What You Protestants Don't Seem to Get

[BluffTHIS!]

I have NotReady in other threads stating that he doesn't expect to find perfection of doctrine in any denomination, although he can't demonstrate logical contradictions in my views. And I have OOO and udon'tknowmickey stating that it is reasonable to believe that God doesn't care if His divine messages are transmitted down to our time free of error. Do you all not realize the implications of this? You are playing right into the hands of those who deny the truth of Christianity by claiming that Jesus didn't really exist or that even if he did then those who wrote about him made up a lot of it, and that even after that the doctrines based upon what he said are not correct interpretations of scripture even given that it is true.

When you profess faith in any belief system, whether religious, mathematical or scientific, you start out with certain premises or axioms which by definition cannot be proved to certainty, but the evidence for same is enough for you, espcially if you believe you possess personal evidence that tips the scales, although which would usually not be credible to others. How improbable those axioms might be determines how seriously non-believers are willing to take that system. In other words, you have to avoid extreme far-fetchedness. After that you derive derivative theorems or doctrines which should not conflict logically either among themselves or with the axioms. Regarding matters of religion, this is a matter of spiritual as well as intellectual integrity.

Anyone willing to accept such contradictions can claim no better thinking than someone who believes in astrology. Logic is a part of the sphere of knowledge with strong mathematical foundations. To refuse to acknowledge or to accept logical contradictions is no different than maintaining that the earth is flat or that 3^2 really does not equal 9. I give tons more respect to the intellectually honest views of atheists and agnostics like andy or David, than I do to any Christian who either can't formulate logically correct views, denies logical implications, or worse yet can't even see them.

All of this is not proof in and of itself that my particular religious beliefs, i.e. catholocism, are true. Many of you may not possess the theological knowledge to rebut various points I make to as great a degree as a theology professor in a protestant seminary would be able to. A good analogy for this is to look at these theological arguements, what we call apologetics in my church, as the various lines in a book of chess openings. Just because you know only 1/2 the line doesn't make me correct since others with greater knowledge could take it further even if they couldn't actually refute my views. But if you can't even make logical arguments with fellow Christians, then you have no hope of ever persuading thinking non-believers.

[ QUOTE ]
And I have OOO and udon'tknowmickey stating that it is reasonable to believe that God doesn't care if His divine messages are transmitted down to our time free of error.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said any such thing.

God can care and not intervene. Example: Thousands of children died of starvation in Africa today. Hundreds of people died in car accidents. People got raped, murdered, assaulted, ripped off. Does the fact that God didn't intervene mean he didn't care?

Also, even if he chose to intervene, he may have other ways of sending his message without providing the correct scriptural interpretation to exactly ONE particular religion.

Do you see how silly your logic is?

[BluffTHIS!]

I said I was done with you and am only replying for the benefit of others. God cares about everything, the only difference is how much He is willing to intervene, especially given that He allows men free will. But if you maintain that He doesn't intervene to at least see that His message is availabe somewhere uncorrupted, then you cannot logically debate about anything to do with that message. And regarding the implications for debating with non-believers, you have now adopted premises that can't be proved to a certainty, and then also allowed it to come to pass that those premises can't even be guaranteed to be stated correctly. So you are presenting unbelievers with a compound probabiility of an X% probability that a premise Y which iteself already possesses less than 100% probability of being true is correct. The fact that you don't see this is why I said I was through debating with you.

It's not enough that you try to convince non-believers to accept that Christianity is a good bet without perfect information, but you have to go and try to get them to accept a parlay instead. Good Luck.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you maintain that He doesn't intervene to at least see that His message is availabe somewhere uncorrupted, then you cannot logically debate about anything to do with that message.

[/ QUOTE ]
So are you saying the bible is corrupted? Because if it is truly his word, it satisfies your criteria for being "available somewhere uncorrupted".

How people interpret his word, or turn it down completely, is then their business, wouldn't you think?

Also, I am not adopting any premises, simply pointing out the illogic in yours. But I won't reply to any more of your religion posts. Good luck with your campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
I give tons more respect to the intellectually honest views of atheists and agnostics like andy or David, than I do to any Christian who either can't formulate logically correct views, denies logical implications, or worse yet can't even see them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

Sticking one's head in the sand or spewing dogma one doesn't understand or care to look at deeply is hardly the basis for a personal belief system.

True faith needs no proof.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
True faith needs no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to sell that to someone who doesn't already believe.

Plus you should want to know that you are placing your faith in 100% of the truth and not a lesser number, when by switching denominations or changing your views slightly it might be possible to achieve that.

I never said that I had faith.

The only thing(s) that I 'believe' is/are

Gasoline is three bucks a gallon where I live.
Bluffing is rarely adviseable in a loose game.
Good sex is wonderful but a good lay will do.
Momma's baby Poppa's maybe.
Hearsts don't have luggage racks.
etc...

You don't always have to try and prove your stance. When it comes to religions, often living an example of your faith is the best way to puruade someone. You can debate with them till you're blue in the face, but if they see you acting on your belief's they will atleast know without a doubt that you have put all your faith into your religion. That will be more persuading than ancient documentation any day.