Religion

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

53. You told me exactly what I had already posted

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:00 PM

May 2016

And proceeded to give me a reading list after I had already paraphrased it for you and which you have yet to contradict. So if you want anything softer than that, I'll have to shit in your hand.

You started out with your usual deflection and only got back on track after I called you out for it. Unlike you I stand by my assertions.

If you are so embarrassed, don't read it. Whining incessantly doesn't help your case. I've yet to see you offer anything useful on the subject.

I notice you've shied away from the plain language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I suspect you'll also do your usual run away and deflection from the real reason behind the Lumen Gentium, which was to deflect charges of anti-semitism on behalf of Catholicism.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There aint no god, if there is may she strike this thread DEAD [View all] Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 OP

Here it is Gomez163 May 2016 #1

Or, His schedule and timing may be a bit different than our own...nt jonno99 May 2016 #2

Human beings invented god to deal with mortality and to control others. Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #3

GREAT film. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #8

Or, some deny there is a God (or creator) in an effort to escape accountability...nt jonno99 May 2016 #9

At least you can still sell your children into slavery with no worries Major Nikon May 2016 #10

Nah - it's only what comes out of a person that defiles him. No worries...nt jonno99 May 2016 #12

So you have come to abolish the law? Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #14

The law had/has a purpose; but it was not meant to be an end in itself. jonno99 May 2016 #16

Oh, right. Forgot about that. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #30

What I find fascinating are those who have the ability to read the minds of others - even if jonno99 May 2016 #35

That's a pretty low threshold for fascination. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #43

As I said, the law had a purpose, it was not meant to be an end unto itself. Rather it was to act jonno99 May 2016 #46

Yeah, I heard your post hoc rationalization the first time around. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #47

Well, you did make the claim that: jonno99 May 2016 #51

Acts 15 Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #84

Well, you claimed to have that ability yourself. trotsky May 2016 #50

Matthew 5:17 Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #77

Lucky Christians get to have it both ways, though. trotsky May 2016 #85

It's much more rational than the rigid doctrinaire approach like "Religion poisons everything." rug May 2016 #86

As I've said a few times now - the law had a pupose, one purpose was to provide structure jonno99 May 2016 #87

LOL Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #89

Sure - it's easy to compare contemporary society to the practices of the ancient world. jonno99 May 2016 #90

But we're not making that comparison. trotsky May 2016 #93

You aren't very good at this. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #94

So it was OK for Jesus to change the food laws Brettongarcia May 2016 #54

How dumb and/or evil do you think non-believers are? trotsky May 2016 #15

For starters, none of us are free from evil, so please don't feel like you're being singled out. jonno99 May 2016 #22

Wow. trotsky May 2016 #25

Please don't be amongst those who take offense when none is intended. jonno99 May 2016 #36

I don't really care if you claim it's not directed at me. trotsky May 2016 #37

Fair enough. I would suggest then that you limit your own broad-brush assertions/assumptions jonno99 May 2016 #41

Since I said no such thing, I do not need to limit what I've said. trotsky May 2016 #48

Anti-theism =/ bigotry Major Nikon May 2016 #75

Do you really believe this specious nonsense? mr blur May 2016 #38

Point out the error - please. nt jonno99 May 2016 #42

Let me count the ways whatthehey May 2016 #52

#4...mmf !!! Iggo May 2016 #64

Thanks for a thoughtful reply - my responses: jonno99 May 2016 #91

I think you're missing the point whatthehey May 2016 #95

If you rely on fear of completely unverifiable accountability for morals... Major Nikon May 2016 #76

Agreed. nt jonno99 May 2016 #88

So surely then morality cannot depend on faith? whatthehey May 2016 #96

I don't know your background, so at with the risk of insulting your jonno99 May 2016 #110

Not really the point though whatthehey May 2016 #115

Wow. trotsky May 2016 #116

Accountability? sigh Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #33

Remember, despite the ivory tower pronouncements from would-be theologians... trotsky May 2016 #34

Some invoke god in an effort to escape accountability. dchill May 2016 #78

Stupidity does not need divine intervention to meet its end. rug May 2016 #4

No, you can use your Alert button for that. Buzz Clik May 2016 #26

God might be busy MFM008 May 2016 #5

So this god of yours, the one who said if you dont know me or acknowledge me you cant Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #6

Don't tell me. You were a literalist then and you're a literalist now. rug May 2016 #7

Which isn't that much different from the RCC's official position Major Nikon May 2016 #11

The people in here posting about talking snakes are not Catholics. rug May 2016 #13

If you can't respond to the point made, feel free to respond to any other you care to make up Major Nikon May 2016 #17

You're close. I made a direct response to a made-up point. rug May 2016 #18

Sounds like I was spot on then Major Nikon May 2016 #19

Except as to who was making up points. rug May 2016 #20

No, I'm pretty sure I got that one right Major Nikon May 2016 #21

Afraid not. rug May 2016 #23

"extra ccclesiam(sic) nulla salus" is still the official RCC position Major Nikon May 2016 #24

It is. And literalism blurs its meaning. rug May 2016 #28

You must have missed this part.... Major Nikon May 2016 #29

That odd little sect? rug May 2016 #39

I guess if you're going to be that inept, I'm going to have to leave bigger breadcrumbs Major Nikon May 2016 #40

That's only 36 paragraphs away. rug May 2016 #44

...and the document you posted was only 8 chapters long Major Nikon May 2016 #45

. . . . and I told you ecaxtly where it is. rug May 2016 #49

You told me exactly what I had already posted Major Nikon May 2016 #53

Although I'm sure you're feigning ignorance, I'll give it to you in teeny pieces. rug May 2016 #59

You do understand those two statements directly contradict each other, yes? Major Nikon May 2016 #60

Only if you're a simple-minded literalist. rug May 2016 #63

This is funny as shit Major Nikon May 2016 #66

Somehow, I don't think you're amused at all. rug May 2016 #67

And you're wrong about that too Major Nikon May 2016 #70

You haven't read the 8th through 375th chapters of St. gish Lordquinton May 2016 #81

So Mary was not literally a virgin? Brettongarcia May 2016 #55

There is disagreement about the former. No serious dispute about the latter. rug May 2016 #56

The rule is that if it seems obviously false, say... Brettongarcia May 2016 #58

That's a rule embraced only by those who can't be bothered with scriptural scholarship. rug May 2016 #61

So other than the bible, what exactly would we read? Major Nikon May 2016 #62

Why would you read anything else on the subject? Do you think a geology book would help? rug May 2016 #65

Why? Because you suggested it maybe? Major Nikon May 2016 #68

Sorry, I have to eat a hamburger. rug May 2016 #69

Deflection noted Major Nikon May 2016 #71

+1 for being smart enough to know when you're beat and just walk away. cleanhippie May 2016 #82

I'm all done eating, cleanhippie. What have you got to say? rug May 2016 #83

So on the matter of Jesus, Rug is a literalist Brettongarcia May 2016 #72

"It is claimed that Jesus literally, actually, physically existed." by the bulk of scholars. rug May 2016 #73

That's not really a hard claim to make Major Nikon May 2016 #74

No contemporaneous accounts of his life. Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #79

Walking on water is often takenliterally by Catholics Brettongarcia May 2016 #92

Well, the odds are high that when you type something here it is wrong or irrelevant. rug May 2016 #97

The subtopic: people taking the Bible literally Brettongarcia May 2016 #100

There is an intellectual dishonesty displayed by certain believers who sneer at the "literalism" Warren Stupidity May 2016 #99

No, the mockery is directed at antitheists who are wedded to biblical literalism. rug May 2016 #102

But many Catholics often do take the Bible literally Brettongarcia May 2016 #103

The dishonesty employed isthe claim that it is all literal rug May 2016 #105

If ANY miracles are taken literally... Brettongarcia May 2016 #107

No, those specific claims are subject to it. rug May 2016 #108

Rug? You defend a modern liberal Catholicism Brettongarcia May 2016 #111

the foundational myth is patent horseshit. Warren Stupidity May 2016 #112

The only patent horseshit I see is what you just posted. rug May 2016 #113

Rug? Do you believe in a resurrected Jesus? Brettongarcia May 2016 #114

Crickets. Warren Stupidity May 2016 #117

Resurrection=zombies Brettongarcia May 2016 #120

The Bible clearly says "Thou shalt not tempt God." DetlefK May 2016 #27

Someone should tell these guys.... Major Nikon May 2016 #31

Darwin beats Christianity in that case. Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #80

Except in say, Mal. 3.10 Brettongarcia May 2016 #57

You mean like praying for things? skepticscott May 2016 #104

Of course, there isn't! Iggo May 2016 #32

This poor thread was DOA. okasha May 2016 #98

Post removed Post removed May 2016 #106

So one thing I got from religion study classes is... northernsouthern May 2016 #101

This thread is conclusive proof that if a God or Gods exist, he, she, it, or they... stone space May 2016 #109

This thread is still alive... NeoGreen May 2016 #118

Yeah, there ain't. Iggo May 2016 #119

Still kicken' (nt) NeoGreen Jun 2016 #121