What is Truth? (1 Viewer)

Wait, you're basing all of your arguments from a position of Catholicism?

Is it not obvious? Catholics tend to be the most judgmental/My way or no way version of Christianity. It's so bad that you also see it in former Catholics turned atheist. "No Soup for you!" I tend to warn people off of religious debates due to this trait.
 
Actually, no. There are other religious texts from different religions that say similar things. Did you know that there are almost 3000 different known gods that we know of are/were worshiped at one time or another? Conveniently the one you grew up with is the true one.
oddly, as well, though Jesus was the ultimate pacifist - he is the god of the peoples who conquered most of the other gods in very unchristlike ways
 
I've been to the Smithsonian. I've heard of Kirk Cameron, by I've never heard of Ray Comfort. And whatever Kirk Cameron has to say, I'd never go out of my way the hear because simply, he ain't Catholic. I literally have zero clue what Kirk Cameron believes (though I know he is christian) and never saw his movie (I heard the acting was horrible and it sucked). Sorry, never been to answeringgenesis.org or any other website like it.
Again, could've fooled me. It literally is like you are copying and pasting from them. Again, websites, audio books, textbooks... it is the same content you are reading/hearing.

You are right "they have hundreds of bones backstage". What they don't have is hundreds of bones and variations as one species evolves into another. Observation and experimentation implies there is something to observe and experiment upon. Watching bacteria change into a different strand of bacteria doesn't prove evolution of one species into a totally different species.
They actually do have a fossil record, DNA data, etc. You just refuse to believe it because you have been told it is not so, and because it flies in the face of your religion. The reason charts like the one I posted exist is because extensive research, experimentation, observation, etc has been done.

And with "Please... don't insult my intelligence" you've refused to answer the basic question of the OP, once again.
And I keep telling you, the "basic question" in the OP, even if not said outright, is merely an exercise in rationalization that starts with a premise that you must believe on faith, which logically ends in reaffirming your bias, as you must believe in the original premise. And it is easy to see where this is going, as the author of the letter very much tells you so on the second paragraph of the letter:
I will follow that up with "The Case for God," "Faith vs. Science?" and then the "Case for Jesus." I hope they prove useful to you...
So, again, don't insult my intelligence.

Finally, the vast majority of your rhetoric is copy and paste from sources like the Zietgeist.
Oh, yeah, nice try. Come on, man.

Tell me, did Judaism exist before they wrote the books we know as the Old Testament? Did Christianity exist before gospels and epistles were written?
I would say, a religion starts with a declaration of a god, and not necessarily with the texts, which are written well after the alleged facts.

The Old Testament is the place where God predicted His coming and His death, and non christian sources such as Jocephus verify He did in fact come and die in the manner predicted.
Sources? Perhaps you mean one unverified source? There are no other records... and I'd imagine things as spectacular as curing leprosy, raising the dead, walking on water, etc would have had lot of folks talking and writing about it. Funny thing about the Old Testament and the people who follow it: they are still waiting for that Messiah, and they are God's chosen people. Don't you think they should know better?

Now, could you please point to me, where in the Bible it says that Yahweh was going to come back to Earth as man, to sacrifice himself to himself, in order for him to forgive humankind of sins and transgressions committed against him by said humankind?
 
As for the bible, which by the way is the most Catholic book in the world, it only makes up 1/3 of the foundations of Catholic belief. First came Apostolic Tradition (how the apostles and Christ instituted, preached, defended, and lived "the way"), Second came the Magisterium (official teachings / dogma, proclaimed excathedra - from offices of authority given by Christ), and last came the Bible. And in no way can a teaching or interpretation or belief contradict either of those 3. In fact, every heresy that ever came into existence was refuted by citing all three, and there are detailed records of this. That's why Paul spends half of his letters correcting his churches because their beliefs weren't in line with what was taught be Jesus and His apostles. Those letters, from Bishop to congregation, never stopped. Most conversions to Catholicism come about because someone gets the bright idea of wanting to read christian writings from the first and second century to see what the early church looked like, how they lived and taught and defended their faith, and wind up quote shocked that the Chruch was strictly Catholic, Eucharist and all, from the word go. Not that I meant to go on this tangent, but the Bible is not even close to the basis of my religion, and only my religion has the authority to interpret the Bible.
.
i realize you won't see it this way - i assume you see the Council of Nicea as a bunch of men directed by god's hand - but i see it as a very political gathering
a narrow majority picked gospels that narrowly define jesus and downplayed his humanity
and essentially gave Paul the rule maker as more important than Jesus the love talker
the gnostic gospels were disallowed for political reasons - most are WAY more spiritual then the canonic 4
 
...and non christian sources such as Jocephus verify He did in fact come and die in the manner predicted.

Completely not true. There is no independent, non-Christian confirmation of any events in the new testament. Zero. You reference Josephus, so I'm assuming you're talking about the Testimonium Flavianum, but that is a well known forgery, written by a Christian hand for a Christian audience. Apologists try to rescue it by saying that there was a "core" that was later augmented (even though there's really no evidence to support that assertion) but even it if was, The Antiquities of the Jews, where the forgery is found, was written in the 90's CE, so even if the passage weren't a forgery, at that point it would at best have simply been a regurgitation, not a confirmation, of Christian beliefs.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church, as the state religion of the Roman Empire, determined what was retained and what was intentionally destroyed. If they had records that confirmed events of the new testament you better believe they would have been retained. But there weren't. There's not a single contemporary non-Christian reference to Jesus from anyone outside of Christianity. We're talking zero impact outside of his community, and even within the community there are no surviving first person accounts.

Also keep in mind it's not like the early Christians were averse to forging documents. There were dozens of gospels, epistles and even versions of Acts that were rejected as fakes, and even half of the the epistles of Paul accepted as canon are known to be forgeries, not to mention other canonized epistles that they know weren't written until late first/early second century but purport to have been written much earlier.

Going back to the OT, everything through David is accepted as non-historical (i.e. mythological) by mainstream biblical studies, and even beyond that it's really just a collection of stone age mythology and theology, with a few failed prophecies for the end of the world.
 
Last edited:
i realize you won't see it this way - i assume you see the Council of Nicea as a bunch of men directed by god's hand - but i see it as a very political gathering
a narrow majority picked gospels that narrowly define jesus and downplayed his humanity
and essentially gave Paul the rule maker as more important than Jesus the love talker
the gnostic gospels were disallowed for political reasons - most are WAY more spiritual then the canonic 4

I agree that Paul was arguably making up his own Christianity as he went via what he "received" (i.e. dreamed, imagined, hallucinated, fabricated) from the risen Christ, but in his defense, he seems completely unaware of any miracles or teachings credited to Jesus:

1:22 Corinthians "Jews ask a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom, also we — we preach Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness."

But those stories simply may not have been invented yet when he wrote. The "authentic" Pauline epistles are dated to the mid-first century, while the gospels date from the late first century to the mid-second century. Likewise, when you really examine it, the Corinthian Creed (1 Corinthians 15) he inherited doesn't match up too well with any of the gospel narratives:

"...for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive*, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings**, and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings**, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep; afterwards he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all — as to the untimely birth — he appeared also to me..."

* "receive" = received through direct divine revelation (see Galatians 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ")
** "according the the writings" = divine revelation through scriptural interpretation (i.e. like modern "bible coders," finding secret meanings within the text)

So Paul interestingly says he learned that Christ died, was buried and rose through divine revelation and scriptural interpretation (and specifically not oral tradition), and then provides a sequence of the risen Christ first appearing to Cephas (Peter), and then "the twelve" (not eleven at that point? Judas?), then 500 at once, then James and the rest of the apostles and then finally himself. Interesting because none of the gospels represent this exact sequence.

Likewise, according to Paul, the Lords Supper (not the "Last Supper") was not an oral tradition passed down to him from the disciples (Paul never mentions "disciples" at all, only other apostles, like him), but was actually revealed to him directly from Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23 - "For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread,...").

Weird that he would take credit for a story that should have been known, right? Unless it wasn't known, because the stories hadn't been invented yet. That's what would make sense of it to me, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Wait, you're basing all of your arguments from a position of Catholicism?

First and foremost, I am Catholic. Not in name, but in belief and practice. Doesn't mean I base all my arguments from a position of Catholicism, but does mean I'm not liable to waste time listening to someone else's doctrine on matters of faith that I believe to be in error.

I'm more than willing to have a discussion with anyone face to face, but I'm not going out of my way (to websites or podcasts or books or ___) to pursue someone's spiritual musings when I fundamentally disagree with their interpretation. If I'm with a friend or family who isn't catholic and is listening or watching something faith related that aint too Catholic, I'll listen, and if the guy means well, I won't speak of what we disagree on but only what we have in common. If, however, whatever source it is (audio, video, in person lecture) attacks my faith, I will very well defend it and speak up.

Catholic church has 2,000 years of spiritual writings, including many spiritual classics like Dark Night of the Soul, Confessions, Summa Theologica, Immitation of Christ, ect that I feel would be a better use of my time than anything Kirk Cameron or ____ has to say.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom