The Church is responsible for over population in the Phils.

[mannyamador]

---

I don't think I've ever seen an algebra teacher actually "condemning" kids to hell for not having the right answer to an equation...

Uh... that's the whole point. I hope you're just pretending not to see the logic...

[mannyamador]

Well, benign0? I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your charges. That would do quite a lot for your credibility.

But perhaps I'm engaging in wishful thinking. The fact that you somehow think that such accusations should be true simply because you insist they are (without any positive evidence) says a lot about the kind of logic being used here.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Really now. And how exactly did you come to this conclusion that "the Catholic Church was truly given the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to teach without error on matters of faith and morals"? Enlighten us heathens please so that we may be saved from our wretched ignorance on matters of faith.

Hehe, Faith and Reason po!

[bisaya70]

folks i used to be like him- i poked holes and find mistakes but the truth is, i did not know anything. it changed until i searched and seek to prove my disbeliefs. what i found is more faith and trust in God. im going to stop for now. i cant pound my opinion and what is right to benigno, only him can find/change that. ill be reading ur responses. naa bai apologetics group sa cebu?
PEACE

[benign0]

If Jesus Christ were alive today and met the Pope and his cardinals for the first time, what do you think would be his first question:

Here is my guess:

"Dudes, what's with the outfits and the big house?".

Now you're trying to change the subject because you are clearly unable to substantiate your flimsy accusations. We can see thru that you know.

Dude, in case you forgot, that was the original topic I started with.

That bad reasoning doesn't hold any water. If we follow your bad logic, then I can simply assert you are a bound for hell and it would be true since you CANNOT absolutiely disprove the statement until the Judgement Day. And of course one can simply assert the opposite and it would also be true since it cannot be "disporven" until Judgement day either. I think anyone with a brain can see how absurd that is since no one can correctly make such assertions. But your logic would hold them to be true anyways. That is a contradiction.

Well, look who's into ad hominems around here! Hope you don't mind if I dish out a few of my own:

Even more bad style is your copy-and-paste style of "substantiating" your assertions. At least the literature I point to is my own. Don't you have a mind of your own? Or are you wholly dependent on your textbooks?

Quoting stuff is fine for brief reference. But your logic and thinking should reside in your posts themselves and hold water on their own. To paste an entire page from a book here in this forum and expect people to slog through them and pick up what one thinks you are trying to express is really what is bad form around here (and it also wastes this website's bandwidth). You don't see lawyers handing over pages straight out of Law books to the Court, do you? You have to qualify and contextualise your citations with your own thoughts. All I see in your posts are ad hominems and copied-and-pasted text.

Yet another error: ad hominem argument. You can't find anything wrong with the reasoning so now you resort to denigrating the person. Tsk, tsk. You're really hitting rock bottom now.

The bottom line: you simply do not understand the doctrine you are cirticizing. That is irresponsible. If I were less kind, I'd call it stupid too, but you are obviously NOT stupid. So please do not expect us to fall for your errors in reasoning. We have tried to respect you, so please repect us.

Now before this exchange gets personal, I appeal that we should all try to be onjective. Let me take the first step and apologize if in any of my posts I have offended you, bening0, in any way.

Dude, if there's anyone here who denigrated you, it's you yourself. So I won't apologise for anything because I don't think I've done anything to offend anyone in any way. All I've done is presented ideas and I think it is only reasonable to expect counter-ideas in exchange.

And before you start throwing greek words around, look back and check out your own posts. See how much substance they have beyond the copied-and-pasted parts. Do you see how thin on substance and thick on fundamentalism they are?

And as to your quaint reaction to my claim that your mind is "imprisoned by institution and traditionalism", well here is what I have to say: Well, isn't it? Look back again, dude. The only arguments (if you can really call them that) that you fall back on are Church documentation. They are not even your arguments, my rote-learned chum, they are someone else's arguments. Try to synthesize a bit instead of Googling around for stuff to copy-and-paste here, dude.


I'll cut you some slack and humour one of your quaint little Googled pieces of text:

"We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death .... Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself -- including his claim to be God -- gave redibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do. "

This little gem of a quote pretty much seems to be saying that Christ's resurrection must have been true because his disciples were willing to die horrible deaths.

Now what the he11 kind of reasoning is that?

It's like saying that Osama Bin Laden must indeed be quite a great guy because a bunch of Arab men were willing to crash a plane into a couple of buildings. Or that Jim Jones was not a madman because he somehow managed to persuade all his followers to commit mass suicide in Guyana. Or that David Koresh was really not all that bad because his Branch Davidian followers were willing to stick with him to death in Waco.

And this is the kicker of them all (and I'm glad you pasted it in boldface):

"Christ's Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility."

Well, now that is an argument-ender if I ever saw one -- saying that everything said thus far is true because all has been encapsulated in a convenient package of infallibility.


And for the final punch line, might I again quote what you had to say in closing:

We therefore have evidence to reasonably conclude that the Church "was truly given the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to teach without error on matters of faith and morals." If you dispute this, then please try to show the flaw in the reasoning above instead of your usual ad hominems and attempts to sidetrack the issues.

You certainly showed me, champ.






-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[mannyamador]

Well, look who's into ad hominems around here! Hope you don't mind if I dish out a few of my own:

You seem to be unable to tell between ad hominems and legitimate criticism of your flawed reasoning.

Even more bad style is your copy-and-paste style of "substantiating" your assertions. At least the literature I point to is my own.

Unlike you, I have no need to stroke my ego by claiming originality. I am humble enough to recognize that others may have made a point better than I could have said it. Furthermore, being "original" does NOT improve the credibility or probabtive value of an argument. You should know that, but apparently you DON'T. And that arrogance, my friend, is truly bad style.

Your arrogance is your ultimate downfall. I have already shown that you...
1. Have made unsubstatiated claims;
2. That your refusal to substatinate your claims is based on flawed logic;
3. That you do not understand the particular Catholic Church doctrine that you are attacking;

But instead of admitting these small imperfections and moving on with substantial discussion, you choose to quarrel over them. Even worse, you are now thrashing around trying to find lame issues to attack me with (such as "bad style" and "originality" -- good grief!). Surely you can find something more intelligent! This is truly and sadly immature of you.

This little gem of a quote pretty much seems to be saying that Christ's resurrection must have been true because his disciples were willing to die horrible deaths.

Now what the he11 kind of reasoning is that?

Sigh... you really don't get it, do you? But I'm not surprised anymore.

Let me explain it in simple terms. The issue is whether the eyewitness accounts of the disciples are credible. Take note that from a histortical point of view, there is already sufficient documentary and anthropological evidence. The important question -- no doubt caused by the fantastic and miraculous nature of the Christian claim of the Resurrection -- is whether the disciples are deliberately engaging in a falsehood.

So the answer is obvious, as STATED in the article itself:

Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing,
but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not
one from which they derive no benefit.

This, in case you missed it, eliminates the possibility that the disciples were engaging in a hoax.

I find it hard to believe that you could not figure that out., But then this is already a matter of your personal pride, so I guess we can expect more of this bad reasoning from you.

[mannyamador]

I'll cut you some slack and humour one of your quaint little Googled pieces of text:

You really should check the facts before you make more baseless accusations. The quotations I used were NOT Googled. I have had the article for OVER TWO YEARS. I did my research properly. You would be well advised to try the same for once.

folks i used to be like him- i poked holes and find mistakes but the truth is, i did not know anything.

He (benign0) simply has to grow out of his youthful (or if he is old, then immature) arrogance. I think he should understand by now that he's not impressing anyone with his ignorance of doctrine, his bad logic, or his "originality".

http://www.phnix.net
http://www.prolife.org.ph

[benign0]

Well, look who's into ad hominems around here! Hope you don't mind if I dish out a few of my own:

You seem to be unable to tell between ad hominems and legitimate criticism of your flawed reasoning.

Even more bad style is your copy-and-paste style of "substantiating" your assertions. At least the literature I point to is my own.

Unlike you, I have no need to stroke my ego by claiming originality. I am humble enough to recognize that others may have made a point better than I could have said it. Furthermore, being "original" does NOT improve the credibility or probabtive value of an argument. You should know that, but apparently you DON'T. And that arrogance, my friend, is truly bad style.

Your arrogance is your ultimate downfall. I have already shown that you...
1. Have made unsubstatiated claims;
2. That your refusal to substatinate your claims is based on flawed logic;
3. That you do not understand the particular Catholic Church doctrine that you are attacking;

But instead of admitting these small imperfections and moving on with substantial discussion, you choose to quarrel over them. Even worse, you are now thrashing around trying to find lame issues to attack me with (such as "bad style" and "originality" -- good grief!). Surely you can find something more intelligent! This is truly and sadly immature of you.

A a a... I never said my ideas were original. Being original is different from synthesizing. In fact, much of the ideas I post here aren't original. The difference between you and me is that I use my own words to express them. Obviously you are a bit more challenged in that department than I am so maybe I'll let that bit go (I responded to some of your cut-and-paste posts, didn't I? ).

And moi? Arrogant? That's your perception, you being the typical Pinoy that you are. The esteemed Michael Tan once wrote about this prediposition of Pinoys to dismiss others as "mayabang". Check out that article here.

Excerpts (if I may borrow your style ):

"YABANG!" Filipinos often hurl that comment at Westerners. It can be a furious invective that translates, "You arrogant fool!"

We stereotype the Westerner as being "too aggressive" (and therefore arrogant). Conversely, we like to believe that we Asians are, by nature, modest....

...The clash of values isn't really over modesty. It's a clash between Asian feudal values that emphasize rigid hierarchies and Western capitalism's emphasis on egalitarianism and individual worth.

In the West, you are what you make of yourself. In Asia, you are never "you" as an individual; instead you are defined by your class, caste, age or *** with strict behavioral norms attached to your ascribed station in life. Modesty is imposed on those who are deemed inferior. As for those who consider themselves above the unwashed masses, we see a terrible immodesty, many times more mayabang than that of the Westerner...

.... Our language says it all. We do not have words for "modest" and "modesty" in Tagalog, except in the sense of how a woman is supposed to behave. We do have a word for "humble" - mapagpakumbaba, which emphasizes the way we are supposed to lower, even prostrate ourselves, in relation to the powerful. Alas, we are a nation humbled and hobbled.

This little gem of a quote pretty much seems to be saying that Christ's resurrection must have been true because his disciples were willing to die horrible deaths.

Now what the he11 kind of reasoning is that?

Sigh... you really don't get it, do you? But I'm not surprised anymore.

Let me explain it in simple terms. The issue is whether the eyewitness accounts of the disciples are credible. Take note that from a histortical point of view, there is already sufficient documentary and anthropological evidence. The important question -- no doubt caused by the fantastic and miraculous nature of the Christian claim of the Resurrection -- is whether the disciples are deliberately engaging in a falsehood.

So the answer is obvious, as STATED in the article itself:

Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing,
but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not
one from which they derive no benefit.

This, in case you missed it, eliminates the possibility that the disciples were engaging in a hoax.

I find it hard to believe that you could not figure that out., But then this is already a matter of your personal pride, so I guess we can expect more of this bad reasoning from you.

So you are saying their violent deaths made them credible? Then does that not make Osama Bin Laden credible too? Because a bunch of terrorists also died violent deaths?

Let me get this straight. I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus is a hoax. I'm merely taking apart the logic you use. That's all I do around here -- take apart people's arguments (it's not my problem if you get all defensive or sentimental about things). There's no pride or humility involved here -- only good or bad logic.

Your original assertion was that the Church was given authority by Jesus Christ himself to govern his Church. I don't see the connection between him and his disciples. Disciples have been known to pervert their own masters' teachings. What I see is a conflict of interest in this whole authorisation thing. There is a huge gap in factual history between the time Jesus died and the time that Catholicism became an organised religion. All you have as proof that Jesus endorsed the Catholic Church is the writings of the Disciples, the same bunch of merry men who were supposedly among the founders of the Catholic Church. It's kind of like writing a proclamation that you be crowned king and then signing it yourself.

I don't think an auditor would be too happy with a scenario like this.

Stidi ka lang diyan.



-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[mannyamador]

A a a... I never said my ideas were original. Being original is different from synthesizing. In fact, much of the ideas I post here aren't original. The difference between you and me is that I use my own words to express them.

That still doesn't make them any more credible, in case you haven't figured that out yet. I don't see why you need to stroke your ego so much. Others have said things better than I, and I can use their words and give them credit. If I can rise above my own pride I don't see why you just can't seem to rise above your arrogance. Tsk, tsk.

So you are saying their violent deaths made them credible? Then does that not make Osama Bin Laden credible too? Because a bunch of terrorists also died violent deaths?

Still don't get it? I still find it hard to believe that you are more intellectually challeged than I thought. Or is that obstinacy? Oh well...

Like I said, it shows that they were not deliberately engaging in a hoax. Your "Osama-mama" analogy is misplaced. You should try to understand the logic used here first.

As to whether the evidence is in itself strong, as []b]I pointed out earlier[/b], there already is sufficient documentary evidence from eyewitnesses (there are 4 Gospels, in case you've forgotten). There is more documentary evidence attesting to the Resurrection than many other accepted hisotrical events. The question is whether the eyewitnesses were engaging in a hoax.

I trust you have the intelligence to grasp the reasoning by now.

For someone who claims that he "takes apart people's arguments", YOUR arguments have turned out to be throughly flawed. Sort of like asking a thief to do the auditing.

We know better. Your posts reveal that have no credibility in this particular area. Perhaps in others, but not in this one.

[mannyamador]

Oh and let's not forget the important issue that you have still been too afraid to address:

WHEN WILL YOU SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS THAT THE CHURCH (AS A WHOLE) IS GOVERNED BY BOZOS? (Uh... and pease try to do it within this month).

It is incumbent upon those who make claims or accusations that impugn the character of persons and organizations to substantiate such claims. It is a simple matter of justice.

You erroneously claim that you do not have to do such a thing, and that your claims stand true until I can prove them false. But that is idiotic. If we follow your logic, then I can accuse you of being a thief, a liar, and a child molester, and these charges would hold true until you proved them false. But then you CANNOT prove them false because the charges are not specific enough: I have not brought forth evidence to refute.

So following your tiwsted logic, you ARE a thief, liar, and a child molester. But if we follow my logic (and the logic that we all should follow), I would HAVE to substantiate such charges and all you would have to do is demand I prove my charges. And if I cannot, then you are obviously vindicated.

But since you don't follow that logic (and insist on following your "unique" logic), then you stand condemned by your own bad reasoning, and are therefore a thief, liar, and a child molester since I can always just insist such charges are true. It is up to you to prove them false. And, of course, you can't.

Got the logic now?