Limbo
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
Do you all realize that the trinity was also invented by committee.
If truths were really organized this way then in science we could form a committee to decide how gravity should really behave, etc. Or perhaps more usuefully decide that hyperspace exists so we can have faster than light travel.
How can catholicsm be taken seriously when procedures like this are considered meaningful?
If truths were really organized this way then in science we could form a committee to decide how gravity should really behave, etc. Or perhaps more usuefully decide that hyperspace exists so we can have faster than light travel.
How can catholicsm be taken seriously when procedures like this are considered meaningful?
LiveInFaith
Registered Senior Member
Cris said:
Any reference?
LiveInFaith said:
LOL! I can't believe the infected mind of a theists who still doesn't realize that all religious notions are invented by man... 'The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit', yes, that poetic (and most importantly catchy) notion was in no way invented by man, but revealed through an angel. Yes that is more likely!
A "belief" being laid to rest on the grounds that "the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts"???
I am just gob-smacked, to be honest, if this is true.
Where next? Getting rid of the "There is a God" belief?
Where do you think a good deal of Catholic Doctrine, pretty much all the holidays and most of the saints come from?
They are concessions to converts.
This is nothing new.
The "There is a God belief" isn't going anywhere, however, because it isn't simply Doctrine, it is spelled out in the Bible (see below).
In this sense of the word anything that was not spelled out specifically in the Bible is hypothesis.
Limbo, in addition to many other church hypotheses, was borne of the church leaders trying to "fill in the blanks" of the Bible.
True - I hadn't really thought of it like that.
I guess 'cos most of the concessions happened a long time ago, when Catholicism came to the Pagan people - and I'd probably thought that the church was no longer as obvious as that.
Shame on me for thinking that way!
And you were being asked what are the premises for your realisations ..... and you didn't reveal them ......
Well if someone says that god is a kangaroo I can't well prove that it is a manmade notion can I? Perhaps it was 'divinely' revealed to him, just like the silly notion of the 'Trinity'. Although despite the fact I can't prove that god being a kangaroo is definitely a manmade fantasy, I can use somthing called common sense to judge that it is manmade.
Theists are continually saying God is unknowable, yet how they came accross the idea of the 'trinity' is more realistically rooted in fiction, just like most of the Bible.
Theists are continually saying God is unknowable, yet how they came accross the idea of the 'trinity' is more realistically rooted in fiction, just like most of the Bible.
Once again - you are still not revealing premises for a logical argument - all you are saying is that because something appears to be wrong in one circumstance it is obviously wrong in another - kind of weak since I am not aware of any religion that advocates that god is a kangaroo - try again
Logically, considering the lack of any evidence of a personal God, the probability of God existing is about equal to the idea that God exists and is a Kangaroo.
Well this is where theists like lightgigantic fail to see the idiocy of it all. Evidence of intelligent creator/personal god = 0, zero, ziltch, zip. So with that rather enormous fact in mind, I think it is very well safe to say that the trinity is entirely manmade. Just another motive/concept added to the unperceivable creator of the universe. Just as all religions donate their own personalised motives and concepts to thousands of other imaginary gods.
Your statement could be acceptable if there was a complete absence of theological philosophy that gives many arguments for the nature of god's existence (BTW - none of which I am aware of specifically mention a kangaroo as the summum bonum of creation - not even the aborigines of australia) - so from here I guess you have two options -
1) continue with your strawman kangaroo argument
2) Explain why it is thatthings that are not perceptable to you specifically and individually must be objectively false
Problem is that it is not an enormous fact - if you could come up with some premises or declarations of the general principles you apply to come to your conclusions perhaps this discussion could go somewhere but as it stands you are just playing on a battle of wills by boldly stating your opinions and venting your frustration when others have different opinions - a kind of predictable scenario for an atheist hanging out on a religious forum
Explain why it is that things that are perceptable to you specifically and individually must be objectively true?
Generally you can understand objectivity by being the medium that everyone interacts in - of course this is a general definition and you can find a few cracks (which I may or may not have the patience to clarify unless you give specific examples), but its logically impossible to prove that there is no objectivity since if you say there is no objectivity then that statement becomes the only objective reality
Good point, lightgigantic. I find it humorous that someone can just shine their little flashlight into the vastness of the universe and conclude: "Well, since I haven't seen it, it surely mustn't exist!"