The Non-existence Of God

[ACS67]

Anomaly,
I'm a women and therefore "bro" is inapprioate in addressing me. Furthermore, the only thing I am "scared" of is your lack of grammatical skills.

[rachael]

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v103/rac13sd/popcorn_yes.gif[/IMG]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349964965' post='2492281']
Anomaly,
I'm a women and therefore "bro" is inapprioate in addressing me. Furthermore, the only thing I am "scared" of is your lack of grammatical skills.
[/quote]Sorry, 'bout the grammah, ma'am. Could ya fix ya spellin' and word usage?

It's "inaproppriate", but I think you really meant "inaccurate".

[4588686]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349964965' post='2492281']
Anomaly,
I'm a women and therefore "bro" is inapprioate in addressing me. Furthermore, the only thing I am "scared" of is your lack of grammatical skills.
[/quote]


You misspelled inappropriate, ironically enough.

[ACS67]

No I meant inappropriate. Since you are so "evolved" I'm sure you believe in gender-neutrality and you most likely address females as males or "bro" (Good grief!) on a daily basis which is "inappropriate" because to address a female in such a manner is disrespectful.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349971894' post='2492315']
No I meant inappropriate. Since you are so "evolved" I'm sure you believe in gender-neutrality and you most likely address females as males or "bro" (Good grief!) on a daily basis which is "inappropriate" because to address a female in such a manner is disrespectful.
[/quote]I would attempt to explain idioms and throw in something about ascribing motivation, but that effort would probably be pointless and isn't likely to be constructive for either of us.

Since there are people here who don't necessarily agree with all your opinoins, why are you here? Are you just looking for affirmation for what you believe and to correct others who disagree?

[ACS67]

I'm Catholic and this is a Catholic forum.

[4588686]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349973073' post='2492322']
I'm Catholic and this is a Catholic forum.
[/quote]


So are Anomaly and I, by the standards of the Church.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349926656' post='2492198']
(why Phatmass allows you to is another puzzle).
[/quote]

Because Phatmass welcomes, and [i]always[/i] has welcomed, people in all walks of life and beliefs to participate in discussions and be a part of our community.

If you look around you'll notice that this board is described as "Debate, apologetics and[b] inter-religious dialogue[/b]. Get charitable." Just because Phatmass is a Catholic website doesn't mean we're going to shoo away anyone that doesn't agree or believe the same things we do.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349964965' post='2492281']
Anomaly,
I'm a women and therefore "bro" is inapprioate in addressing me. Furthermore, the only thing I am "scared" of is your lack of grammatical skills.
[/quote]
Just out of curiosity, how many women are you?

[Winchester]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349964965' post='2492281']
Anomaly,
I'm a women and therefore "bro" is inapprioate in addressing me. Furthermore, the only thing I am "scared" of is your lack of grammatical skills.
[/quote]
You're a "women".

You're upset about Anomaly's grammatical skills.










Got it, bro.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Winchester

[PhuturePriest]

In the English language "he" and "guy" refers to both men and women. It is gender neutral. That is official whether feminists like it or not (And I'm not saying you are). It is correct in the language to say "he" when referring to a baby or animal or even a person with a Phatmass account when you don't know the gender because despite popular belief "he" and words like it are gender neutral. "Bro" is debatable because that is short for "brother" which is not gender neutral.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349920522' post='2492159']
Which is completely subjective and changeable. Counter that with dogma/doctrine which is objective and unchanging. I'll take the latter.

No wonder the Church needs a "Year of Faith"! Good grief!
[/quote]
[size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]Let's just try to ignore our grammatical planks and splinters and attempt to converse about our different perceptions, understandings, and the conclusions that was initiated by Era voicing when he started this thread.

Your post I quoted above is laudable and understandable based on your understanding. However, I don't think it is true that Dogma and doctrine (two different things) were developed objectively and are unchanging. Doctrine is something that is changeable. You probably misspoke, or have a different definition that is generally used.

Dogma would be closer to something that is hoped to be 'unchanging'. But that isn't quite the case, is it? Is there a "List of Dogma" produced by the Catholic Church that is officially approved, defined, and published? For example, Dogma concerning the Trinity and the role of Mary has changed, or at least developed. Now consider the defining and explaining of these Dogmas. This has been done in Councils and other collegiate gatherings. However, if you do your research and delve into history, you will find there was always geo-political intrigue and manipulations behind who was invited, allowed to participate, and what questions were even considered. Toss in the interpersonal relationships, and individuals differing goals of gaining power, defending their opinion, protecting personal champions, etc., it get's quite murky. It's not like Jesus dictated Dogma to the Apostles like God did for Moses.

You may accept explanations and defense of these human activities as being divinely controlled, but the evidence is not conclusive and reasonable questions and doubts remain. The influences of conflicting powers, social dynamics, and competing cultures play(ed) a heavy role in these meetings. Just do some reading on the East/West schism and these outside influences become are evident.

I can't speak for Era, but my understanding of what he's saying, seems similar to my opinion, that these outside political/cultural/social factors had (& have) a significant influence of what the Church professes and preaches in doctrine as well as how it defines or explains current teachings of "Dogma". This may really hurt your feelings, but if you hold and define doctrine at the same level of Dogma, then I can understand your obstinacy.[/font][/color][/size]

[size=2][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]editied for teh grammah..[/font][/color][/size]

Edited October 11, 2012 by Anomaly

[ACS67]

Thank you for your answer Anomaly. I disagree with you but at least you gave a sound intellectual argument.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349984170' post='2492373'][size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]I can't speak for Era, but my understanding of what he's saying, seems similar to my opinion, that these outside political/cultural/social factors had (& have) a significant influence of what the Church professes and preaches in doctrine as well as how it defines or explains current teachings of "Dogma". This may really hurt your feelings, but if you hold and define doctrine at the same level of Dogma, then I can understand your obstinacy.[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]
Yeah that's one aspect of it. Catholicism has been able to come to grips with its own historical difficulties with the concept of "development of doctrine." Catholicism is largely built on a sort of scholastic conception of Christianity where there is a vast doctrinal system that can be logically argued and defended by an unbroken institution centered on the papacy. But this is not the only way of conceiving Christianity (as seen in the Eastern Orthodox churches).

One can follow the changes in the conceptions of Christianity throughout history, just as one can follow, say, the changes in the conceptions of politics.

The greatest argument for Christianity is Christ. Really, he's the only argument...everything else collapses under its own weight. And Christ is certainly hard to ignore. I don't buy the idea that Christ was either "lunatic, liar, or lord." That's assuming, first, that the Gospels are divine portraits. Christ never wrote anything down (hence the search for the "historical Jesus").

The person of Christ is a beautiful idea...although I don't think beauty is exclusive to Christianity. Christ's death on the cross, for example, is certainly a beautiful idea IF you take as your premise the Christian conception of sin and redemption, but that's not a given premise...other cultures see humanity in other ways (e.g., Buddha was quite a remarkable figure, in a different way than Christ).

Theology is, like most of our beliefs, largely based on projections, personal, social, cultural, etc. The modern church is a church that has adapted to a world where the church is irrelevant. The medieval church reflected a world where the church was integral. The early church reflected a world where christians were an insignificant but dynamic minority. Theology absorbs all these changes. The eastern churches experienced the world differently than the west, and their theology reflects their experience.

Catholics will take something like purgatory and the papacy and defend it as a developing seed. But that's just a theological trick...it's clear that the early church lacked many of the conceptions that developed later. That's not to say the later developments weren't based on already present ideas, traditions, texts, etc. But to draw from this what theology draws from it can only be done with the eyes of faith. History tells another story.

There is a real difficulty with faith because it requires a double standard. Christians won't completely discount historical criticism / deconstruction of other religions and other religious texts, but they cannot subject the bible or their theology to the same criticism. I was unable to cross that line intellectually for many years...I understood that once you cross the line, it creates a serious problem in the realm of faith. I guess I've crossed the line. There is, I think, an incompatibility between faith and reason, religion and science, history and theology. I don't believe academic science is the only way of seeing the world...I think faith is a legitimate way of seeing the world, as is literature, culture, language. Buddha and Christ both said something beautiful, in their own contexts. But, as Aloysius pointed out, part of being in the Western mind is the scientific approach to the world, and our ways of thinking in the modern West cannot be separated from the developments in science that took place in the 20th century. The old medieval scholasticism was one way of building a system around faith and reason, but that system has been more or less demolished. Christians denounce this demolition as modernism, post-modernism, etc. They cannot cross that line that the West crossed long ago, and that's what I mean when I speak of the cognitive dissonance of being a Christian today. It requires the construction of a fantasy because the old categories that the Christian West produced are no more, but Christians cannot give up those categories...they have to live in a fantasy world that no longer exists, or else their theological structure collapses. That's why the church in the 19th and 20th century was so careful about not letting theologians go too far in subjecting theology to the usual rigors of history and science...once you start removing bricks from the building, eventually it cannot stand.

I don't say any of this cynically...I sympathize with Christians. But I admit I have crossed the line that previously I was too afraid to cross. Will I discover some new synthesis from where I stand? Perhaps.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Era Might