Jackonia wrote:Nowhere.
Then you're not an unusual Catholic - you aren't one.
Advertisement
by Jackonia » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:31 pm
Member of the Commonwealth of CrownsMember of the Eurasia Treaty AllianceMember of the Monarchist FederationMember of the Order of the Purple Cross
by Benuty » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:32 pm
by Securitan » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:33 pm
Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.
by Securitan » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:36 pm
Benuty wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ ... mic_Arabia
Hmm..it seems we've reached the impasse of "they did it before they become monotheistic". Which of-course could be applied to the Hebrews (they were lower class Canaanites who rebelled from the oppressive city states, and proceeded to conquer their former oppressors).
by Lost heros » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:20 pm
Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.
by Securitan » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:22 pm
Lost heros wrote:Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.
... That's not how catholicism works.
by Benuty » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:42 pm
Lost heros wrote:Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.
... That's not how catholicism works.
by Highfort » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:49 pm
Lost heros wrote:Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.
... That's not how catholicism works.
by Securitan » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:51 pm
Highfort wrote:Lost heros wrote:... That's not how catholicism works.
I've met Christians who don't even believe Jesus was divine, so when it comes to religion, literally anything goes. You can disregard everything your religion says (Jews that eat pork, Muslims that don't pray 5 times a day, Christians that don't read the Bible) and still be part of your religion, apparently.
by Highfort » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:54 pm
Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.
by Risottia » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:27 pm
Jackonia wrote:Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic.
by Benuty » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:30 pm
Havenburgh wrote:Religion is just grown ups having a imaginary friend.
by The Alma Mater » Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:12 am
Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.
by Shaggai » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:09 pm
Securitan wrote:Creepoc Infinite wrote:I am the only one around here who finds scientific evidence to be the only definitive evidence that could convince me of god existing?
Logical reasoning is also a lot of fun, but when it comes down to the evidence that matters, that is scientific evidence. People who argue for the existence of god like Ray Comfort, Dinesh D'souza, William Lane Craig and many others don't use science they play semantics games and use fallacious arguments and are dishonest in their reasoning.
Why is it that these people think they are right but they have to lie and use petty tactics to get people on their side. If they are right, why don't they just present the evidence and explain how it points to god?
Scientists do this, atheists do this as well, but apologetics don't.
If they are right, why do they have to be disingenuous to get their point across.
A good example of only using reasoning to prove a God is the ontological argument.
by Neutraligon » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:12 pm
by Balshvik » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:15 pm
Creepoc Infinite wrote:I am an Atheist who is strongly against religion.
And I have been studying religion. The reason I'm atheist is because that I was once Christian,l but I never went to church or read the bible. It was a really casual thing.
One day, something traumatic happened to me and I started to go to church and so on in order to reconnect with god.
However, the more I learned about the religions roots and the more I read the bible, the more disenfranchised by Christianity I was.
I was really miserable for a long time, until I found about that atheism existed, when I did, it offered me an opportunity to see the world as I had originally seen it. Because I'm an atheist, I have become more open to new information and have learned a lot about science and philosophy and history.
I have realized that religion is one of the worst problems, if not THE worst, facing modern society.
And so I want to know what everyone's thoughts are on the issue.
I am also interested in being convinced of god's existence if he does, I doubt it, but, more recently, I'm more open to the idea. So if you want to convince me, contact me personally or on this thread
by The Land of Eternal Prosperity » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:00 pm
Neutraligon wrote:
To understand the big bang you would need a lot of background information, which in turn needs a lot of background information. It is a rather complex topics that cannot be explained easily.
by Neutraligon » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:03 pm
The Land of Eternal Prosperity wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
To understand the big bang you would need a lot of background information, which in turn needs a lot of background information. It is a rather complex topics that cannot be explained easily.
All energy and elementary particles were at one point and expanded outward, creating atoms that formed into heavenly bodies?
by Securitan » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:41 pm
Shaggai wrote:Securitan wrote:A good example of only using reasoning to prove a God is the ontological argument.
Which was rejected by Thomas Aquinas on the grounds that humans can't truly comprehend God. If humans can't comprehend God, then there's a step missing; if they can fully understand God, then you run into Vinge's Law.
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:01 am
The Land of Eternal Prosperity wrote:All energy and elementary particles were at one point and expanded outward, creating atoms that formed into heavenly bodies?
by Neutraligon » Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 am
Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:The Land of Eternal Prosperity wrote:All energy and elementary particles were at one point and expanded outward, creating atoms that formed into heavenly bodies?
Technically that's a description, not proof. Proof of the big bang theory involves a lot of fine instruments to measure background radiation and stuff, and fancy mathematics to model it all.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: ARIsyan-, Fractalnavel, Google [Bot], Grinning Dragon, Page, Picairn, Shearoa, Simonia, Zurkerx
Advertisement