Violence [2603171]

Watching even the dumbest of sports like americ futbooll or wrestling....


Nah actually I can't watch that shit. Finally I found something more tedious than this thread.

-SnowQueen- [2699010]

Ironically, your childish attempt to belittle and demean Christians belies a belief far more flimsy and unsubstantiated than the faith you mock. You actually think those poor women weren’t faking it. Smh.

Violence [2603171]

Intentionally sliding my bare feet over rough floorboards knowing I'm going to get a splinter the size of godzilla.



Another pastime more beneficial to my mental health than this thread

Strand [2821241]

A faked orgasmic is very, very obvious.

Clearly you've never watched When Harry Met Sally.

Violence [2603171]

Watching even the dumbest of sports like americ futbooll or wrestling....


Nah actually I can't watch that shit. Finally I found something more tedious than this thread.

-SnowQueen- [2699010]

Ironically, your childish attempt to belittle and demean Christians belies a belief far more flimsy and unsubstantiated than the faith you mock. You actually think those poor women weren’t faking it. Smh.

Violence [2603171]

Intentionally sliding my bare feet over rough floorboards knowing I'm going to get a splinter the size of godzilla.



Another pastime more beneficial to my mental health than this thread

Strand [2821241]

A faked orgasmic is very, very obvious.

Clearly you've never watched When Harry Met Sally.

Violence [2603171]

Apparently I have to spell it out for you....graphic notice ©



Edited because I realised children play this and clearly quite a few of them are active on the forums.

, sex is great fun. You should try it, when you are old enough and find a consenting adult. It is best practiced with less repression.


There you go. Puritanism wins the day.


You sad f**ks

Violence [2603171]

Watching even the dumbest of sports like americ futbooll or wrestling....


Nah actually I can't watch that shit. Finally I found something more tedious than this thread.

Show post

-SnowQueen- [2699010]

Ironically, your childish attempt to belittle and demean Christians belies a belief far more flimsy and unsubstantiated than the faith you mock. You actually think those poor women weren’t faking it. Smh.

Violence [2603171]

Intentionally sliding my bare feet over rough floorboards knowing I'm going to get a splinter the size of godzilla.



Another pastime more beneficial to my mental health than this thread

Strand [2821241]

A faked orgasmic is very, very obvious.

Clearly you've never watched When Harry Met Sally.

Violence [2603171]

Apparently I have to spell it out for you....graphic notice ©



Edited because I realised children play this and clearly quite a few of them are active on the forums.

, sex is great fun. You should try it, when you are old enough and find a consenting adult. It is best practiced with less repression.


There you go. Puritanism wins the day.


You sad f**ks

Strand [2821241]

Sounds like you've read the wikipedia article on intercourse pretty thoroughly! Great job. Just make sure you review Torn's obscenity rules before you just copy it over blindly.

Strand [2821241]

Because that's not how God works. He doesn't give people incontrovertible evidence they'd be forced to accept. He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him. There were people of his time who witnessed their miracles and still opted to crucify him, so it's likely that revealing himself in all his glory would still not make Christians of all of us.

God hasn't revealed himself to me, if by reveal you mean a miracle, a vision, a potent experience that couldn't be explained by natural means. Yet I believe in him and his goodness. I live a happy life largely because of my faith in him. I don't live in constant fear of hell or in breaking the rules, although I feel ashamed when I do wrong because of the harm it does others, myself, and the offense it does to God, whom I should wish to offend least of all. Too often the rules become the focal point of Christianity, but following Christ means being opened up to the world, not being closed off or limited in accessing it's pleasures. I feel gratitude every day for the life and gifts I have received and feel purpose even on the days I feel worst about the world or myself.

ElHeffe [2564022]

Now I am really confused. I don't really know where to begin trying to unpick what is possibly the single most self-contradictory post I have ever read.

Because that's not how God works.

That is a statement of someone who is speaking with a direct understanding of God. You would have to be mad to tell someone how God does or does not operate unless you had a personal understanding of His methods.

He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him.

Again you're speaking with the conviction of someone who knows exactly how God operated. But yet you want me to have faith AND reason.
Dude - faith is what you use when you have no reason.

Faith is the belief in the truth of something that does not require any evidence and may not be provable by any empirical or rational means. Reason is the faculty of the mind through which we can logically come to rational conclusions.

Have faith and use reason?
Why not tell me to stand up and sit down? Or be quiet and shout? Listen to yourself.
Have faith and use reason? What a lot of bollocks!

God hasn't revealed himself to me,

Now that takes the f**king cake doesn't it. How dare you tell me about how God works? How dare you tell me how I'm not understanding His ways? How DARE you tell me to open up my heart to God and trust His Word when you did it and you heard NOTHING.
In a way I am impressed - I didn't think I could feel insulted by something wrote on the internet, but you've just about done it. You were just telling me about the Mind of God and then you confess you don't have a clue, do you?

What a crock of crap. What a hypocrite. What you've written is truly disgusting.

Strand [2821241]

Read paragraph 159 of the Catechism for a description of how faith and reason coalesce.
I'd highly encourage you to read the Catechism, as it will answer your questions much better than I can, and it won't make mistakes like I can. It summarizes everything that Catholics believe, and gives plentiful references should you care to delve deeper into any of its topics.
It's also very easy to find what you're looking for by using the index and paragraph headings.

Anyway, in my own poor words, it doesn't take a mystic to tell you faith can't contradict reason. As God is responsible for all the laws of nature, and he cannot contradict his own nature, what we hold by faith can never oppose reason. Now, God can use exceptions (like miracles) without contradicting the laws of nature. For example, Jesus walked on water, but that doesn't mean we are required to believe that water is hard and flat and can be walked on. It showed that Jesus had power of nature, NOT that the laws we comprehend by our reason are invalid or contradictory to what we know about God.

Also, I never told you I "heard nothing." I said I have never had an experience that you'd take as incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. The conviction I hold stems from the reasonability of the Catholic faith, its adherence to what is both moral and natural, and, perhaps above all, its beauty. Everything just fits.
As for my personal experiences...the moments in prayer where I get no overt answer but simply a sense that all is right, everything is going to be okay no matter how much suffering lies on the path to that, the feeling that I am loved no matter what...I didn't mention these because I don't think you will regard those experiences very highly.

Strand [2821241]

Because that's not how God works. He doesn't give people incontrovertible evidence they'd be forced to accept. He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him. There were people of his time who witnessed their miracles and still opted to crucify him, so it's likely that revealing himself in all his glory would still not make Christians of all of us.

God hasn't revealed himself to me, if by reveal you mean a miracle, a vision, a potent experience that couldn't be explained by natural means. Yet I believe in him and his goodness. I live a happy life largely because of my faith in him. I don't live in constant fear of hell or in breaking the rules, although I feel ashamed when I do wrong because of the harm it does others, myself, and the offense it does to God, whom I should wish to offend least of all. Too often the rules become the focal point of Christianity, but following Christ means being opened up to the world, not being closed off or limited in accessing it's pleasures. I feel gratitude every day for the life and gifts I have received and feel purpose even on the days I feel worst about the world or myself.

ElHeffe [2564022]

Now I am really confused. I don't really know where to begin trying to unpick what is possibly the single most self-contradictory post I have ever read.

Because that's not how God works.

That is a statement of someone who is speaking with a direct understanding of God. You would have to be mad to tell someone how God does or does not operate unless you had a personal understanding of His methods.

He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him.

Again you're speaking with the conviction of someone who knows exactly how God operated. But yet you want me to have faith AND reason.
Dude - faith is what you use when you have no reason.

Faith is the belief in the truth of something that does not require any evidence and may not be provable by any empirical or rational means. Reason is the faculty of the mind through which we can logically come to rational conclusions.

Have faith and use reason?
Why not tell me to stand up and sit down? Or be quiet and shout? Listen to yourself.
Have faith and use reason? What a lot of bollocks!

God hasn't revealed himself to me,

Now that takes the f**king cake doesn't it. How dare you tell me about how God works? How dare you tell me how I'm not understanding His ways? How DARE you tell me to open up my heart to God and trust His Word when you did it and you heard NOTHING.
In a way I am impressed - I didn't think I could feel insulted by something wrote on the internet, but you've just about done it. You were just telling me about the Mind of God and then you confess you don't have a clue, do you?

What a crock of crap. What a hypocrite. What you've written is truly disgusting.

Strand [2821241]

Read paragraph 159 of the Catechism for a description of how faith and reason coalesce.
I'd highly encourage you to read the Catechism, as it will answer your questions much better than I can, and it won't make mistakes like I can. It summarizes everything that Catholics believe, and gives plentiful references should you care to delve deeper into any of its topics.
It's also very easy to find what you're looking for by using the index and paragraph headings.

Anyway, in my own poor words, it doesn't take a mystic to tell you faith can't contradict reason. As God is responsible for all the laws of nature, and he cannot contradict his own nature, what we hold by faith can never oppose reason. Now, God can use exceptions (like miracles) without contradicting the laws of nature. For example, Jesus walked on water, but that doesn't mean we are required to believe that water is hard and flat and can be walked on. It showed that Jesus had power of nature, NOT that the laws we comprehend by our reason are invalid or contradictory to what we know about God.

Also, I never told you I "heard nothing." I said I have never had an experience that you'd take as incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. The conviction I hold stems from the reasonability of the Catholic faith, its adherence to what is both moral and natural, and, perhaps above all, its beauty. Everything just fits.
As for my personal experiences...the moments in prayer where I get no overt answer but simply a sense that all is right, everything is going to be okay no matter how much suffering lies on the path to that, the feeling that I am loved no matter what...I didn't mention these because I don't think you will regard those experiences very highly.

ElHeffe [2564022]

So I read 159 and the others before and after it. They proved nothing, just provided declarative statements.

I posted a Steven Colbert clip a few pages back "It's not my logic, it's God's logic as written in the Bible, every word of which is true and we know every word is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true and if you remember for earlier in this sentence, every word of the Bible is true". That's basically what the Catechism says.

Honestly, if this is the best the Catholic Church can come up with, no wonder they're haemorrhaging believers.

Strand [2821241]

Because that's not how God works. He doesn't give people incontrovertible evidence they'd be forced to accept. He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him. There were people of his time who witnessed their miracles and still opted to crucify him, so it's likely that revealing himself in all his glory would still not make Christians of all of us.

God hasn't revealed himself to me, if by reveal you mean a miracle, a vision, a potent experience that couldn't be explained by natural means. Yet I believe in him and his goodness. I live a happy life largely because of my faith in him. I don't live in constant fear of hell or in breaking the rules, although I feel ashamed when I do wrong because of the harm it does others, myself, and the offense it does to God, whom I should wish to offend least of all. Too often the rules become the focal point of Christianity, but following Christ means being opened up to the world, not being closed off or limited in accessing it's pleasures. I feel gratitude every day for the life and gifts I have received and feel purpose even on the days I feel worst about the world or myself.

ElHeffe [2564022]

Now I am really confused. I don't really know where to begin trying to unpick what is possibly the single most self-contradictory post I have ever read.

Because that's not how God works.

That is a statement of someone who is speaking with a direct understanding of God. You would have to be mad to tell someone how God does or does not operate unless you had a personal understanding of His methods.

He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him.

Again you're speaking with the conviction of someone who knows exactly how God operated. But yet you want me to have faith AND reason.
Dude - faith is what you use when you have no reason.

Faith is the belief in the truth of something that does not require any evidence and may not be provable by any empirical or rational means. Reason is the faculty of the mind through which we can logically come to rational conclusions.

Have faith and use reason?
Why not tell me to stand up and sit down? Or be quiet and shout? Listen to yourself.
Have faith and use reason? What a lot of bollocks!

God hasn't revealed himself to me,

Now that takes the f**king cake doesn't it. How dare you tell me about how God works? How dare you tell me how I'm not understanding His ways? How DARE you tell me to open up my heart to God and trust His Word when you did it and you heard NOTHING.
In a way I am impressed - I didn't think I could feel insulted by something wrote on the internet, but you've just about done it. You were just telling me about the Mind of God and then you confess you don't have a clue, do you?

What a crock of crap. What a hypocrite. What you've written is truly disgusting.

Strand [2821241]

Read paragraph 159 of the Catechism for a description of how faith and reason coalesce.
I'd highly encourage you to read the Catechism, as it will answer your questions much better than I can, and it won't make mistakes like I can. It summarizes everything that Catholics believe, and gives plentiful references should you care to delve deeper into any of its topics.
It's also very easy to find what you're looking for by using the index and paragraph headings.

Anyway, in my own poor words, it doesn't take a mystic to tell you faith can't contradict reason. As God is responsible for all the laws of nature, and he cannot contradict his own nature, what we hold by faith can never oppose reason. Now, God can use exceptions (like miracles) without contradicting the laws of nature. For example, Jesus walked on water, but that doesn't mean we are required to believe that water is hard and flat and can be walked on. It showed that Jesus had power of nature, NOT that the laws we comprehend by our reason are invalid or contradictory to what we know about God.

Also, I never told you I "heard nothing." I said I have never had an experience that you'd take as incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. The conviction I hold stems from the reasonability of the Catholic faith, its adherence to what is both moral and natural, and, perhaps above all, its beauty. Everything just fits.
As for my personal experiences...the moments in prayer where I get no overt answer but simply a sense that all is right, everything is going to be okay no matter how much suffering lies on the path to that, the feeling that I am loved no matter what...I didn't mention these because I don't think you will regard those experiences very highly.

ElHeffe [2564022]

So I read 159 and the others before and after it. They proved nothing, just provided declarative statements.

I posted a Steven Colbert clip a few pages back "It's not my logic, it's God's logic as written in the Bible, every word of which is true and we know every word is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true and if you remember for earlier in this sentence, every word of the Bible is true". That's basically what the Catechism says.

Honestly, if this is the best the Catholic Church can come up with, no wonder they're haemorrhaging believers.

Strand [2821241]

Just showing you that faith doesn't contradict reason. Have a good day.

Strand [2821241]

There you go. I've used my reason to conclude from a series of reasonable premises that there is a God.

Strand [2821241]

There you go. I've used my reason to conclude from a series of reasonable premises that there is a God.

ElHeffe [2564022]

No you haven't. Because they are all defeated by a single question:

Who created God?

And then, even assuming those arguments hold water (which they don't)... you've a looooooooooooooong way to go to prove the Christian God of the Bible is that god.

Strand [2821241]

There you go. I've used my reason to conclude from a series of reasonable premises that there is a God.

ElHeffe [2564022]

No you haven't. Because they are all defeated by a single question:

Who created God?

And then, even assuming those arguments hold water (which they don't)... you've a looooooooooooooong way to go to prove the Christian God of the Bible is that god.

Strand [2821241]

The definition of God is the uncreated being. Most major religions agree on this definition. And I'm pretty sure I've gone over it with you before.
If God was created, then he isn't God, and whoever created him is God. He's the only being whose existence is noncontingent on another's before him. His existence is necessary ONLY to answer how all the contingent things (i.e. everything in the universe) came to be. I'm 95% sure we've already had this conversation.

Anywho, the point of this discourse wasn't to prove the Christian God is the True God. Your point was that faith and reason are polar opposites. You continually shifting the goalposts as soon as I provide some well-reasoned arguments isn't helping you come off as reasonable, so I won't be responding to you after this unless you either a) concede the point and ask a follow-up question, or b) provide a well-reasoned argument against my previous points that I haven't already addressed in a previous debate with you.

EDIT: clarification

Strand [2821241]

There you go. I've used my reason to conclude from a series of reasonable premises that there is a God.

ElHeffe [2564022]

No you haven't. Because they are all defeated by a single question:

Who created God?

And then, even assuming those arguments hold water (which they don't)... you've a looooooooooooooong way to go to prove the Christian God of the Bible is that god.

Strand [2821241]

The definition of God is the uncreated being. Most major religions agree on this definition. And I'm pretty sure I've gone over it with you before.
If God was created, then he isn't God, and whoever created him is God. He's the only being whose existence is noncontingent on another's before him. His existence is necessary ONLY to answer how all the contingent things (i.e. everything in the universe) came to be. I'm 95% sure we've already had this conversation.

Anywho, the point of this discourse wasn't to prove the Christian God is the True God. Your point was that faith and reason are polar opposites. You continually shifting the goalposts as soon as I provide some well-reasoned arguments isn't helping you come off as reasonable, so I won't be responding to you after this unless you either a) concede the point and ask a follow-up question, or b) provide a well-reasoned argument against my previous points that I haven't already addressed in a previous debate with you.

EDIT: clarification

ElHeffe [2564022]

Well Thomas's argument is flawed. He can't say everything has a cause. Except God. Because God is part of the set of everything. The argument is logically contradictory.

1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B.
3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s), to ultimate effect.
4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect.
5. But there are effects.
6. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them: God.

Point 6 contradicts point 1. Who caused God?

Strand [2821241]

There you go. I've used my reason to conclude from a series of reasonable premises that there is a God.

ElHeffe [2564022]

No you haven't. Because they are all defeated by a single question:

Who created God?

And then, even assuming those arguments hold water (which they don't)... you've a looooooooooooooong way to go to prove the Christian God of the Bible is that god.

Strand [2821241]

The definition of God is the uncreated being. Most major religions agree on this definition. And I'm pretty sure I've gone over it with you before.
If God was created, then he isn't God, and whoever created him is God. He's the only being whose existence is noncontingent on another's before him. His existence is necessary ONLY to answer how all the contingent things (i.e. everything in the universe) came to be. I'm 95% sure we've already had this conversation.

Anywho, the point of this discourse wasn't to prove the Christian God is the True God. Your point was that faith and reason are polar opposites. You continually shifting the goalposts as soon as I provide some well-reasoned arguments isn't helping you come off as reasonable, so I won't be responding to you after this unless you either a) concede the point and ask a follow-up question, or b) provide a well-reasoned argument against my previous points that I haven't already addressed in a previous debate with you.

EDIT: clarification

ElHeffe [2564022]

Well Thomas's argument is flawed. He can't say everything has a cause. Except God. Because God is part of the set of everything. The argument is logically contradictory.

1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B.
3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s), to ultimate effect.
4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect.
5. But there are effects.
6. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them: God.

Point 6 contradicts point 1. Who caused God?

Strand [2821241]

There you go. I've used my reason to conclude from a series of reasonable premises that there is a God.

ElHeffe [2564022]

No you haven't. Because they are all defeated by a single question:

Who created God?

And then, even assuming those arguments hold water (which they don't)... you've a looooooooooooooong way to go to prove the Christian God of the Bible is that god.

Strand [2821241]

The definition of God is the uncreated being. Most major religions agree on this definition. And I'm pretty sure I've gone over it with you before.
If God was created, then he isn't God, and whoever created him is God. He's the only being whose existence is noncontingent on another's before him. His existence is necessary ONLY to answer how all the contingent things (i.e. everything in the universe) came to be. I'm 95% sure we've already had this conversation.

Anywho, the point of this discourse wasn't to prove the Christian God is the True God. Your point was that faith and reason are polar opposites. You continually shifting the goalposts as soon as I provide some well-reasoned arguments isn't helping you come off as reasonable, so I won't be responding to you after this unless you either a) concede the point and ask a follow-up question, or b) provide a well-reasoned argument against my previous points that I haven't already addressed in a previous debate with you.

EDIT: clarification

ElHeffe [2564022]

Well Thomas's argument is flawed. He can't say everything has a cause. Except God. Because God is part of the set of everything. The argument is logically contradictory.

1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B.
3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s), to ultimate effect.
4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect.
5. But there are effects.
6. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them: God.

Point 6 contradicts point 1. Who caused God?

Latinobull14 [2881384]

I think your first point is wrong. Everything in the world has a cause (A) which leads to an effect(B). However, if we keep going down the chain of causes (I'm here because of my parents, they are here because of their parents, life on earth exists because of (XYZ), XYZ exists because of an explosion, etc), you would eventually have to find an uncaused cause. Something or someone that doesn't have a cause or something/someone that always existed. Who/What orchestrated the universe and the nuances behind it?

So what are the 4 main options that scientists brought up who/what that uncaused cause is?

1) Nothing
2) Matter and Energy
3) God
4) Flying Spaghetti Monster (yes this is a real thing)

Now I'm curious about what you think who/what is the uncaused cause of everything?

Strand [2821241]

Everything material has a cause, so we know that the Necessary Being must be immaterial. God isn't a part of the universe, because the universe is a material place.

Strand [2821241]

Everything material has a cause, so we know that the Necessary Being must be immaterial. God isn't a part of the universe, because the universe is a material place.

ElHeffe [2564022]

Well as I have just mentioned in the other post "Everything material has a cause" is not necessarily true at a point before causality existed as we understand it.

Strand [2821241]

Uh huh...but then matter did come to exist at a certain point, yes? From which we say time began? So when matter did begin to exist, it must have had a cause, yes? That's the beginning of material causality, yes? But that still leaves the question--what caused that first cause?

As to your death crunch and infinite loop theories...like you said, none of these can be proven. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. The universe isn't infinitely old, and it sounds as if the Big Crunch has been disavowed. So you can't just list a bunch of theories and say, "it's probably one of these, we just don't know which one." That's not exactly a reasoned standpoint, especially when the theories are demonstrably false.