I’m at work, I have limited internet access.
I don’t know why this site is not blocked. Maybe the IT guy is a Doper.
Its not like they have an ulterior motive to making sure that no problem is found, right? Analysis of what the Catholic Church holds to be true, done by the Catholic Church-you see no problem here?
You have no access to any search engines. How is that even done?
“Maybe the IT guy is a Doper”? Your forgot to add “lol”.
I have access to Google. I can do a search and the results come up, but then most of the links are blocked when I try to follow them.
When you get home, do a search and see if what you and your sect believe is as “universal” as you assume it to be.
Yes of course there is a potential conflict of interest.
But considering the elements of both diabolical evil and saintly people that the Church hierarchy has pretty much always been comprised of, I don’t see an intentional deception like that as being sustainable.
I will look it up.
Let me make a prediction :rolleyes:
The more historically rooted ‘sects’, as you call them, that don’t believe in a “rapture” (Catholic, older Protestant denominations, etc) will basically have the same interpretations, while the less historically-rooted Protestant denominations that believe in a “rapture” will have vastly different ones.
It doesn’t take “diabolical evil” or “saintly people” to maintain status quo. It just takes a hierarchy resistant to any change that might lead others to ask questions.
That’s a mischaracterization.
The Church has never been afraid of questions. The university and modern science were invented in a Catholic world.
There have always been people in the hierarchy who are very anxious for change, for better or for worse.
Your “prediction” depends on how you view sects other that your own, so I leave you to it.
BTW, I use the terms “sects” and “religious sects” to maintain equality when referring to them. Using inside vernacular like “The Church”, “Historically rooted” and the like assumes a superiority that I do not believe is justified. It is not an insult-it is an acceptance that all such sects are equally valid in my eyes.
Fair enough.
But if a ‘sect’ makes a truth claim, don’t you want to know what that claim is based on? What if it’s based on something illogical or inconsistent? Wouldn’t that sect have less credibility?
I understand your point and take no offense, but don’t you think you’re being purposefully naive? You don’t believe that one religion can be objectively better than another?
Remember the response you gave me when I asked you for the good evidence you claimed to have?
I will take a look at any good evidence presented to me by any sect, then decide their veracity according to the amount of good evidence presented. Which reminds me-Remember the response you gave me when I asked you for the good evidence you claimed to have?
He’s a diehard atheist, who makes a habit of JAQ in all of these threads. But if you do the same to his religion, conversion atheism, he gets angry and defensive.
I doubt the sincerity of his JAQ.
JAQ “just asking questions”
I doubt you will accept it as evidence, but I consider:
All four Gospel accounts, the Acts, Paul’s epistles, the witness of the Apostles, the writings of the early Church fathers, the tradition of the Catholic Church, and their consistency with each other, among other things, to be good evidence supporting the divinity of Jesus.
We have had many threads in the past on the inconsistencies of the gospels, other sects have traditions that support and are consistent with their own interpretations-can you maybe tighten the answer up a bit and give two or three specific pieces of what you consider to be good evidence?
Google can’t find the term “Conversion Atheism”-Where did you come across it?
Odd, I can. But it means atheists that want to convert others to their beliefs. They proselytise .
Not happening here. I am just asking for evidence of claims that have been made-that’s how I find out things.
Before the New Testament existed as the collection of documents we now have, there were those who depended on word-of-mouth and various missives from various peoples to sustain their beliefs…but is there any evidence that what self-declared Christians believed before the establishment and acceptance of said New Testament was a shared belief?
I think that view misconstrues what the Gospels are, what they are intended to convey, and what we should expect of them.
Imagine a scenario in which four different people wanted to write their own biography on a subject, emphasizing certain attributes of the subject that may have been important or significant to them. Two of the biographers knew the subject personally, while two only knew people who knew the subject.
Each biographer set out to accomplish their task. In so doing, they interviewed different sets of people who may have known the subject personally or at least witnessed some significant event or events in the subject’s life.
That’s what the Gospels are. Some inconsistencies in minor details due to either differing perspectives or differing emphases, etc. should be expected. Considering that each writer had their own distinct message they were trying to convey, I would say it’s quite remarkable how consistent they are with each other.
In all four Gospels, Jesus claims divinity (though in different ways). In all four Gospels, he rose from the dead.