Roch,

I didn’t mean you. I meant those who answer atheists with scriptures as if atheists would find that authoritative. I concede that at least one has moved on to arguing based on the historicity of the scripture which makes more sense than just quoting scripture.

While we are at it though, this does seem a surprising forum for a discussion of the merits or otherwise of Teilhard. A secular contributor likens it to speaking in tongues and I can empathise. The failure to understand is not something as esoteric as seers but simply that the general ideas and personalities are foreign to people outside of orthodox Catholicism. I am not trying to censor you in any way but in an orthodox Catholic forum you are more likely to get a fully responsive discussion.

Fractelle,

I am surprised that you consider it appropriate to wield terms like “patronizing” and “condescending” as someone who dismisses the beliefs of many of the world’s population as being analogous to believing in the “tooth fairy”, “easter bunny” or “Santa Claus” (etc).

“The meaning of life is simple: Live and let live”

Is that for you or those who disagree with you only? If you genuinely believe that then why do you single out Christian contribution in the democratic process and consider it offensive particularly given Christians are a majority. You seem to be at the opposite extreme to your alleged value with groups that don’t suit you. Perhaps you mean we should “live and let live but some more entitled to be left to live than others”?

Foxy,

“It's a far more meaningful ethic to me, than that taken by some people who feel that - "I'm right" and "Your wrong."”

Do you mean people who label others beliefs as being like a belief in the tooth fairy or dispute their groups right to contribute to the democratic process or do you mean people who argue it is more meaningful to them for God to know best? If you mean the latter as I presume then what is the difference in substance?

Isn't freedom a wonderful thing Vanilla :) cheers.

I had a look at the vid....I guess if that's your image of 'Church' and the Faith..then it explains a lot.

Hope one day you take the time to get to know the real Lord Himself, leave out the middle man.

TURING TEST.... interesting idea CJ... I'm sure I encountered an 'artificial intelligence' robot on IRC one time. It was trying to be a presence to promote a web site as though it was a chatter.

You and Bugsy should have a good 'bias bath' and shed all that bias which binds you so strongly in the nightmare on OLO street.
Domestos is pretty good for that kinda thing.

Re-dis-covering the Total Christ

On page 7 – “mjpb” said – ”It seems strange to wield scripture to convince people who don't accept it as a source of authority that you are correct. Indeed the Bible itself contains counsel relating to that topic.”

On page 8 – I said, “I am not trying to convince anyone about anything! I started this thread on “The Total Christ” [22 February] in response to Peter Sellick and “Waterboy” who claimed that Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) “does not represent mainstream theology.” I asked “Where is mainstream theology?” and “Who are mainstream theologians?”

On page 12 – “mjpb” said – “Roch - I didn’t mean you. I meant those who answer atheists with scriptures as if atheists would find that authoritative. I concede that at least one has moved on to arguing based on the historicity of the scripture which makes more sense than just quoting scripture. While we are at it though - this does seem a surprising forum for a discussion of the merits or otherwise of Teilhard. A secular contributor likens it to speaking in tongues and I can empathise. The failure to understand is not something as esoteric as seers but simply that the general ideas and personalities are foreign to people outside of orthodox Catholicism. I am not trying to censor you in any way but in an orthodox Catholic forum you are more likely to get a fully responsive discussion.”

“mjpb” – with respect - Whether a person is theist, agnostic, atheist, anti-theist or nihilist, surely he or she has the right in a free society to express - respectfully - his or her opinion about anything in an “On-Line Opinion” forum.

However they may be categorised, members of human groups are still INDIVIDUALS – “often terribly alone”! Reviving the concept of the “Total Christ” – eclipsed after Maximus the Confessor (580-662) – Teilhard was “silenced” within the Catholic Church.

“Immobilists” in Catholic forums still try to SILENCE “prophets” of the “Total Christ”

Domestos? Is that what they use at your old peoples home? I recommend calling Today Tonight. They like your sort.

It rained here today and I had to use the domestos in my car :)

Sorry, but at least it was original.

Boazy: "the nightmare on OLO street"

It has to be Freddy Boaz, no?

OK Boaz, you've had a couple of days, now it is time for the wrap-up.

>>I've actually yet to see anyone challenge my evidence with even the slightest effect<<

Yep, you certainly got that one right. It clearly doesn't matter how logical the challenge, or how solidly it is based, you can still manage to ignore it completely.

Well done indeed. Another challenge that hasn't had even the slightest effect.

The amazing thing of course is that you are proud of it.

A quick summary is educational.

>>considering the 'balance of probability' .. it takes more 'blind faith' to disbelieve Luke than to believe him... Luke.. who in all respects has demonstrated an attention to detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally<<

And the external evidence you offer?

>>External Testimony: Flavius Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod<<

Indeed he did. Unfortunately, it disagrees "in detail and accuracy" with other accounts of the same events.

To which anomaly you respond, rather grandly, as follows:

>>Josephus is writing long after the events, from a secular/Roman perspective. I find the two accounts are absolutely 2 versions of the same event... that they are NOT exactly the same is testimony to the authenticity of them.<<

In effect, as I said before, your claim that "detail and accuracy... can in many cases be verified externally" must fail, precisely because the details do, in fact, differ.

It doesn't help that the single, contradictory paragraph that you rely upon was written not only "long after events", but also by a renegade turncoat, who had a vested interest in staying out of trouble.

No wonder you have now fallen silent on the topic. Since it is clear that no logical proposition is able to have "the slightest effect", all that can be left is bluster.