Part 8 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

So, again, you solely rely on what you're told by the Church.

I believe Jesus existed and that he had followers. That's all.

How does that make it more authentic?

It isn't the same at all.

The only sources we have about the death of the Apostles comes from early Church leaders, and they are basing that off word of mouth stories that were told.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

The evidence for the Higgs was clearly explained in peer reviewed journals. They presented their findings for the whole world to scrutinize.

So, if the Pharisees' power was limited to Jerusalem, how could they have stopped people from writing about Jesus? They obviously didn't stop any of the Gospels from being written.

It hasn't become a part of accepted history.

[Auote]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[/quote]

You have retreated to "That's what the Church says" numerous times.

Why must you lie about my character and about what I believe?

Yes, exactly.

It is only invisible to the naked eye.

No, and yes.

When has Jesus appeared to you or me? Why is he relying on a series of books to convey his existence?

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

 

I don't.

Many things.

"Few" is an ambiguous term. Be specific by identifying the particular post.

What is it that is "not what occurred."?

No-one said that the conversation was about you.

You made a presumption about what "people meant". Are you knowing the minds of every man or woman that uses that term?

Wrong: I simply called it a rationalization. You are the one placing the emphasis on the "incorrect" comment within the definition. My emphasis was on the "self-satisfying" comment within the definition.

Wrong again. I gave the complete and or pertinent definitions of 'rationalization' and 'rationalize'. There was no pretending involved. You must have been reading into the definitions your own private variation.

I declined from addressing the 'incorrect' comment because my emphasis was on the 'self-satisfying' aspect because we were talking about Atheists being 'self worshipers'.

That is where we have been from the beginning of this conversation.

There have been no fallacies (a tool of your choice of logic system); there has been no hand waving at this end of the terminal; and you are the only one who has attempted to change the subject from 'rationalization' to 'incorrect rationalization'.

On the contrary. We were discussing rationalization and the words selected and defined were related to 'rationalization', 'rationalize' and 'logic'.

By establishing non-sense arguments in an attempt to not discuss rationalization.

And as I have stated above, my emphasis was not on the 'incorrect' comment in the definition but rather on the 'self-satisfying' aspect.

Another display of your rationalizations.

This thread is regarding a Theological subject and you are desiring to use that form of logic used in science as opposed to using that form of logic used in Theology. That is what I am talking about.

"proof" as used in science would require the use of that system of logic used in science. This is a Theological discussion and subsequently would require that system of logic used in Theology. I am not challenging the subject or topic but rather the tools which you have chosen to use in this thread.

A completely different set of rules and dynamics. In order to understand those rules and dynamics one has to be immersed in the direct communication with the Holy Spirit to receive the necessary instructions. Much the same way that a student of science would have to be in direct communication with his/her teacher or counselor in order to receive instructions or training. Would you expect a carpenter or plumber to understand and be fully functional in the use of that system of logic used in electronics? I really didn't think you would hold such an expectation.

 

Ah, so you posted the definitions not for your worry about my understanding about the words, but for your own self-gratification?

Or you could just look back to the past few pages do see what actually occurred when our dialogue began in this thread so you don't have to make up what you think was said.

You implied it was when you said: "I accused you of using a rationalization as a means of hiding a part of your behavior."

In regards to science, the term proof simply does not apply unless a person is using it as a synonym for evidence. You asked if there were only two definitions of the word proof. No, there is not, but in the context of speaking about science, there are really only two possibilities for the usage of the word.

Honestly, even if a justification was "self-satisfying", whatever that means in this context, it wouldn't make the damn justification incorrect.

There was a tacit dismissal of the second definition of the word.

We certainly weren't. The conversation that we were having was about the use of the word proof in science. So, I don't know what the hell you thought was occurring in the conversation.

Equivocation fallacy, to name one.

That's because you failed to point out what you thought was wrong with the word or my action; you just pointed at a definition and said "pay attention..."

I don't want to have a discussion about what rationalization means, you forced it because you apparently couldn't explain what was wrong with my justification without resorting to pulling out a dictionary.

That's because the definition of rationalization wasn't even an issue until you felt you had to equivocate and use your old tired song-and-dance of picking the most pejorative definition of the word.

Which you again use pejoratively, even though we just had a discussion that there are definitions of the word which don't mean "a self-satisfying and incorrect justification."

How would you know that I am opposed to it if you just randomly brought the subject up?

Yeah, and I'm waiting for you to explain the difference between the logic used in those two disciplines.

Hand-waving tactics. Why do you need to be "immersed in the direct communication with the Holy Spirit to receive the necessary instructions"? What does being immersed in direct communication with the Holy Spirit to receive the necessary instructions?

So, you're claiming that God is speaking to you directly and teaching you how to use logic that apparently only someone can understand by being in contact with God?

And you think that logic somehow diverges depending on the job that you do? Why in the world would you think that?

 

I rely on both the Church, science and historians because all three exist together that the Church has no problem with.
How about you do you rely only on your own personal view?

How do you know that, who told you, where did you read about it?
If you do believe then do you believe their actions and history was the main cause that lead to the birth of Christianity if they do not exist then there would be no Christianity.
You believe they existed why do you say that the Apostles death were all legends created by the church? Maybe you know how they die or what is their life story why did they preach about Jesus Christ?

It makes the Gospels written years apart by followers of the Apostle authentic as I have posted there was conformity with events, places and facts in spite of them being far apart unless they have cell phones or consult with each other or recorded files that they can transmit to one another we all know they have none of those and the writers wrote base on eyewitness, base on their sincerity and most of all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the unseen quark-particle of God). As I said none of the history written about Alexander, Darius, Caesar, Cleopatra, Pharaohs, Kings and monarchs were all written by scribes not by those individuals themselves.

The role of physicist is to explain and present their discoveries to be true and answer all doubts. The role of apologetics is to explain and present God His reality and to answer all questions to clear all doubts. If you find there is no difference maybe you can share as to why there is no difference?

It was base on words of mouth and actual witnesses to their death and because there was a harsh policy that existed against Christian these writers have to be careful that they wrote under hiding and fear that they might get caught and suffer the same death as the Apostles.
This goes back to my question if you do not believe that the Apostles died or were executed because they were Christians then how did they die since you said you do believe they did existed and were influential in spreading Christianity so how did they die according to you or your sources?

I have heard that many times when ever my counter part run out of English.

The world can not scrutinize something that only physicist with the aid of sophisticated machines and mathematical formulas can take away those machines specially the expensive COLLIDER no one can explain the quark particle that according to them is massless, an anti matter that revolves or struggle against matter colliding and smashing, a war between matter and anti matter in the subatomic plane or dimension.
God has came down from heaven as Jesus Christ, He has through His Holy Spirit guided many individuals to proof in layman's way and term of His existence no sophisticated mathematical formula are needed, no sophisticated machines to see Him no need for any laboratory experiments.

The people had to write underground in hiding and also years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ sometime in 70 AD the Jews revolted against Rome the revolt was crush with shear brutality with the expulsion of Jewish leaders and the taking away of their autonomy these allowed the writers to write more openly notice the year of the revolt and the year that the writings started to surface between 60 -160 AD while the Jewish revolt was dated at 68 - 70 AD.

Exodus, Kings, mainly the entire Old Testament is part of the history of Israel the New Testament has become part of the history of Rome, and today's Middle East.

I have posted what the church says that conform with what science and history to present to you the none conflict and authenticity of church history and God.

There you go again just like the rest of anti Christians here, have I ever accuse you of lying about your ideas and post? No I never accuse you of lying in fact I respond to your post with facts and science and you accuse me of lying? What ever lies you think I have posted about you, your character or belief are all base on your own self insecurity and my respond are base on your own claims.

You have to be clear, do you mean "exactly" that you believe 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? I don't want you to accuse me of lying again and again.

The quark and all its supporting particles are totally invisible and can only be seen through our imagination with the aid of mathematical formulas and sophisticated machines that create lines and dots to project an image of a massless particle. God is less sophisticated to understand and accept God is not invisible He has already reveal Himself to us as Jesus Christ.

"Blessed are those who believe and not seen". Was Jesus talking like the physicist 2000 years ahead of his time?

Again you need to elaborate. Me, I don't think they would have discover this massless particle without the aid of this expensive collider nor would they have succeeded without member nations contributing bullions of $ to build maintain and fund this equipment that took them more than 20 years to finally found something and now they have a reson to ask for more billions$ to continue to find something more minute quarks a subquark particle probably.

When has the Higgs-bosn presented to you to see and touch? The physicist can not produce an actual particle who do they rely on computer screen and mathematical formulas and tell you this is the quark particle?
Jesus through the Holy Spirit has appear to me specially in times of trouble and crisis He gave me hope, love and charity the books are all there to remind us about God and about our own imperfection "write it down so the world will not forget" When Eisenhower enter the death camps of Hitler he explicitly told all photographers to take many pictures so that no one decades after will say all these did not happen.

I don't need to pretend what you know you have posted everything about your position.

 

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

Were you not inferring here that you were worried about my awareness of the meanings of words?

Exactly how is it my homework to remind you of what you posted?

Implied.

There aren't too many ways to interpret the usage of "you" and "your" beyond your post being directed at me and my behavior instead of the behavior of others.

Why in the world could they both not be correct? Do you think that every definition of a word is applicable in every instance, regardless of the context?

Uh, yeah, really. Unless you can explain how "self-satisfying" means "inherently wrong".

Why are you randomly bringing up laws? Did I say that there was a law?

Not at the beginning of the conversation. You brought the definitions of the word as a cheap ploy to change the subject.

And exactly what is your familiarity with these subjects to make this kind of declamation?

It has nothing to do with intelligence. You were vague and you assumed that I would know what part of the use of rationalization you had a problem with when there were apparently two problems to you within that definition.

No it isn't. Sure, that may be the case in many different contexts, but there is also the possibiltiy that clarity about why something occurred was simply necessary.

Just calling it an opinion doesn't make it wrong, buddy.

Except that wasn't the context since you and I weren't discussing that subject when I used the word.

Which means nothing more than you don't have an answer, so you're shuffling me off on some ludicrous quest to seek the "source" of logic.

On the subject of "theological logic"? Of course there isn't, because no such distinction exists in philosophy.

Another claim that I doubt you have any evidence for.

Yes, it was. It should say: "What does being immersed in direct communication with the Holy Spirit to receive the necessary instructions mean?"

If you're saying something as a declaration of what is true, then that is exactly what a claim is.

It speaks volumes that you rely on probably the most vague definition on that page to make your argument. How about you stop relying on what a dictionary says and instead make an actual argument for why what you're saying is true.

 

You really have NO grasp of the english language. You can't help anyone until you learn effective commuication. But always good for a chuckle, so thx for that.

 

No!

If you want to quote me on something that is your responsibility. You can say whatever you want to say about a previous post, but I am not obligated to support (by doing your footwork) your claims what was allegedly stated.

If you say so. I see it differently.

Like I said, you are the one doing the interpretation. Inferred or implied.

Be more specific in your responses. Include in your response the subject matter you are talking about.

 

...So who exactly were you worried about not understanding the definitions of certain words?

No, you'd be obligated by some sort of standards you had for yourself if you were an honest person, but clearly you are not that. And I'm not saying whatever I want to say about a previous post, I'm telling you what was posted. You can not believe me if you want, but you could just as easily look back to see if what I said was true, just as I can.

Of course I'm the one interpreting what you said, I'm the only person you're talking to in our dialogue. If you have some different interpretation, you're more than welcome to actually elaborate on what you meant, but instead you just act like a child in a temper tantrum by claiming that my interpretation is wrong without expounding on how it was wrong. My niece does the exact same thing.

In regards to what?

No, I didn't, I said the exact opposite which is why you are disagreeing with me.

Wrong and incorrect are synonyms, buddy.

Sure, if the discussion was dealing with legal matters, which it wasn't. Another prime example of equivocation and another example of irony since you're claiming that I have a poor ability of inference.

An opinion held by numerous other posters on this forum based off of your behavior.

Have you had any formal training what-so-ever?

Sure, it could have been, but it wasn't.

Except you aren't doing it for the purposes of clarity. If you were, you would ask me which definition of the word I was relying on. Instead, you chose definitions that would make your argument speciously logical if it weren't for the blatancy of the equivocation used.

Then what exactly were you implying when you said "You know what opinions are like"?

The first post I used the word rationalization. The discussion was never about self-worship until you brought it up half-way through our current conversation and pretended like it was what we were always discussing.

Saying "go to the source" isn't an answer, its a reference to where I would find the answer to my question.

What damn paragraph are you reading? The opening sentence states: "In the history of Christian theology, philosophy has sometimes been seen as a natural complement to theological reflection, whereas at other times practitioners of the two disciplines have regarded each other as mortal enemies." How in the world did you get to the explanation that they are two distinctively different disciplines unless you simply dismissed the part where it says "philosophy has been seen as a natural complement to theological reflection.."?

I'll also point out that article doesn't treat logic as being a discipline that morphs for whatever topic that is being discussed.

"The philosopher can provide some assistance here, since, among other things, he or she can help the theologian discern which models are logically inconsistent and thus not viable candidates for understanding the relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ."

According to you, philosophers wouldn't be able to point out which models are logically inconsistent because theological logic is apparently radically different from philosophic logic in your opinion.

Uh, yes, yes I would.

Well, of course, did you believe that I thought I was infallible? If not, why even bring this up unless as an underlying jab at my character?

If only I had claimed that the quest itself was ludicrous, and not that it was ludicrous because you couldn't produce the answer yourself.

In what way is calling something vague an example of extremism?

It's a disdain for your continuous activity of equivocation.

 

No-one. Worried is the word of your choice. Remember, you requested that I not worry about you and I responded, "I don't". Adding a definition for the purpose of clarity does not necessarily mean a 'concern' but can rather simply be a measure of surety.

More of your subjective speculation regarding me to include a personal attack in saying that I am not an honest person. Hello Moderators. Pay note to the innuendo of a personal nature.

Really? Here all this time, I thought I was speaking to the entire membership who desire to read this thread.

More personal innuendos. The count is building.

What you were talking about.

More speculation based on a presumption. The presumption being you thinking that you know why I am disagreeing with you.

I'm sorry. I referenced the wrong word. I meant to speak about the term "inherent". Inherent is not mentioned in that definition.

Well of course you were. You were referencing the rules of logic used in science, the rules regarding the scientific method and a sundry of other items which have laws and rules that are not applicable to the system of logic used in Theology.

Is that supposed to be some authoritative resource?

Yes! Many years studying in various Theological environments across the country. Now if you are asking if I have a degree in Theology, then the answer would be no. Now, Have you had and formal training what-so-ever in the field of Theology? What degree did you obtain? What was the name of the institute of higher learning?

What assurance do I have of the validity of your claim?

Where is the rule which says I am obligated to ask you what definition you are using? No such rule? Then deal with it.

I was implying that you have more than likely heard the old expression "opinions are like butt holes, everybody has one.".... further meaning ... that is about the same value as an opinion.

Wrong. The "first post" was the OP.

Which answer was correct. What better source of information than the source of the information? Quit crying about a proper answer.

You just quoted the relevant part and I emphasized the pertinent text with red letter.

I never said that the article said anything about morphing a form of logic. The definition of logic is where the morphing aspect comes into play. Is judicial logic the same as the logic used in nuclear physics? Not hardly.

Assistance from a philosopher to a Theologist is not the same as being Theology. Logic is defined as such: "The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science." The article plainly relates to two distinct 'disciplines'. Learn to read. philosophy has this as one of its definitions which are applicable and in context:
"2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

Not in my opinion. In the opinion of my instructor, the Holy Spirit.

Good. Then show me empirical and irrefutable evidence of your hopes and ambitions.

No! But you sometimes make that projection. You mean like the same manner in which you make jabs at the character of Theists?

"ludicrous quest" as used in the sentence you wrote, placed the term ludicrous as an adjective describing the type of quest that was being spoken of. English grammar... buddy.

Your use of the term 'most' as in 'most vague' when the words used in the definition were self explanatory.

Deal with it. As I am dealing with the disdain for your rationalizations.

 

My English is very basic even an 11 year old can easily understand I can understand if you are running out of English so instead of answering or discussing the issue intelligently you find excuses that "you can't understand my English".

The question is very simple base on the post accusing early Christian church fathers the reason why they had so much time to spend in researching science is because they have time to waste

So do you care to clarify, do you consider studying science a waste of time no not? and don't give us excuses that my English is bad either you know the answer or not very simple English or maybe you just can't accuse GraspingforPeace of bad English because you are afraid of him? or maybe can I accuse of lying?

Please allow GraspingforPeace to respond I don't think you know what he / she is talking about so don't put words in his / her mouth maybe he/she got his/her English wrong? Is studying science a waste of time?

 

WanRen, I doubt anybody here is afraid of me, or I hope they are not. I am not a menacing figure. All I meant by that statement was that monks and priests during the Middle Ages had more time to spend on such ventures because they weren't toiling in the fields like the lowly peasants.

 

Whatever, it isn't worth it to discuss that any longer.

Hello troll. I have seen you numerous times calling atheists dishonest, so it is no more of a personal attack than yours.

Not directly you weren't.

You should probably stop fitting the bill for the descriptions, then. I am not the first one to make note of how you act in these forums.

Hello vagueness.

Regardless of why you were disagreeing with me, the point still stands that I said the exact opposite of what you claimed I said. And you wonder why I call you dishonest?

I never said that it was.

The hell does anything of what you said have to do with the legal system?

Nope, but it does tend to give credence to the opinion held.

Logic courses, theology courses. And I'm not going to give you personal information beyond saying that I don't have a degree in theology either.

Well, let's see, the fact that you didn't expound on what problem you had with the definition.

Did I say there was a rule? No, I said that if you were actually seeking clarity, then you were going about it in contradictory manner.

Okay, so you were saying my opinion was incorrect.

I didn't say "the first post", I said "the first post I used the word rationalization."

Again, referencing where to find the answer is not the same thing as an answer. You claimed you gave me an answer to my question. You didn't, you told me where to find it. That isn't the same thing. And you wonder why I call you dishonest?

Which means that you're ignoring the entire rest of what the paragraph says. You claimed that "Theology and philosophy are two distinctly different disciplines." That statement isn't backed up by the first paragraph; the article says that there are different opinions about how the two disciplines relate.

Of course, so you admit that the only thing that you're doing is relying on equivocation. Muddling up the definition of logic to what you want it to be given various circumstances.

And why in the world would I abide by your chosen definitions when you have shown again and again that the only thing you're doing is relying on a fallacious reasoning to make an argument from absurdity?

Too bad that there isn't any way at all to back up your claim with tangible proof.

Be more specific.

I don't make jabs at the character of theists, I make jabs at people who have shown that their characters are abominable in nature, as you have done repeatedly on these forums.

And what quest do you think that I meant when I used that word?

Obviously the words in the definition aren't self-explanatory, else we wouldn't have to have any discussions about what the definitions of the words mean.

The difference being that rationalizations aren't inherently examples of poor reasoning, fallacies are.

 

No, until you can understand what he posted there is no point discussing anything with you.

 

Caught with your pants down on that opening line, where you are conceding the struggle on that issue. The point is this: It was never a real issue anyway and you were merely using that as one of your ploys for distraction. It never was worth discussion. Just like many of your other ploys outlined below. All the way through and concluding with your closing remark about fallacies. As I stated before, Theologians are not required to adhere to that system of logic used in Science, so all your crap about logical fallacies is more distraction.

 

Are you sure that is what YOU meant. That's how I took it but somehow Wanren didn't comprehend it that way.

 

I conceded the struggle on one issue, because it was of no consequence to the crux of the conversation, which you took to completely run away from the conversation as you always do when you begin making mistakes and false accusations about what was said.

First off, you aren't a theologian as we have already established. Secondly, nobody said that they were required to use the same rules (I say rules instead of logic, because you decided to define the term logic to be virtually synonymous with rules of different disciplines in your consistent and successful attempts to use poor arguments) that scientific rigor prescribes. Third, theologians have used classical logic since the time of Plato. You continuously claim that you and theologians are not bound by logic, but fail to explain what the alternative to using logic is and what the merit of using such a system is.

 

Why would any disciple of the teachings of Jesus the Christ, prefer investing in drug testing companies over morals testing companies, under Any form of Capitalism?

 

Which means that it never had any consequence to the crux of the conversation; which means that you intentionally brought that issue up as a ploy for the purpose of distraction. Have a nice evening.

 

No, it just means that I would rather concentrate on more significant parts of our conversation and the issue at hand, especially when continuing down that particular road would have just resulted in more semantic back flips and equivocation. Have a nice time running away from any conversation that gets tough for you.

 

A blatant lie on your part. I did explain what the alternative is and explained what the merit of using such a system is. Alternative was/is Holy Spirit. Merit was/is receiving first hand information.

Do you consistently want to flood the forum with lies?

 

Who is running away? Are you hallucinating again? Your rationalizations are still the most significant issue at hand. Which still has not been resolved.

 

Which you failed to elaborate on how this process is actually conducted. Do you speak out loud and listed for an audible response? Do you read the Bible and go by your gut reaction to interpret what it means? Do you you write a letter to God, and then hope for a response in the mail?

"First hand"? What in the world does this mean in this context? Science relies on first hand information, which is what experimentation is. Is there any evidentiary support that you are somehow receiving information from whatever a Holy Spirit is? Is there any evidence that shows whatever information you are receiving is correct or do you just consider it correct because you deem the source authoritative?

 

What do you consider saying that nothing of what I said has any merit to discuss and basically closing down the conversation? Because I call it hand waving and running away.

That's because you still haven't explained what is wrong with rationalization, and specifically my rationalization, other than pointing to a pejorative definition of the word rationalization! Geesh.

 

Did you previously ask? No? Then your comment about not having provided that information is another one of your ploys to distract. Want to play the million questions game in order to avoid the issue of your rationalizations?

As I suspected. All you have is ridicule. You have no earnest desire to learn but only to harass and defame those that are theists.

 

Actually, I did. You waved it off saying that you answered it already, but you didn't.

Where the bloody hell do you see ridicule in what you quoted?