First principles

[Iacchus]

I would refer you to the last thread where we had a good discussion going about which is the "True" Interpretation / Church (Tm) - That is, before you began your descent into drivel and ducked out of the thread and refused to address the points.

What, do you feel like I let you down? Sorry son, but life is full of unexpected surprises.

 

[Maledict]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, I say this once -- and only once mind you -- to this imbecile who continues to badger me for no justifiable reason, and I'm supposed to pay for it through the rest of Eternity? Why don't you come over to my house, and perhaps we could discuss it?

You expect to come to a skeptics boards and throw around nonsense and not expect to back up your claims?

What, do you feel like I let you down? Sorry son, but life is full of unexpected surprises.

Not at all - it only showed to the person reading that you were unable to continue rational discussion after that.

 

[Iacchus]

You expect to come to a skeptics boards and throw around nonsense and not expect to back up your claims?

And why don't you just put that up in big red letters so everyone can see? You certainly would be within your right to do so now wouldn't you?

Not at all - it only showed to the person reading that you were unable to continue rational discussion after that.

Well that's definitely not the way it came across to me. Either that or you're just full of it.

 

[Maledict]

And why don't you just put that up in big red letters so everyone can see? You certainly would be within your right to do so now wouldn't you?

I have no need to.

Well that's definitely not the way it came across to me. Either that or you're just full of it.

Thread in Question

No - it is because you are making the claim that Swendenborg's Church is the True church / interpretation, whereas 34,000 other sects say that they are the True church / interpretation.

I have also asked you what is the True church / interpretation, why is you believe Swedenborg's is so, pointing out to you that the other members of the 34,000 sects know that their "interpretation" is true.

And all of which, you refuse to address my points on, and continually evade, just as you have done in plenty of other threads.

Your response:

Do you know how long it takes a tree to grow? It begins with sowing the seed and then allowing it to take hold and grow and mature of its own accord. The same thing as with the nature of befief. It doesn't just happen all at once and in fact can take a life time. So nobody's forcing anybody to do anything here. Not on my part anyway.

It's all there, preserved for posterity.

 

[Iacchus]

I have no need to.

Thread in Question

Your response:

It's all there, preserved for posterity.

If God were all that accessible, why should I have to be the one to explain it to you? I am not a walking encyclopedia. Sorry ... Besides, I gave you plenty of references to refer to.

 

[Maledict]

If God were all that accessible, why should I have to be the one to explain it to you?

If god were omniprescent, you have wouldn't. As it turns out, he isn't - because if he was, I would know it.

I am not a walking encyclopedia. Sorry. Besides, I gave you plenty of references to refer to.

Those references had absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that Swedenborg's Interpretation / Church was the "Truth(Tm)" - Nor did it answer anything as to why there were 34,000+ Christian denominations.

 

[Iacchus]

If god were omniprescent, you have wouldn't. As it turns out, he isn't - because if he was, I would know it.

And what makes me a believer as opposed to you? Sorry, I can't help you there.

Those references had absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that Swedenborg's Interpretation / Church was the "Truth(Tm)" - Nor did it answer anything as to why there were 34,000+ Christian denominations.

In fact I would extend this to say there are just as many denominations as there are Christians. Why? Because it's all relative, just like everything else. Of course that isn't to say there isn't one True Christian Religion which serves as a backdrop to all of this. Otherwise I don't think we'd have anything to talk about, do you?

 

[Z]

If there is one true Christian Religion, the important thing to know is whether or not belief in a false Christian religion is damning.

If there's one positive thing to say about Iacchus' 'The Church' (New Church, whatever you want to call it), it's the fact that you don't HAVE to believe in it to be saved.

After all, Christ didn't hypothetically die for the sins of those who <<fill in 34,000 + conditions for salvation>>, but for the sins of all Mankind. Period.

SO if you claim to be a Christian, you'd already believe everyone is saved - end of story!

 

[Iacchus]

If there is one true Christian Religion, the important thing to know is whether or not belief in a false Christian religion is damning.

If there's one positive thing to say about Iacchus' 'The Church' (New Church, whatever you want to call it), it's the fact that you don't HAVE to believe in it to be saved.

After all, Christ didn't hypothetically die for the sins of those who <<fill in 34,000 + conditions for salvation>>, but for the sins of all Mankind. Period.

SO if you claim to be a Christian, you'd already believe everyone is saved - end of story!

Yes, it isn't so much a matter of what you believe, but what you do with what you believe. So, if in fact there were a Universal Church, it must at least make this one allowance.

 

[Z]

Now, see, THAT I can buy, Iacchus. THAT makes sense. Perfect sense.

Believe what you will - but do no harm to anyone (including yourself). The Wiccan Rede, restated. Of course, this pretty much resembles the 'Golden Law' of dozens of faith - too bad most people refuse to respect that.

BUT

Posting on a skeptic forum as if your beliefs were FACT - or arguing the logic of your beliefs - is ASKING someone here to debate with fervor.

(Originally I just came here to debate Homeopathy, a belief that I feel does more harm than good. But the religion topics are just SO much fun to debate!)

 

[Iacchus]

Posting on a skeptic forum as if your beliefs were FACT - or arguing the logic of your beliefs - is ASKING someone here to debate with fervor.

Logic is logic, and this is none other than what I've tried to convey.

 

[Z]

I was going to respond to this, but I'm not sure how.

I'd say you don't exactly have the grasp of logic yet, Iacchus. Nor are you quite aware of what you've really been doing.

But, hey, what do I know?

 

[Iacchus]

If it's part of this experience we call reality, it should be arguable. Although it might entail what went into the making of the movie (including the screenplay, not just the props), as opposed to just watching the movie on a screen.

 

[Maledict]

If it's part of this experience we call reality, it should be arguable. Although it might entail what went into the making of the movie (including the screenplay, not just the props), as opposed to just watching the movie on a screen.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.

And what makes me a believer as opposed to you? Sorry, I can't help you there.

Evidence.

If God was omniscient, as you assert, then the evidence would be everywhere. As it turns out, it isn't.

In fact I would extend this to say there are just as many denominations as there are Christians. Why? Because it's all relative, just like everything else. Of course that isn't to say there isn't one True Christian Religion which serves as a backdrop to all of this. Otherwise I don't think we'd have anything to talk about, do you?

Then which one is the "True" Church then?

You have repeatedly failed the answer the question and repeatedly failed to grasp the problem behind 34,000+ denominations of just one religion claiming to be the mutually exclusive truth.

 

[Iacchus]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.

Evidence.

If God was omniscient, as you assert, then the evidence would be everywhere. As it turns out, it isn't.

Then which one is the "True" Church then?

You have repeatedly failed the answer the question and repeatedly failed to grasp the problem behind 34,000+ denominations of just one religion claiming to be the mutually exclusive truth.

And you've repeatedly failed to listen to any word I've had to say. If it's so important to you by the way, do your own research.

 

[Maledict]

And you've repeatedly failed to listen to any word I've to say. If it's so important to you by the way, do your own research.

Your so called "words" have nothing to do with the argument.

For example, what does the following have anything to do with this discussion?

If it's part of this experience we call reality, it should be arguable. Although it might entail what went into the making of the movie (including the screenplay, not just the props), as opposed to just watching the movie on a screen.

Also, would you address the point as to why you do not see it to be a problem that 34,000+ denominations of just one religion are claiming to be the mutually exclusive truth?

 

[Iacchus]

Satanist Rabidicus!

 

[Z]

If God was omniscient, as you assert, then the evidence would be everywhere. As it turns out, it isn't.

Actually, (semantic nitpick) an omniscient God doesn't automatically imply evidence for God being necessary. Knowing about everything doesn't mean you're everywhere. I think what you wanted to say was omnipresent.

For example, I know quite a lot about Tong Du Chon-Ni, in Korea - but as far as I know, no evidence of my presence there exists. I certainly know quite a lot about West Palm Beach, Florida, but I highly doubt most people could find any evidence I was ever there. People might even have trouble finding evidence of my existence in Cincinnati, where I currently live.

I know, it's just a misuse of a word, but it does weaken your argument, R.S.

 

[Maledict]

Actually, (semantic nitpick) an omniscient God doesn't automatically imply evidence for God being necessary. Knowing about everything doesn't mean you're everywhere. I think what you wanted to say was omnipresent.

For example, I know quite a lot about Tong Du Chon-Ni, in Korea - but as far as I know, no evidence of my presence there exists. I certainly know quite a lot about West Palm Beach, Florida, but I highly doubt most people could find any evidence I was ever there. People might even have trouble finding evidence of my existence in Cincinnati, where I currently live.

I know, it's just a misuse of a word, but it does weaken your argument, R.S.

D'oh - thanks for alerting me - I meant to use the word omnipresent .

 

[Z]

D'oh - thanks for alerting me - I meant to use the word omnipresent .

In which case, let me offer one possible failure of the Omnipresent God evidence theory...

There are many who believe that the very substance of the Universe is synonymous (SP??) with God... that God's body is the very fabric of reality, and each atom is but an atom of God's body.

This is logically consistant if God created the Universe, which includes God (Universe meaning All That Is), though it is circular and leads to the rather boggling idea that God created God... which is what the Bible suggests. But, if we continue this thinking, we see that every natural and man-inspired event is the will of God, because we are all part and parcel of God. This also implies that God is neither good nor evil, or at least, that good or evil as determined by Man is of no consequence to God. It further removes our ability to anthropomorphize God (is that even a word? Anthro-whatever, not God), since it implies that God's thought processes are beyond anything we can even consider - that it is alright for God to give life, take life, allow and even cause suffering, etc. - and it removes any stigma from sin, any fear of hell and damnation, and any requirement for worship.

It also effectively removes any ability to prove or disprove the existence of God, and at the same time, leaves us with, what I believe, is a rather sobering thought - that we are all more interconnected than we imagine, being merely fragments of God ourselves.

Anyway, my ADHD is flaring up, so I'm having difficulty concentrating on this subject - hope I didn't ramble too far off base.

edited to correct spelling of parcel - sadly, didn't think to correct other misspellings (too lazy to be bothered)