The apologetics game!

Originally posted by lemon lime
I suspected you were a former Catholic, but since you never said so I finally felt the need to ask. Anyway, you ask what does this have to do with what we were talking about?

Ohhh, I don't know... maybe it has something to do with your own particular circumstances. You didn't ask what your particular experience with Christianity has to do with what we ...[text shortened]... tholicism [b]is Christianity... IS Christianity? What the buggery boo does that mean?[/b]

FMF asked you a very simple question and you respond with 4 irrelevant paragraphs - 3 of which end with question marks!

Cant you answer his question?

Originally posted by lemon lime
You didn't say, but I'm assuming one or both of your parents were Catholic as well.

As someone who started fresh, with no religious background or preconceptions, I could never understand much of what takes place in the Catholic church. At one time (about 40 years ago) I recall that I could (literally) count using all of my fingers direct contradictions ...[text shortened]... to figure this out and getting "answers" that make no sense.
I am done trying to resolve this.

I am not bitter at all about my experience as a Christian. And if you want to get into a 'Who's The TrueChristian' debate about Catholicism, you should get into one with a Catholic. All that aside, what do your views on Catholicism have to do with what we were talking about?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
FMF asked you a very simple question and you respond with 4 irrelevant paragraphs - 3 of which end with question marks!

Cant you answer his question?

His question was "What does this have to do with what we were talking about?"

I'm still waiting for him to clarify that question and narrow it down to what exactly he thinks it is we've been talking about, so I don't have to waste time and effort revisiting and answering each and every little thing we've already talked about. I'm getting a bit tired of being asked and expected to answer very general questions that don't actually point to anything in particular.

Originally posted by lemon lime
His question was "What does this have to do with what we were talking about?"

I'm still waiting for him to clarify that question and narrow it down to what exactly he thinks it is we've been talking about, so I don't have to waste time and effort revisiting and answering each and every little thing we've already talked about. I'm getting a bit tired of ...[text shortened]... d expected to answer very general questions that don't actually point to anything in particular.

What does your opinion about Catholicism have to do with whether or not I was a believer? We were discussing your suggestion that I never believed in the existence of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
God is able to predict future happenings regardless of peoples free will. God already knows about the prideful heart of the Pharaoh and can predict what the request from Moses and these predicted plagues will have on the heart of the Pharaoh. The fact that God predicts what the response of the Pharaoh will be does not mean God forced Pharaoh's responses by ...[text shortened]... him free will. It never says that God took away the Pharaoh's free will to react as he wished.

But the Bible quite clearly says "I will harden his heart". However you post raises an interesting question. If God knows the future and what we will do then how can any of us have free will? If the future is set then how can I have responsibility for my own actions now?

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, you [b]did use the word feeling at least once, and that was precisely what I was responding to... I was responding to you using the word 'feeling' and 'evidence' in the same sentence.

I used to think you were intentionally misunderstanding me, but now I'm starting to believe it's not intentional. I think instead you are simply being care ...[text shortened]... to win a losing argument is to just keep going with it, right?

Am I right? Prove me wrong...[/b]

Even when you used to read the Bible? Is this why you appear to know so little about the Bible itself, even though at one time you were a Bible believing Christian?

The Bible is important to Catholics, but it is a denomination very much based on ritual. You need to be in on of the reformed churches for the text of the Bible to reach the level of importance it does on these message boards. Having been brought up largely around the Church of England I find both approaches somewhat strange.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not bitter at all about my experience as a Christian. And if you want to get into a 'Who's The TrueChristian' debate about Catholicism, you should get into one with a Catholic. All that aside, what do your views on Catholicism have to do with what we were talking about?

Since I was the one who initiated this conversation with you, I'm assuming when you ask 'what does this have to do with what we were talking about', that you are referring to our conversation, the one I initiated. And I'm assuming you are not referring to everything that's been said in this thread... is this correct, or not?
Yes or no.

If so, then I don't know what you believe our one-on-one conversation has been about, but I did have something particular in mind when I began. How you interpret my comments is something I can not speak to, because only you know for sure what is in your mind.

I am not a mind reader, nor do I pretend to be a mind reader. So for the sake of clarification, that we may get back to whatever it is you believe we've talking about, what exactly do you believe it is we've been talking about?

You clearly have an idea of what that is, the idea or subject you believe we've been talking about. But since we also don't always find ourselves on the same page during these... discussions... it would be very helpful if you could occasionally clarifying just what exactly is you believe is being discussed.

But even after having said all that, I may or may not go down some road you want me go down simply because you feel the need to alter or altogether change a subject being discussed. You rightly have control over your side of a discussion, but that is where your control begins and ends. You could call this the internet version of the saying: "Your rights end where my nose begins." So, if you don't have a problem answering a personal question then fine, go ahead and answer. But if you don't want to answer a personal question, then don't answer.

So then, getting back to your question again, I first have to ask you (and get an answer) as to what exactly is it do you believe we should be talking about.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Since I was the one who initiated this conversation with you, I'm assuming when you ask 'what does this have to do with what we were talking about', that you are referring to our conversation, the one I initiated. And I'm assuming you are not referring to everything that's been said in this thread... is this correct, or not?
Yes or no.

If so, t ...[text shortened]... ask you (and get an answer) as to what exactly is it do you believe we should be talking about.

We were discussing your suggestion that I never believed in the existence of God and similar/related things you said page 5.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So, if you don't have a problem answering a personal question then fine, go ahead and answer.

I already have.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Even when you used to read the Bible? Is this why you appear to know so little about the Bible itself, even though at one time you were a Bible believing Christian?

The Bible is important to Catholics, but it is a denomination very much based on ritual. You need to be in on of the reformed churches for the text of the Bible to reach the le ...[text shortened]... ng been brought up largely around the Church of England I find both approaches somewhat strange.

I believe my own initial ignorance of religious practices was a strength and not a weakness, because I could literally focus on what I was seeing in the four gospels and letters of Paul and not be influenced by prior religious teaching. It did however take a very long time for what I had previously believed to stop dominating my thoughts... I was effectively a silent Christian for nearly 30 years, and even people who've known me all my life didn't have a clue as to what I believed. They still thought I was an evolution believing atheist. But even that wasn't quite right, I was only an atheist for a few years. Sometime during college I converted to agnosticism... and just in case you didn't catch it, that last bit about "converted to" is a somewhat tongue in cheek joke on myself. Anyhow, that's enough background material on me/myself/and I... and moi.

Come to think of it, it wasn't until about 10 years ago that I began having doubts about evolution... anywho...

================================ (switching gears) =======================================

I didn't recall this last night, but ritual was another one of those points Jesus touched on. He talked about the worthlessness of ritual and of simply repeating memorized prayers. I can see how God might find this offensive. If someone did that to you I think you would immediately recognize how odd it appears.

For example, if someone (ostensibly out of respect) came up to you and attempted to communicate with you by repeating memorized sentences and going though ritualized motions, you might become very irritated with him... or mildly annoyed, or laugh at him. It would definitely be odd behavior, and I think it would also be very difficult to communicate with someone like that. Unless your boss (for example) actually enjoys being worshiped, it's probably not a good idea to try communicating with your boss in this way... 😛


*edits: cleaning up the 'switching gears' divider... that's why!

Originally posted by FMF
Where? I did not use the word "feeling". I used the word "felt" ~ as I am speaking now, looking back from now at then ~ meaning I "believed".

You are right, and I was wrong. You said 'felt', not 'feeling'. Those are two entirely different concepts. I don't know how I could have confused those two words or thought they even come close to expressing the same idea, because those two words have absolutely nothing in common... absolutely nothing!

Yup... as different as night is from day.



yup yup yup yup yup yup...

Originally posted by lemon lime
You are right, and I was wrong. You said 'felt', not 'feeling'. Those are two entirely different concepts. I don't know how I could have confused those two words or thought they even come close to expressing the same idea, because those two words have [b]absolutely nothing in common... absolutely nothing!

Yup... as different as night is from day.



yup yup yup yup yup yup...[/b]

To me the word "felt" applied to a perception in the past is certainly a 'comment' on that perception from the current perspective. You said "Evidence is something seen or understood... feelings have nothing to do with it." I agree. When I was a Christian, I understood and saw the Bible as being evidence for the claims made about God and Christ, and it was not a mere "feeling"; it was at that time a certainty in my mind. Looking back from my current standpoint, it is entirely clear and understandable for me to state that, when I was a Christian, I felt my faith was based on evidence.

Originally posted by DeepThought
But the Bible quite clearly says "I will harden his heart". However you post raises an interesting question. If God knows the future and what we will do then how can any of us have free will? If the future is set then how can I have responsibility for my own actions now?

I have already explained to you what God meant when He said, "I will harden his heart." I am sorry if you don't have the intelligence to understand it.

A person's free will is not dependent on God's foreknowledge. I can come to the point that I have a foreknowledge that I have won a chess game before it is finished. However, the other player has the free will to resign or continue playing.

I may have already calculated his best moves, but the other player has the free will to make other than the best moves. However, since I am a much better player, I have the foreknowledge that I will still win even though I know far less than God.

Originally posted by FMF
To me the word "felt" applied to a perception in the past is certainly a 'comment' on that perception from the current perspective. You said "Evidence is something seen or understood... feelings have nothing to do with it." I agree. When I was a Christian, I understood and saw the Bible as being evidence for the claims made about God and Christ, and it was not a ...[text shortened]... erstandable for me to state that, when I was a Christian, I felt my faith was based on evidence.

I may as well get to that one point I originally had in mind. I would prefer leading up to this some more (and in a better way) so that you might understand where I'm coming from, but I'm weary of constantly explaining myself... so here goes, and let the chips fall where they may:

You've definitely rejected Catholicism, and I probably would have done the same if I was raised Catholic. Where we part ways though is where you appear to be equating Catholicism with mere Christianity. I don't equate Christianity with Catholicism any more than I would equate it with Mormonism or the Christian Science church. I was lucky because I had no religious training muddying the waters in my mind as a child. So I count myself fortunate for being ignorant of anything having to do with religion before I started looking into it.

Anyway, I think it's fair to say your early experience with religion was very different from mine. And I think you've had too much garbage pushed on you to even consider doing anything other than outright rejection of religion... period. And that's a shame, because (from my point of view) this is very much like tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I may as well get to that one point I originally had in mind. I would prefer leading up to this some more (and in a better way) so that you might understand where I'm coming from, but I'm weary of constantly explaining myself... so here goes, and let the chips fall where they may:

You've definitely rejected Catholicism, and I probably would have done t ...[text shortened]... because (from my point of view) this is very much like tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Like I said before, if you want to make some kind of 'Who's The TrueChristian' debate points about Catholicism, you should have that debate with a Catholic rather than a non-Christian/ex-Christian like me. You saying that you personally "[do not] equate Christianity with Catholicism" does not substantiate your earlier suggestion that I "never believed in the existence of God", and does not alter the fact that I was a believer in ~ and follower of ~ Jesus Christ for a large portion of my life, regardless of what my beliefs are nowadays.