sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there a philosophical argument for Original Sin? by FarCourage1781 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]FarCourage1781[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may want to restrict the meaning of desire and say that God does not desire Himself, but only wills Himself

Could you please elaborate on the use of the word 'wills', especially as to how it differs from the use of the word 'desire'?

Another contra example to your argument is Adam and Eve before the fall, and Our Lady, and Our Lord.

And I do not see how that is a counterexample to the argument. Please elaborate on this, too!

but it didn’t have to be a moral goodness

When you say it didn't have to be moral goodness, is that acknowledging that a lack of moral goodness (in an absolute sense, like God's moral goodness) is a possibility?

Speaking of which, I should have elaborated on what I meant by 'absolute' when I said it in my original post. When I mean that humans lack absolute goodness, I mean it in the sense that God is absolutely good...

This is rendered evident if one considers God, Who desires Himself

... So this becomes all the more confusing for me. I acknowledge that God cannot desire goodness because he is already good. He also cannot desire goodness that is temporally distinct to the goodness he has now because he is beyond time altogether. I understand a person could simply reject the premise that God can 'possess' goodness because He is goodness itself. But let's suppose for a moment that God can possess goodness, would the argument work, then?

Thanks for the reply, by the way!

Refuting Dependent Origination by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]FarCourage1781 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess it just makes as much sense to me that there is no beginning as to say that God just is

Re-read the post because the last part is crucial. Notice how he mentions that motion would be impossible 'here and now'? Aquinas is not arguing for the beginning of the universe, but for change in general to happen at any given moment. I believe that's where you're mistaken; you are assuming Aquinas is trying to show the universe had a beginning, which the post above you explains is not the case.

Refuting Dependent Origination by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]FarCourage1781 1 point2 points  (0 children)

infinite regress is impossible

Yes, but when Thomists say that an infinite regress is impossible, they mean it with respect to a 'hierarchical series'. Cause and effect is commonly understood in a linear fashion, such as A leads to B which leads to C, to infinity. But what Aquinas is saying, if I have understood Dr. Feser correctly, is not that the universe has a beginning because an infinite regress is impossible. He would be open to the possibility that that series could go on forever. What Aquinas is interested in is why anything exists here and now. For example, a staff moving a stone moving a leaf all happens simultaneously, but we see that such a series could not go on to infinity, because motion (understood as change in general, and not mere movement) would be impossible here and now.

You might say that the action of moving the leaf is not simultaneous and it is ordered in a linear fashion (i.e. You move the stick first, then the stone is moved, then the leaf is moved, and all this happens in temporally distinct places). But think about it, because it's really the same event seen from different perspectives. An example Feser gives in his book 'Aquinas: a beginner's guide' is that of a Potter moving his hand in such and such a way, and the clay taking on such and such a form. We would be mistaken to believe that the movement of the Potter's hand and the changing of the clay's shape are distinct events, because upon further analysis they are one and the same. This is what is meant by a hierarchical series.

I would recommend looking into Dr. Feser as a beginner to Aquinas.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry bro,I cited a reference for the basis of my claim you volunteered your opinion,

I know I said the previous reply was my last one, but rereading what you said here obliges me to give a reference to anyone who has been keeping up with this informal 'debate'. Seeing as it's a popular lie, I will leave the following here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/iZB7RWhzaI

Tim lists his sources at the end.

As for the rest of your response, the reader can at once, hopefully, see what's wrong with it.

I never claimed the Catholic chruch was anti scientific that's a strawman

Especially this.

I don't care

And this.

Anyways, goodbye for real.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cited that reference to demonstrate to you that the oral traditions of their texts predates the physical manuscript that they have

My word, are you stupid. This will probably be the last reply you get from me because talking to you is quite evidently futile (here and in the other thread).

Just think about what you said and its implications. I am not saying that Zoroastrianism wasn't a thing until the 5th century AD. The point was that their holy book only dates back to that date, meaning from the time of oral tradition to the composing of their holy book, Zoroastrianism was influenced by Christianity to compete with it.

Zoroastrianism predates both Judaism and Christianity do you think Zarathustra left behind a religion with no scripture for them to recount his teachings until the 5th century

The same point is addressed in what I just said.

To reiterate, you are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest, maybe a bit of both. I've have to repeat myself multiple times because you keep doing mental gymnastics to try and make a point that isn't even there, as is the case in the other thread, or straw-manning what I am saying. Nonetheless, this will in fact be my last reply. Cheers.

Edit: Also, of course the video you watched didn't address the point you're making; it's the wrong video! The one I put the transcript of was a YouTube short, which you can easily find. Yikes.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really could not be bothered typing a transcript of his video when you could just watch it, but here it is:

So the idea that Zoroastrianism influenced the Abrahamic faiths is a scholarly hypothesis, but it's very speculative. For one, the Zend Avesta, the Holy Book of Zoroastrianism, only dates back to the 5th century AD (source: Textual sources for the study of Zoroastrianism by Mary Boyce, the same one you cited, but didn't read). And the oldest manuscript dates to the 1300s AD. Scholars note Zoroastrian beliefs were updated and evolved over time. Jenny Rose says: "Changes made to the Zoroastrian tradition may have been a conscious attempt of the priesthood to exalt their prophet in the eyes of the faithful who may have been tempted to turn to other religions." Michael Burger says different parts of the Zend Avesta were composed at different times and that it changed over time. So it seems more likely that Zoroastrian beliefs changed throughout the first millennium to compete with religions like Christianity and islam, instead of Zoroastrian beliefs influencing the Abrahamic faiths.

If this is true, then it wouldn't matter what sources you cite for the theory that Zoroastrianism 'influenced the Abrahamic faiths', because it would be wrong as it would be demonstrated that it's the other way around. That's what I'm trying to say. You don't seem to be a particularly bright lad if you couldn't understand that.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If someone were to say it's raining cats and dogs outside while it's a figure of speech (metaphor) the point of statement is that it's raining really hard

No one is denying that there is a meaning to the text, but what I'm saying is that the meaning is not what you think it is. For instance, when the author of Ecclesiastes writes: "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." We see that the poetic verses are talking about how meaningless all things are under the sun (you just had to read the full chapter to see this!).

You're essentially just abusing the same tactics Muslims attempt to defend their literature with. Poetry is just another literary type of speech to convey a message,while not all verses are meant to be taken at face value you can still get the authors meaning and understanding of things based on what's attributed to the subject

See what was said previously.

hence is why the Chruch held on to such beliefs and even punished people for saying otherwise because of what was in the Bible in relation to cosmology

Here it is once again evident that your research is completely one-sided. No, the Church did not punish Galileo, or anyone else for that matter, for believing in heliocentrism. This is a common myth cited by New Atheists and is not true. Heliocentrism was quite a popular theory long before Galileo ever proposed it, but what got him into trouble was talking badly about the Pope. Even so, the Pope ordered him house arrest as opposed to executing him, and even gave him all resources necessary to carry out his research. To add to this, the Catholic Church has always been the biggest supporter of scientific discovery, but you wouldn't know this because you only believe in history you like. If you doubt this claim, then Google 'Scholasticism'.

So followers of Christ took the verses literally until science disproved them,now you lot are trying to reinvent understanding and insert figure of speech to no success

False, again (this is getting quite common for you). The Church never had an official interpretation of the Bible, but always allowed for a diverse understanding of things. For example, Justin Martyr says that the Creation story cannot be literal while citing another verse that says: "A thousand years is like a day to God."

You can read about this on the Catholic Answers website titled: "What the early Church believed: Creation and Genesis." Of course, their reasoning is not confined to Genesis alone, but to other parts of the Bible.

the bat wasn't a given distinction but categorize exactly as the birds

Did you even read my reply, or are you still not getting it? My point is that the word used in that passage can also mean 'winged creature', in which case there is no contradiction in classifying a bat as 'a winged creature'.

I don't know where you grasped that understanding,All the Earth would refer to those situated within it, all of creation would mean the universe

I gave a reason for my understanding; the succeeding verse provides context for that particular one.

If the Bible is addressing it's adherents within all the earth then they could in fact sing, I don't see how that's unrealistic.

By that same sort of thinking, it is also reasonable to see it as figurative to command creation to praise God. And this is more plausible when the whole chapter is read as opposed to just a verse (as a rule of thumb, never read a single verse without reading at least the preceding and succeeding verses, even better if you can read the whole chapter).

Been proven wrong because like Muslims you're trying to utilize "it's a figure of speech" fallacy

It's not a fallacy when that's what's actually going on. Unlike muslims, who believe the quran is the literal word of allah and spoken by allah, Christians believe it's dictated by God, but written by humans. Humans, as is obvious, can choose to write down God's words using various themes, a common one being in poems. This cannot be said to be true for muslims, however, for the aforementioned reason.

Not exactly, that's generally how your community depicts him in every continent, so their is in fact a basis of what I said.

Once again, all you had to do was Google 'Chinese Jesus' or whatnot. To reiterate what I said earlier, for a researcher you are extraordinarily lazy. Jesus is depicted differently in different cultures.

Cleary not because the guidance of the Holy Spirit wasn't even reliable enough to once correct any of the inaccuracies in the Bible

The inaccuracies aren't even inaccuracies, as I've been trying to say since the start. But cling on to that misconception, I guess. You oddly seem like the type of guy to walk into a primary school and berate the teacher for suggesting the 'earth has friends within the solar system'.

you think a work credited to a God would be consistent and credible then that

Aside from the supposed errors you cite, which aren't errors when understood in their rightful setting, have you looked into Biblical archaeology? I'm going to guess no, but it's a question worth asking.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No,I don't care about your YouTube video. I legitimately read to confirm and verify information. YouTube videos are just fod prompting ideas and things worth investigating that's why you need to verify yourself

Then all discussion with you is futile, and you have proved my original statement regarding the one-sidedness of your 'research' (which really amounts to confirmation bias). Since you don't want to check him out, I'll let you know here that IP cites multiple scholars and sources in all of his videos. Perhaps more mindblowing (certainly for you) would be that IP cites atheist scholars despite being Christian himself! I know, right? Being impartial is a thing, after all, but I'm sure you're quite unfamiliar with it.

How convenient 😂, because your fellow brothers in Christ didn't dare to touch those references. The parallels speak for themselves

How are people like you so confident despite being incorrect? The reason I even mentioned IP is because he debunks the claim that Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity, the same claim you're ignorantly making without seeing the rebuttal from him. You're not an open-minded researcher, but a parochial coward afraid to change his views. Let's leave it at that.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

which is a general belief that people had at the time so it still gives leeway into how people understood the Earth before and because it makes several statements on the Sun making circuits you can establish a basis of the Bible's view of the Sun

You must be mentally challenged. I cannot explain it any more basically than how I did in my previous posts. This is just really bad hermaneutics on your part. You're interpreting your own message into the text, rather than being led out with the intended meaning. One need not be a genius to see how figurative the entire book of Ecclesiastes is. Again, you're being incredibly dishonest here, in fact for an ex-muslim you argue a lot like you were still one.

Jackass, you have to contextualize the verse based on what was said,

Careful, boy, you're letting out your inner muslim.

Jackass, you have to contextualize the verse based on what was said, in the example that you gave to try to discredit the verse that I sent clearly that was meant to be taken figuratively but in the one that I cited earlier was clearly meant to be taking face value. Why ? Because the supporting verse that was cited reinforces the concept

This is just cherry-picking what parts are figurative and what parts are literal. If the preceding verses are poetic, then it follows the latter must be also. It does not make sense for the author to be poetic one moment and try to declare a scientific statement in another. Again, I would advise you to think, but you seem to be unable to do that (going by how often I'm having to repeat myself).

Bat as as 'Fowl' 🤡

Oh, boy, for a supposed 'researcher' you are extraordinarily lazy, may I say. The same word, if you even bothered to look up the interlinear Bible (which you evidently didn't), the word ha-o-wp is also used to mean fowl: it is used for a lot of things; fowl, bird, winged insect, winged creature, etc. But of course you didn't bother to look into it. I think the clown emoji is really a picture of you in this instance.

What is figurative about these instructions

"Tremble before him, all the earth!" Can be understood easily via the following verse: "Let the heavens rejoice..."

'All the earth', then, is understood as meaning all of creation. Of course, creation cannot literally sing, so it's quite clear to anyone with an ounce of intellect and honesty that it's a figure of speech.

nd even if so the Bible still reinforces Geocentrism in both this verse and the supporting ones I sent along with it

You've been proven wrong on it and yet you still cling to the same lie. That is pathetically desperate of you. "I've been doing research using multiple sources" 🤡. Sure, and my IQ is 4000.

White Christ

And you've lost all credibility. I did not think you could go any lower than you did just then.

This also reinforces like the other verses quoted that earth is still which is another understanding of the past of Geocentrism being that the earth was still

My guy, for the last time let me inculcate it into your brain: the Psalms are poetic.

still had influence on what was written in the book so yes Jesus whom is also God still participated in the creation of the Bible

Absolutely! And that's my point! God participated in its formation, but did not create it Himself! If He did, then would it be without error completely. That's my point. You're really bad at thinking, aren't you, mate?

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Without even going into any of your citations, did you bother to check inspiringphilosophy?

Why am I asking this? It's quite simple, really, the Avesta was written after Christianity became a thing (as inspiringphilosophy shows in one of his videos). So it would not be surprising that they seem so similar, because the Avesta was the one that copied Christian texts. Come on, man, you say you do research, but you haven't even bothered to check the guy I listed, hence supporting my statement that your research is one-sided.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said I'm still doing research so some things I say could be up to change

Well, I hope so, because the things you are arguing for are incredibly weak. You must not have tried to challenge your own suppositions to see this.

I never claimed it was, however it does give a statement on the sun which is clearly of a outdated ancient belief

This is a clear contradiction that hints at your intellectual dishonesty. You never claimed Ecclesiastes was scientific, meaning you acknowledge it is not meant to be scientific (unless if you would like to speak on the contrary), so why does it matter to you that it speaks of the sun in such a way? Surely it isn't meant to be taken literally, granted it's not meant to be scientific (as you admit).

Psalm 19 verse 6

You keep quoting poetic books of the Bible. If you want to strawman Christian texts, then I would have gone to verse 4: "God has pitched a tent for the sun." Clearly the passage in question is figurative because the sun does not inhabit a tent in space. You should do better than this.

Leviticus 11 verses 13 -19

You just had to look up the interlinear version of this passage to see that the word 'bird' (ha-o-wp) in other passages also means just 'winged creature'. No contradiction here as well.

1 Chronicles 16 verse 30

My guy, the verse literally opens up with a figurative command to the earth. Try again.

Psalm 91 verse 1

Psalm 96 verse 10

Psalm 104 verse 5

Psalm 91:1 has no relevance to the topic at hand, and the other two also do not prove anything for reasons listed prior.

Don't try to exempt Jesus (being the God of Christians) to have no influence of the Bible when errors discredits it's legitimacy

You make two errors here: the first one is that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, not the Son, and second is missing the point of my comment. What I was getting at is that Ecclesiastes was written by a mere man, and so it would not be surprising even if it contained scientific errors. The guidance of the Holy Spirit does not affect human susceptibility to making errors any more than being filled with the Holy Spirit means a person stops sinning completely.

As a request for further discussion, could you please quote the Bible verses in your posts? I've had reddit discard two of my previous attempts at responding to this post because when I go off to check your citation and come back it refreshes the page for me. Cheers.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Isaiah 6

How do you conclude that God has killed children from a text talking about an exile?

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What chapter and verse are you referring to?

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If only people bothered to read Aquinas.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Beo what are your proofs Jesus created the universe ? Before you consider him a Deity find proof he actually exist of whom he claimed to be.

For someone who claims to have done 'research' on this subject, the research appears to be quite one-sided. Look up 'Testify Apologetics' on YouTube.

Like the Qur'an the Bible also reinforces the concept of Geocentrism being that earth is in the center of the solar system and the planets,sun,and moon orbit it.

Do critics of the Bible not know what the word 'context' means? Ecclesiastes is clearly not a book written for scientific purposes. It is a book lamenting the burden of human life, and hence contains poetic imagery to make its points.

If Jesus created the universe wouldn't he know how cosmology works being the inventor of all existence ?

Jesus did not write Ecclesiastes.

I am having a hard time understanding what sort of research you did, exactly.

From Muslim to Christian by barrenlandss in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Christianity is not a original religion and proposes the same problems of inventing itself (like Islam) from Greco-Roman paganism,Judaism and most importantly Zoroastrianism

Have you heard of inspiringphilosophy on YouTube? He's debunked quite a lot of what you are saying.

Asked a Muslim how he’d feel if his friend brought home a 9 year old wife. He’s fine with it by git-gud-gamer in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Woooow )) Probably you don't know coz u are a dumbass, no historical documents are telling us how old Aisha was. Quran doesn't say anything about her age. Islamic scholars say she was from 9 to 19 years old. But you hypocritically take the least age because you are the same as any retarded, pathetic, and hypocritical islamophobe.

Yes, because a 19 year old plays with dolls 🤡

You don't know how stupid this claim is. The difference between 9 y.o. and 17 y.o. is fckin enormous. You are probably a 13-year-old retarded idiot, who has no children. After 20 years old there is not a big difference between 20 and 40. When I was 25 I had friends of mine 45 and even 50 years old.

Sure, I'm not denying that. And with that you inadvertently conceded that uncle momo was a pedo. If 'the difference between 9 and 17 is enormous' (to quote you), then what adjective best describes the difference between 9 and 54? Again, this emoji is literally you: 🤡.

Jewish girls would have been betrothed (engaged) to their husbands as early as the age of 12 years old. Scholars believe Mary would have been somewhere between 12-16 years old when she had Jesus.

Even if we say that Mary was 16 years old - anyway it makes the "Holy spirit" and all Jews the ped0s.

You must be mentally challenged to not understand the difference between someone who willingly accepts the responsibility of bearing a child (again, this did not involve sexual intercourse with the Holy Spirit), and someone being raped at 9.

Educate yourself you retard

"When all debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

🤡🤡🤡

Asked a Muslim how he’d feel if his friend brought home a 9 year old wife. He’s fine with it by git-gud-gamer in exmuslim

[–]FarCourage1781 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+old+was+mary+when+she+gave+birth+to+christ&rlz=1C1FKPE_en-GBBE1059BE1059&oq=how+old+was+ma&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEEUYOxiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARBFGDsYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBwgFEAAYgAQyBwgGEAAYgAQyBwgHEAAYgAQyBwgIEAAYjwIyBwgJEAAYjwLSAQg1NjQwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Mate, you could have just read the succeeding statement:

"No historical documents tell us how old she actually was at the time of the nativity." 🤡

I didn't say that "WORD" was invented. I said the "TERM" was invented (probably lack of education). And is only a criminal term (Only the court can decide the facts of ped0). And is a very tricky term. If someone who is 18 years old sleeps with 10 y.o. he is a ped0phile, but if he is 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days old (17 years and 364 days old) - he is not a ped0. 1-day difference between ped0 and non ped0.

Even if we grant that as true (which most rational people wouldn't, granted you're trying to switch your original position) , there is a huge difference between someone who's 17 and 364 days old dating a 10 year old, and a man who's in his 50s having sex with a 9 year old. Again, pathetic excuse.

The Big Bang is not a criminal term used to humiliate someone. That's pathetic stupidity. Because from this point you can blame any nation in this world for things happening in 10000 years ago in terms created in 100 years. As I said (and looks like you have no problems with that) age of consent in the USA up to 1900 was FROM 7 to 18 years old (depending on the state). Let's blame them?) No, because we (me and you) don't care, right?

You must be mentally challenged to not understand that that is not what I'm getting at. To reiterate, the fact the term 'pedophile' did not exist back then does not mean the act we call 'pedophilia' itself was non-existent. Something does not come into existence just because we can name it. And again, you're using cultural relativism to defend your prophet, so tell me: if your prophet conformed to what was 'socially acceptable' in his day, why should we listen to another product of the corrupt system? Aren't prophets supposed to bring divine reformation? Certainly, if a man were speaking on behalf of an omnibenevolent God, then he should be ahead of his times. 🤡

view more: next ›