My views on catholicism

[David Sklansky]

"And even the more theologically well-educated protestants just take on faith the statements of protestant theologians who say that the Catholic Church only dates to around 350 A.D., when if they would read for themselves the writings of the earliest Christians that date between 100 and 350 A.D., the 1st and 2nd generations of disciples of the aposltes and later, they would find that wasn't true since those writings clearly show that the early church did not espouse doctrines or manners of worship in any way similar to that of their own denomination."

Do you believe this guy Not Ready? Totally avoiding my point. Because at least SOME Protestants (not to mention Jews, Muslims, etc) HAVE read for themselves the writings of the earlist Christians mentioned. And almost all of THEM (I presume) have not been swayed. (I would think Not Ready falls into that category.) What's wrong with THEM?

[BluffTHIS!]

Ask THEM. Or ask GOD.

[David Sklansky]

I won't ask them. Because of course I believe that there is nothing wrong with them that isn't also wrong with you. And as a smart person how can it not concern you that they can be reading the same words you are, have faith in a personal supreme being, but not draw the same or even similar conclusions from those words?

[BluffTHIS!]

Why do different string theorists hold differening views of string theory? Why do different anthropologists hold different views of the precise course of human evolution? Do these things bother you?

[David Sklansky]

TERRIBLE argument. Because the scientists you mention have no trouble admitting that the jury is still out and that they easily might be wrong. Especially if they know other prominent scientists disagree with them. They simply make their own theory the favorite. And are willing to change their mind if more evidence comes in or a persuasive argument is presented to them.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And are willing to change their mind if more evidence comes in or a persuasive argument is presented to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since as you remember I have clearly stated that I believe that believers of other faiths are for the most part sincere in those beliefs, then I make the assumption that the above statement of yours applies to them as well, but that they just have yet to be convinced.

[David Sklansky]

I'm talking about scientists. Not believers in other faiths. For instance when Bossjj was making his points I highly doubt that you were reading them to decide whether you should change to Judaism. That's what scientists do when they read what other scientists say that might include a differing view from theirs. You on the other hand, I'm quite sure, read his comments with the view that they must be wrong and the challenge was to find the flaws. That is not what scientists do when they know their theories are not universally accepted by other scientists. When they're not, IT CONCERNS THEM that they might be wrong. But that is not true of you (or you are too scared to admit it.)

[BluffTHIS!]

Not at all. The doubts of others in no way causes me to have doubts. For me to continue to have faith doesn't require that a majority of people on this planet share that faith, or even that a significant number do. My only duty when appropriate is to try to share that faith and belief. If they reject it for any reason, it does not cause me to have doubt. Now remembering that I believe that non-believers are mostly sincere in their beliefs and have the *possibility* of being saved without formally espousing Christian beliefs, I will give a biblical citation of the parable of the sower that might explain why *some* do not come to believe or persist in those beliefs.

Matthew 13:3-8,18-23:
[3] And he told them many things in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow.
[4] And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them.
[5] Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil,
[6] but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away.
[7] Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them.
[8] Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
[18]Hear then the parable of the sower.
[19] When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path.
[20] As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
[21] yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
[22] As for what was sown among thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
[23] As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."

[Peter666]

True. And the Muslims in the world today would not be the major problem if it was not for the Jews who started the mess via Israel.

[David Sklansky]

"The doubts of others in no way causes me to have doubts"

I KNOW THAT. That's why you can't use the analogy about scientists having different theories.

Meanwhile if the doubts of others never causes you to have doubts, then I assume you will say that about the arguments of others as well.