a condition which is not found in nature. So, to make something rational is to force it to be something that it is not.
"make:
See definitions at www.theffreedictionary.com/make
(too many to list on the limited forum space).

So, as I see it, there is no need to address any of the other rationalizations until the issue of rationalizing is met with and resolved.

 

And as I see it, you're engaging in your infamous fallacious cherry picking of definitions to suit your argument. So, why should we spend more time than we have to on dealing with your troll-like behavior? What's even worse is that you only use one website for definitions, as if there are no other websites which expound more clear or precise definitions. But even that series of definitions from thefreedictionary includes "interpret from a rational standpoint". Let's see your rationalization for why that definition is not viable.

So, once again, do you want to discuss the actual crux of your claim that I was incorrectly offering a justification for behavior, or would you rather continue along with this specious nit-picking? Because as far as I suppose, you have no substantial argument to actually bring forth, so you rely on deceptive arguments that have been dismissed for quite some time as fallacious in nature.

 

I could explain hardons? But its not appropriate for a religious forum.
As for quarks, subatomic particles. I first heard about them many years ago in physics class in college.

 

Who said that definition was not viable? Are you intentionally attempting to misrepresent what I have stated? I need no "rationalization" for "why that definition is not viable" because that definition is viable. Then, however, when that definition is examined, we find the use of the word "rational". So, what is the meaning(s) of "rational"?
"ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical."

Then in that set of definitions we see the term "reason" used twice. So let us look at the term 'reason":
"rea·son (rzn)
n.
1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument"

Notice that those definitions focus on the ability of a person to use good judgment, having a normal mental state,
Also notice that all of these definitions point in the direction of being 'logical'. Logical simply meaning (used in its most basic or common usage) "using logic" .
So what is the meaning of 'logic'?
"
log·ic (ljk)
n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science
a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry."

Notice definition #2.c. Interesting is the fact that Theology is a formal teaching, has a guiding set of principles, and even has special schools that teach those principles. So, according to the principles and system of logic used in such settings, there is no doubt that the other systems of logic are in conflict with the system of logic used in such Theological settings. Now which system of 'logic' is more appropriate for discussions relating to subjects involving 'Theology'?

As I see it, I am not cherry picking definitions anymore that what you are. The difference being, the definitions I have picked lean more to the side of that system of logic used in Theology than the system that is used in 'science'.

Let us continue the discussion using that system of logic used in Theology considering the subject matter of this thread is one of a Theological nature.

 

So you consider studying science a waste of time?
The only science that existed before Christianity were quack science, voodooism, astrologist, wizardry, alchemist, paganism. Christianity introduce modern science and medicine.

 

Why, do you not know what the word means? Why not go through the entire dictionary and every word in every post if you're so concerned about accuracy?

Wow, and you accuse me of moving the goal posts? None of anything you posted is at all related to what we were discussing. You accused me of using a false rationalization, and now you retreat to defining a random string of words for some reason when you're confronted about the accusation. Pretty damn sad for a guy who consistently demands "irrefutable proof".

Really? Is that why you tried to press the definition of rationalization that deals with incorrectly justifying behavior instead of just moving on and actually answering how it was incorrect?

When the hell did theology come into this? How is that in anyway related to your accusation?

Oh, and what system of logic is used in theology, specifically, as opposed to any other discipline?

 

Because it has been establish by the church that the Apostles did not wrote the Gospels personally just like history were written by scribes not by the individual people themselves such as Alexander, Pharaohs, Darius of Persia, Caesar etc. their exploits, and events were written by scribes. The Apostles were busy preaching they were with the people most of the time they relay on their aids of disciples to write everything down.

You understood that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles why? You also understood that those Apostles including Jesus Christ did existed your only issue is that they did not wrote the Gospel personally right?

Even if they were written years apart the circumstances of those Gospels were in conformity with each other if they were written at the same time then one can say there might be some form of collusion? It is because they were written years apart with consistency that makes them more authentic. The role of the Apologetics is not to find excuses but explain the Bible reality just like Physicist explain the reality of something that normal people can not see or understand about quarks or Higg-boson particles.

Totally disagree with you and if you consider the persecution of the Apostles as legends then I must say you are totally contradicting history never mind church history since you have already set your mind to ignore anything about the church, but to ignore actual secular history then I can only say your claims lack any merits and credibility and the only thing I can do is to keep posting facts and reality to counter your false sense of reality specially about the church. You are ready to believe Greek mythology as real and you are ready to accept and believe the existence of the Higgs-boson even though you can not see it and the physicist could not clearly explain or proof its' existence how sure are you that they are just making it up because they need to justify to get more funding?

Yes, Jesus Christ will be one of many Biblical characters that have been establish as factual and historical people that did existed.

Yes the Pharisees power were mainly concentrated in controlling their own people in the region and since Jesus Christ is a Jew he falls under their jurisdiction that is why Pilate did not want to get involve the Romans at that time have gave the Jews some form of autonomy in governing themselves including punishing any Jews that they see fit. And Jesus Christ claim of being God is what the Pharisees were very angry about and they wanted to make sure they got rid of Jesus Christ and that include his teachings and followers. No it is not a poor excuse the poor excuse is your extreme blindness to any facts about Jesus Christ when you yourself believe that he did existed.

Not what I claim but what has become part of history no denial on that, you on the other hand will deny anything that involves the Catholic church, your position is not very scholarly.

Of course you find Church tradition as unreliable because you are an extreme anti Christian that is why I don't use church tradition to discuss or present my position I use your tradition of science and yet even that you seem to have a hard time accepting because you can not accept that science and the Catholic church has and have no conflict what you like is a conflict between science and the church.

Again if I say the Apostles and then eventually Christians establish Jesus Christ existed you will not accept that so I present to you that history establish Jesus Christ and the Apostles existed and are factual and historical people you yourself accepted and admit Jesus Christ existed your only problem is that he is not God.

No one has been able to present an actual Higgs particle all they have shown us are white boards and computer lines and mathematical formulas and you are saying it is not invisible? Do you think they would discover this particle if not for the Collider? How extensive, expensive and sophisticated is this Collider do you know?
God have appear to us in person, we don't need an imaginary line or mathematical calculation to proof God's existence because already proof His existence as Jesus Christ and yet you are ready to deny that and accept whole heatedly what you can not and don't understand about the higgs particle?

You just can not accept your faults and flaws you think you are infallible because you can not explain really what is Higgs-boson you don't even know how it was discover or how that particle cam about or where it came from? And yet you accuse me of being ignorant? Well, if you have the nerve which I notice seem's to be the trade mark of most I think all of the anti Christians people here is to throw insults when they have no way explaining their position or presenting a legitimate discussion.

 

I do know what the word means... I simply wanted to make sure that you were aware of the meanings of that/those terms.

Is that a request for something that you desire me to do?

Wrong! I accused you of using a rationalization as a means of hiding a part of your behavior. It is you who is moving the goal post by saying that I accused you of using a 'false rationalization'.

There was no random string of words. The words selected were all interrelated and were on point. The reason for those words and definitions was to show you the connection between those words and the act of rationalization (making excuses for ones behavior). You again attempt to shift the goal posts by evading the issue of addressing the rationalizations that you use.

Pretty dog gone sad when you have to keep shifting the goal posts. Irrefutable proof has not been a subject within the context of our discussion about rationalizations. More evasions on your part.

Really! That is why you normally use the term 'logic' in the sense of that form of logic used in 'science' as opposed to using the form of logic that is used in the discipline of Theology when you are discussing Theological matters.

Did you not read the title of this thread? "Part 8 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity" Is Christianity not a part of the Theological studies? How is your discussion relating to science and the logic used in science related to this thread?

Theological logic for a present lack of a better term.... If that don't work for you, then try Holy Spirit Logic. You might even want to try Theos Logic

 

Not according to science.

 

Don't worry about me.

What do you think?

Do you seriously not remember what happened a few posts ago? Because that isn't what occurred. This conversation was never about me. You complained about the usage of scientific proof, and I explained what people meant when they use that term. You called my rationalization incorrect, then pretended that the word rationalization itself only meant something along the lines of "incorrect justification." You further proceeded to go on a tirade of defining words while avoiding my questioning about what was so incorrect about my rationalization.

That's where we are now. Down the road of fallacies, hand waving, and changing the subject.

Not to the conversation we were having.

How have I been avoiding the issue? I have asked you two times to explain what was incorrect about my rationalization a and you have yet to answer. Instead, you have relied on horrible attempts at equivocation.

Except I haven't shifted the goal posts once, I was making a statement about the irony of the situation. I wasn't focusing the damn conversation on your inability to back up your claims.

The hell are you even talking about anymore?

I responded directly to a statement that you made about atheists using the term proof in the context of science. Why do you pretend to be the arbiter of what is or is not on topic whenever you're confronted about statements that you initially made?

And how is that different from any other logic within other disciplines?