Heaven, I'm in heaven

[mpjh]

pompous nonsense

[Napoleon Ier]

pompous nonsense

sore loser

[OnlyAmbrose]

CA, you present no new facts. Typical.

Did you ever consider that the reason you continue to find people failing to find new facts could POSSIBLY be that you tend to fail to answer the facts already stated, provide citations for your own facts, and then go about posting condescending one-liners as if your "arguments" are left uncontested?

[Napoleon Ier]

To be honest Ambrose, I very much doubt he'd have any clue what a fact would be if it were to walk up to him greased-up and naked with a tattoo on it's arse which read "I AM A FACT" and then introduce itself.

[mpjh]

CA, you present no new facts. Typical.

Did you ever consider that the reason you continue to find people failing to find new facts could POSSIBLY be that you tend to fail to answer the facts already stated, provide citations for your own facts, and then go about posting condescending one-liners as if your "arguments" are left uncontested?

Actually it is quite the other way around. I consistently present new facts. When those facts create discomfort the respondent either ignores them or attacks them with personal opinion. I will not be baited into such round-robin pointless discussion.

[Napoleon Ier]

CA, you present no new facts. Typical.

Did you ever consider that the reason you continue to find people failing to find new facts could POSSIBLY be that you tend to fail to answer the facts already stated, provide citations for your own facts, and then go about posting condescending one-liners as if your "arguments" are left uncontested?

Actually it is quite the other way around. I consistently present new facts. When those facts create discomfort the respondent either ignores them or attacks them with personal opinion. I will not be baited into such round-robin pointless discussion.

Oh, I see. So in other words you post unreferenced garbage that just came out of your gaping, malodorous rectum, and when someone points out the fact that what you just said is clearly bollocks, you ignore or flame them.

But hey, seeing as I presented a couple of facts you neatly refused to answer for some trumped-up reason that's embarrass the prosecutors of Stalin-era Soviet Russia, perhaps you'd like to respond to CCC846-8 and CCC847.ref336 outlining some traditional dogma that runs rather contrary to your definition of "traditional" dogma.

Or maybe you'd rather "not get baited into a round robin" of your arse getting repeatedly kicked by various members posting concrete evidence and rational argument.

[mpjh]

Reported flaming out of flame wars. Keep your flames in flame wars.

[Napoleon Ier]

I can actually taste the hypocrisy...

Not man enough to face me square and fair then, eh?

Nor do post intelligently and maturely for that matter... but fear not. I have dignity, I have morals, and I won't sink to your level. Oh, and by the way, we're still all waiting for your response to the facts and actual rational arguments (yes, those funny things you've heard of that mature people use in debates) outlined in the "Is Jesus necessary" thread and in the post just above.

[got tonkaed]

I can actually taste the hypocrisy...

Not man enough to face me square and fair then, eh?

Nor do post intelligently and maturely for that matter... but fear not. I have dignity, I have morals, and I won't sink to your level.

i dont mean to be that guy, cause i mean i feel like we are both quite cordial toward each other. But really, have you been posting references lately. I feel like ive missed those threads where you have. Cause i cant speak for anyone else, but whilst you and i agree on a few things here and there id always be willing to see the sources for the things we dont agree on. Im usually willing to take some new information to perhaps change my mind about a thing or two.

[Napoleon Ier]

I can actually taste the hypocrisy...

Not man enough to face me square and fair then, eh?

Nor do post intelligently and maturely for that matter... but fear not. I have dignity, I have morals, and I won't sink to your level.

i dont mean to be that guy, cause i mean i feel like we are both quite cordial toward each other. But really, have you been posting references lately. I feel like ive missed those threads where you have. Cause i cant speak for anyone else, but whilst you and i agree on a few things here and there id always be willing to see the sources for the things we dont agree on. Im usually willing to take some new information to perhaps change my mind about a thing or two.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is cheaply available at any major surface bookstore, or online, at the address that follows:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The Koiné Greek for the New Testament I cited in my earlier post will require purchase from a more specialist store, or online purchase from ebay (I don't believe Amazon have any good editions), and I am reasonably certain that it can be found at several internet addresses. I have an original 1894 Scrivener edition.

My translation of the Greek πιστευω can be verified in any good Classical dictionary such as the LSJ, a copy of which exists at this web address:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu

All of this is easily obtainable information, most of which is already linked in my rebuttal to mpjh in the "Jesus' Necessity" thread. Curiously, not a single person has responded to it.

[got tonkaed]

but what precisely are you look for. Are you trying to make some kind of great apologetic for Catholics the world over? What exactly is there to refute?

[Napoleon Ier]

The post below is a repetition of my earlier arguments. I hope you'll forgive the lack of "new" facts, but, well, as OnlyAmbrose so eloquently put it, he does rather tend "to fail to answer the facts already stated, provide citations for your own facts, and then go about posting condescending one-liners as if your "arguments" are left uncontested".

Gentlemen, recent criticisms from the anti-religious community have escalated into a full-blown campaign against me. Perhaps it is their intellectual insecurity that forces them to resort to pointless, boorish trolling to respond to my dismantlement of the same behavior of one of their own.

The attacks seem to take on many diverse forms, and in a standard post, each accusation having been formulated, the next one is moved onto before substantiation is provided, the better to distract the lay reader from the lack of proper evidence contained therein. I should note the outstanding exception of got tonkaed. Aside from this single relic of the once-mighty intellectual force of the Atheist lobby, we see nothing but pale shadows of the former. The principle categories of assault are presented herein and a rebuttal posted underneath the relevant citations.

"Nappy, you seem to be regressing. Will you eventually devolve into a cockroach. That would be justice."


The very first response I ever got from mpjh on the thread on the necessity of Jesus for Heaven. Most of the thread consisted of such trollish responses from mpjh, but I will below extrapolate the rare instances of purely coincidental overlapping between actual argument and vicious and directionless petty insult and hopefully disprove their validity.

a. However, maybe if some study of some Aquinas, the Catechism and Church history would lead to the swift realization that mpjh is making simply outrageous claims motivated by his own intense hatred of religion and of Moral Society, in even the most liberal, shall we say Gladstonian, terms. This is not a flame or a provocation, but rather a simple analysis of the core of his claims about "traditional dogma" he so contemptuously derides.

b. i. The following Analysis is a refutation I hope the reader will find comprehensive enough outlining the reasons for which a series of comments surmising mpjh's positions and theses on the subject are wrong.

b. ii. "People aren't buying this traditional dogma anymore" --- mpjh.
"Hmmm. Didn't quite match your [My] worldview I take it?"
"This is a poll ... not the work of dogmatists and so-called theologians is my point" ---mpjh.
In response to my comment that "... we [the RC Church] are all firm opponents of the rare sola fidei strand of the Genevan heresy anyway.", "More bunk from Nappy" --- mpjh.
"Travesty? How can a poll be a travesty?" ---mpjh.

The Roman Catholic Church, and every single major "Liturgical" Church has always recognized that belief in Jesus not necessary for Salvation, but rather that Jesus as understood in metaphysical terms as the Platonic-Hellenistic λογος is necessary.

Even Martin Luther's sola fidei position, (and it's quite a stretch to claim he's "traditional"), was quickly done away with by Nordic/Anglican State Churches: only the Calvinists and to an extent Jansensists continued to postulate sola fidei as a valid eschato-concupiscental hypothesis.

Here is the Roman Catholic position on the matter, as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC846-848).

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

However, deceptively, mpjh masks the fact that a "positive formulation" of the statement that "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" does not exclude the possibility of non-Christians ignorant of the Truth of the Gospel through no fault of their own reaching Salvation.


c. It is a further claim of mpjh that "people are tolerant not only of other faiths, but of the legitimacy of those faiths in offering ways to eternal life for those who believe in eternal life.".

But in what way is agreeing that others can reach eternal life granting that other Faiths are legitimate in their dogma on the subject? I posed the very question to him:

Another "its either black or white" analyst comes forward. The poll shows that people don't think that way. They appear to be much more complex, tolerant, and flexible in their views on this issue. That is the truth here.

The problem is, the poll doesn't show that. Nor do I think most people who have sensibly pondered the question genuinely believe that two mutually exclusive sets of propositions about the afterlife are both true/"unfalse". They do not believe that two religions have two equally valid "perspectives", they probably do take it for granted that some religions have it wrong, but that this doesn't exclude them from heaven. This is what the poll indicated, not that I believe it was at all serious, but that's a separate issue. However I digress: for people to believe that other religions were "legitimate" in their dogma on the afterlife, it would entail an utter ejection of the concept if truth in a Nihilist sense. Not even Nietzschean existentialists or postmodernists would go that far.

The response to this was that "No doubt about it, the general populace doesn't see it your way. Glad to see that you have the black and white for yourself, but most of the rest of the world see things in bright varying shades of color.".

I hope that the reductio of the consequences this statement entails has adequately convinced the reader to take them to be ad absurdum.

d. i. Yet another claim by mpjh was that the NT passage John 3:16 in conjunction with the contrasting poll demonstrated that, "most people do not believe in either a rigid liturgy-based or bible-based approach to religion."

We shall ignore the assertion that Liturgy-based aspect of religion is rejected, since the Liturgy is in fact simply the order of rituals performed during non-private/devotional religious ceremonies that has very little do to with belief in who can and can't be saved. It is possible he intended his comment to refer to Churches with set-liturgies. As I have already demonstrated however, using adequate citation from religious authority, pre-Reformation councils attest to the falsity of sola-fidei, (Councils therefore accepted then, by broadly "Liturgy-based" or State Anglican/Lutheran Churches), this claim would not be of any relevance.

ii. However, the original Koiné for John 3:16 is that "ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον" (taken from the Scrivener NT).

iii. Clearly then, the translation of πιστευω in mpjh's English version is deficient. Sadly, it is the standard in most modern Protestant Bibles, the most readily available due to the far more frequent proselytizing activities of these nauseating groupuscular heretics. The word, as anyone who has studied Koiné at any level from a reasonable Attic, Ionic or even Homeric base will attest, is better translated here (taking the dative) as put trust in. The Attic is frequently used to refer to soldiers following generals in battle, or characters following a god's commands.

It does not mean that literal "belief" is a requisite, or indeed sufficient, condition for entry into Heaven.

Clearly then, there is strictly nothing to any of the rather rare instances of attempts at formulation of relevant hypotheses of my detractors.

My advance apologies to goasklucy, who will perhaps find herself much consternated by the frequent occurrence of polysyllabic latinates in my dialectic.

The topic is one that demands a certain intellectual baggage. It's a big topic, with big ideas, and yes, we do need big words and big logic. Maybe you may find referring yourself to a theological primer of use if you find yourself submerged. That is, if constraints are not too high from your (obviously rather grueling) course in ah, what was it now? Ahh yes... "Social Studies".

What's the matter lucy? Words too big, or you just don't have an answer?

[got tonkaed]

While i admittedly agree with all of your theological points (as i certainly believe they are correct within The Roman Catholic Church) I think one of the bigger problems between you and mpjh throughout the whole thread is you are identifying somewhat different things, which end up getting mashed together.

For starters, i believe when many of the other participants in thread were discussing Christian thought it was from the perspective of sola fidei churches. Although you cite that this is relatively rare, unless i am mistaken i believe at least in terms of the contemporary US church hodgpodge it is increasingly prevalent. While you are correct in saying that it is only from certain strains that the idea has held on i do believe the increasingly publically noted denominations in the US are of this scope. I think thats where the first issue has come in.

The second which seemed to strike a bit more of a nerve between you to is the exclusivity issue. Now unless i am in err about Catholic teaching, i believe other than the positively stated approach you mention, if you are outside the church you dont have access to eternal life. If im wrong about that, my apologies, but from what i know and from how you have worded your response that seems to be the case. Ive often thought this had to be the approach of any faith that didnt outwardly say there are many lanes to truth/eternal life (which would primarly come from center leaning left churches - in as far as political affilations matter). Ive been told this is not the case many times, but as you suggest it is often very difficult to believe that people with much in the way of doctrinal literacy would hold such positions.

However i do believe that is part of what the poll actually found. Be in the best poll in the world or not, i dont believe we were getting an outlier result here. The idea that people do not believe salvation is attained only by faith or can only be done through one church is the type of seemingly drastic change mpjh was talking about. Now as you mention it is by no means new to a large set of religious thought, but especially in a climate of politicizing religion, where one approach that was very close if not sola fidei was increasing influence, the previous statement has a bit more weight.

I believe part of the issue is that you two were arguing from different pages of the book. We can certainly always act better toward each other though, that goes for all of us. But at least in my view thats where all the difference started from, his US churches perspective vs your general perspective on religion and key elements of religious faith in the Catholic Church. I certainly believe you are right, but i also think that in the US most people tend to think religious practioners behave in ways that mpjh described.

[Napoleon Ier]

It's nice tonka, but I think you're a little naive. So was I, in the same way, not so long ago... you, tonka, are like me, the rationalist straight guy trying to get to Truth. That's the whole problem though... not many others want, or are ready for, Truth. I repeatedly and clearly identified my position as sola fidei, and mpjh refused to take this into account, deliberately ignoring this fact and misleading readers with the basest of calumnies.

Whenever challenged with cold, hard, fact, and irrefutable destructions of his sophistries and mendacious accusations, he responded by flipping like a mackerel our of water, or with one-liner insults that served only to further whip up to frenzy jis jumped-up pirhana atheist sidekicks.

I showed him why his research failed to take into count theological circumstances that invalidated his conclusions from his polling data, I showed him why his analysis of "traditional dogma" was incorrect, why his interpretation of Biblical passages was plain wrong, and yet my countless attempts at reasoning with him were met with nothing but uninteresting insults and so much hypocrisy it almost made my retinas bleed.

How do you face people like him entirely unprepared to accept the parametres of civilized discussion? You treat them by hitting them with the only thing they understand, brute force, and batter them until they run away crying to mama moderator and shut up definitively, or until they have learnt to discuss rationally, anyway.

[mpjh]

Nappy, nappy, I didn't do any research. I simple reported on the research of the poll taken by professionals.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nappy, nappy, I didn't do any research. I simple reported on the research of the poll taken by professionals.

It's quite evident you've done no research on the matter, because what you reported on an already faulty poll was utter bollocks, something I pointed out to you, in response to which you threw a hissy fit which dug you even further into the whole you were in, a hole you're no desperately digging in the vain hope you'll eventually go so deep you'll be forgotten about.

Unfortunately, I don't let go of vile specimens of humanity like you so easy, so you're eventually going to have to face up to the fact that you're demonstrably wrong in an order of magnitude so great that it would require the development of an entirely new semantic system to fully describe.

[mpjh]

I have reported you for flaming again. Go to flame wars with your juvenile attitude.

[Napoleon Ier]

I have reported you for flaming again. Go to flame wars with your juvenile attitude.

The thing is, everyone is perfectly aware that I'm not flaming: you're refusing to answer anything that anyone has come up with in this thread to refute you're claims with anything but indeed, flames, or idiotic one-liner comments.

I believe there's a technical term for that kind of behaviour: trolling.

So, are we going to get answer from you to any of the substantive, referenced, and rational arguments made by CA and I, or are we just going to get more of you bashing your own head against wall fingers in ears chanting loudly to try to stay in ignorant bliss of your sheer lack of ability to debate intelligently?

[lgoasklucyl]

I have reported you for flaming again. Go to flame wars with your juvenile attitude.

He's been reported by numerous people so I have been informed. I'm sure since he's not a paying member who rarely even utilizes the services besides trolling and generally trying to cause problem in the forums they won't have any problems banning him.

[brooksieb]

I have reported you for flaming again. Go to flame wars with your juvenile attitude.

Reported for giving constructive, valid oppinions? Wow, we don't live in North Korea you know.

[brooksieb]

I have reported you for flaming again. Go to flame wars with your juvenile attitude.

He's been reported by numerous people so I have been informed. I'm sure since he's not a paying member who rarely even utilizes the services besides trolling and generally trying to cause problem in the forums they won't have any problems banning him.

Problem in the forums? He livens up many conversations, if you don't like people that have different views this is not the forum for you.

[lgoasklucyl]

I have reported you for flaming again. Go to flame wars with your juvenile attitude.

He's been reported by numerous people so I have been informed. I'm sure since he's not a paying member who rarely even utilizes the services besides trolling and generally trying to cause problem in the forums they won't have any problems banning him.

Problem in the forums? He livens up many conversations, if you don't like people that have different views this is not the forum for you.

I'll give him two or three posts of content in each thread- then he derails and succumbs to using cheap shots and insults that are irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. I have plenty of useful interaction with other members (including but not limited to multiple JF members and crazya, all of who are pretty much the polar opposites of myself opinion wise). Nappy needs to learn how to conduct himself and people will take him seriously.

[Napoleon Ier]

Of course, he'd know, since he doesn't actually read any of my posts that look like they have external references/more than 100 words, nor do anything but say I'm flaming him when I try to tell him he can't get away with not responding to anyone's arguments by accusing people of trolling.

[mpjh]

I have reported you for flaming again. Go to flame wars with your juvenile attitude.

He's been reported by numerous people so I have been informed. I'm sure since he's not a paying member who rarely even utilizes the services besides trolling and generally trying to cause problem in the forums they won't have any problems banning him.

Problem in the forums? He livens up many conversations, if you don't like people that have different views this is not the forum for you.

I'll give him two or three posts of content in each thread- then he derails and succumbs to using cheap shots and insults that are irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. I have plenty of useful interaction with other members (including but not limited to multiple JF members and crazya, all of who are pretty much the polar opposites of myself opinion wise). Nappy needs to learn how to conduct himself and people will take him seriously.

Interesting. He really derails any civil discussion.

[THORNHEART]

THE ONLY WAY to heaven is through the blood of jesus christ and his death on the cross.