Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Christia

[ReliStuPhD]

"First, the RCC's position is not based on "human sacrifice,"

It is completely based on the human sacrifice of Jesus.

To say that God was the one to die on the cross would be silly as we all know that God cannot die.

Take Jesus' death and sacrifice out of the apostles creed and there is not Christianity.

Regards
DL

OK, you can either base your arguments on your own theological assumptions or on the RCC's. I'm uninterested in trying to correct what you're saying if you're just speaking from personal belief. That's obviously your prerogative. If what you're trying to do it undermine the RCC on some sort of formal moral or philosophical grounds, you have to first understand what those grounds are as described by the RCC. So if this debate is about your own personal beliefs, I'll bow out and wish you well. If you're interested in trying to get at the RCC position on these matters, I'm happy to help.

To put it another way, if you want to knock down strawmen, that's all you. I'm only interested in showing how they're strawmen (or where you're question-begging).

[Greatest I am]

"First, the RCC's position is not based on "human sacrifice,"

It is completely based on the human sacrifice of Jesus.

To say that God was the one to die on the cross would be silly as we all know that God cannot die.

Take Jesus' death and sacrifice out of the apostles creed and there is not Christianity.

Regards
DL

OK, you can either base your arguments on your own theological assumptions or on the RCC's. I'm uninterested in trying to correct what you're saying if you're just speaking from personal belief. That's obviously your prerogative. If what you're trying to do it undermine the RCC on some sort of formal moral or philosophical grounds, you have to first understand what those grounds are as described by the RCC. So if this debate is about your own personal beliefs, I'll bow out and wish you well. If you're interested in trying to get at the RCC position on these matters, I'm happy to help.

To put it another way, if you want to knock down strawmen, that's all you. I'm only interested in showing how they're strawmen (or where you're question-begging).

To say that the apostles creed and a reliance on Jesus as savior is not a RCC tenet is idiotic.

Go read the creed. All who fly the cross follow it and that is following a barbaric human sacrifice as somehow good.

If all you are going to work with is your own narrow and wrong view then carry on.

Regards
DL


Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

"As far as I can tell, you're arguing for some sort of hedonist morality (there are no desires that would be sins were one to act on them)."

Get the quote that you think show this foolishness.

Regards
DL

I was going on "Not my list as desires are not sins," but your objection gave me reason to reread what you wrote and I think I understand now. The phrasing threw me off.

I am a Canadian Franglais and do speak strangely sometimes.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

I am a Canadian Franglais and do speak strangely sometimes.

Regards
DL

That's good to know. I'll know to double-check in the future.

[Greatest I am]

I am a Canadian Franglais and do speak strangely sometimes.

Regards
DL

That's good to know. I'll know to double-check in the future.

Thanks. I tend to use too many commas and confuse even myself.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

To say that the apostles creed and a reliance on Jesus as savior is not a RCC tenet is idiotic.

Right. I never said that.

Go read the creed. All who fly the cross follow it and that is following a barbaric human sacrifice as somehow good.

Again, the RCC does not consider this to be human sacrifice. I know you do, but, to be honest, the case the RCC makes for their position is much stronger than the case you've made for yours. Yours holds only if everything the RCC says about God and Jesus is untrue. Such has not (yet) been shown to be the case. if I were a betting man, I'd say it never will be. Metaphysical claims are not so easily disproved.

If all you are going to work with is your own narrow and wrong view then carry on.

But again, this is not my view, it's the RCC's. Yours is equally narrow if you insist on ignoring the thousand-plus years of theological and philosophical work the RCC has done to show precisely why this is not human sacrifice. You may not find it convincing, but that doesn't mean you can substitute your own caricature of the RCC's position and then expect us all to suddenly come to the realization that, when the RCC says Jesus' death on the Cross was not human sacrifice, it's wrong... because you say so.

[Lev Muishkin]

For my money the Reformation completely invalidates the entire Christian project.

Even if you accept that the Protestant reforms are the likely and valid truth of God's revelation, this leaves millions of Catholics over 1000 years from Constantine to Luther in the wilderness of hell.

On the other hand if you accept that the RCC holds the truth of gods plan, where does that leave the millions of Protestants?

The schism is too great to reconcile God's will an the truth of Christianity. And how much more ridiculous is the advent of Islam, or the persistence of Judaism?

Whilst I can agree that the reforms of Luther were logical and more in line with the Bible, that still leaves a yawning gap of lost souls.

The entire thing is broken. It does not matter a damn what the Pope says, nor what Muslims believe; the cult of Jahovah is dead on the table. Stop trying to defibulate. Someone needs to call ToD.

[Greatest I am]

For my money the Reformation completely invalidates the entire Christian project.

Even if you accept that the Protestant reforms are the likely and valid truth of God's revelation, this leaves millions of Catholics over 1000 years from Constantine to Luther in the wilderness of hell.

On the other hand if you accept that the RCC holds the truth of gods plan, where does that leave the millions of Protestants?

The schism is too great to reconcile God's will an the truth of Christianity. And how much more ridiculous is the advent of Islam, or the persistence of Judaism?

Whilst I can agree that the reforms of Luther were logical and more in line with the Bible, that still leaves a yawning gap of lost souls.

The entire thing is broken. It does not matter a damn what the Pope says, nor what Muslims believe.

I agree.

We should have never began literal belief of myths. Our real enemy now is not God but man believing what he wrote about a God who is said to be unfathomable and mysterious.

We are believing our own written lies about the Gods.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

To say that the apostles creed and a reliance on Jesus as savior is not a RCC tenet is idiotic.

Right. I never said that.

Go read the creed. All who fly the cross follow it and that is following a barbaric human sacrifice as somehow good.

Again, the RCC does not consider this to be human sacrifice. I know you do, but, to be honest, the case the RCC makes for their position is much stronger than the case you've made for yours. Yours holds only if everything the RCC says about God and Jesus is untrue. Such has not (yet) been shown to be the case. if I were a betting man, I'd say it never will be. Metaphysical claims are not so easily disproved.

If all you are going to work with is your own narrow and wrong view then carry on.

But again, this is not my view, it's the RCC's. Yours is equally narrow if you insist on ignoring the thousand-plus years of theological and philosophical work the RCC has done to show precisely why this is not human sacrifice. You may not find it convincing, but that doesn't mean you can substitute your own caricature of the RCC's position and then expect us all to suddenly come to the realization that, when the RCC says Jesus' death on the Cross was not human sacrifice, it's wrong... because you say so.

It had to be a human sacrifice as God cannot die.

Regards
DL

[thedoc]

It had to be a human sacrifice as God cannot die.

Regards
DL

Yes that is according to human logic, but why should we expect God to behave according to human logic, only a god that was created by man would do so, but not God who was truly God.

[ReliStuPhD]

It had to be a human sacrifice as God cannot die.

Not if God is a Trinity.

[Greatest I am]

It had to be a human sacrifice as God cannot die.

Regards
DL

Yes that is according to human logic, but why should we expect God to behave according to human logic, only a god that was created by man would do so, but not God who was truly God.

A God who was truly God would be logically understandable and if not, as this one shows himself to be, then we can know that he is man made.

If God cannot follow human logic, whatever or whoever he is, then he is not worthy of man's respect.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

It had to be a human sacrifice as God cannot die.

Not if God is a Trinity.

If so then we are not talking about a monotheistic religion nor an intelligent one.

Fathers cannot have sons without a woman as a part of the process and to have God put a pre-existing Jesus in Mary after cuckolding Joseph is just too stupid to contemplate.

Especially when adding meaningless words like begotten.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

It had to be a human sacrifice as God cannot die.

Not if God is a Trinity.

If so then we are not talking about a monotheistic religion nor an intelligent one.

Fathers cannot have sons without a woman as a part of the process and to have God put a pre-existing Jesus in Mary after cuckolding Joseph is just too stupid to contemplate.

Especially when adding meaningless words like begotten.

Regards
DL

Again, just because you think such a thing is not possible does not mean it's not possible. Obviously the Christian understanding of a Trinitarian God is compatible with monotheism. To say otherwise is not to understand what the Christian means by the "Trinity."

As for the fathers and mothers thing, if God exists then God is capable of miracles on the order of the Immaculate Conception. Now, you may disagree that God exists, but you would be hard-pressed to make any sort of logical case that God could not do such things if "he" did exist.

What is clear to me in all of this is that you're debating a caricature of RCC beliefs on this issues, rather than the beliefs themselves. There is obviously no "rule" that you have to believe reality is ordered the way the RCC sees it, but there is something of a rule that, when trying to show the incoherence of an opponent's position, you must first show that you understand said position. You have consistently displayed gross ignorance with respect to RCC teachings on the subject. What you are doing is building up then knocking down straw men. If you want to base your take-down of the RCC on fallacious thinking, be my guest, but you'll find that only fools or the ignorant will take you seriously. Of course, if that's your audience, keep on keeping on. In the immortal words of George W. Bush: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

[Immanuel Can]

begotten

This word is a mistranslation. Only the translators of the KJV need to answer for it.

It means "only, unique," "one-of-a-kind." Christianity does indeed hold that Christ is unique.