Nonsense.
Your post assumes that facts and logic are necessarily sensory. I'm sure we can all agree that it is not.
Even if you assume facts and logic to be empirical, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is scientifically measurable. After all, human emotions are empirical and yet not necessarily quantifiable, no?
So you see, your ideas are full of errors of fact and errors of logic. Nothing rational can come out of statements based on error, fyi.
Oh, and you need to go OUT, not in. Christianity does not manifest in church but in the way christians live their lives.
Clearly, you have gone way beyond the context you have set even for yourself. You are loosing a debate even under your own rules. That's funny.
The philosophical framework here is 'I and thou' -- that is, the relationship between two existence, god and man. The problem with your argument is that your inquiry proceeds from only a single existence -- either god alone or man alone -- never god and man.
Now, you criticize soteriology as masochistic. Isn't that the point -- to bridge the gap between the divine and the mortal?
Whatever your sensibilities about self-mutilation and capital punishment, they ARE INDICTMENTS OF HUMAN ERROR -- NOT GOD'S. The more violent the human error, the bigger the gap god needs to bridge.
Is that simple enough for you?
Of course you can think that as well.
Either you believe divine revelation or you believe rational faculties -- they accrue to the SAME fundamental truth.
I hate to burst your bubble but your thoughts aren't very original at all. Catholics call this 'semina verbi' -- seeds of the word.
Nonsense.
Catholicism contributes huge amounts to charity. And though we might agree that it isn't enough, it isn't the only purpose of the church.
What are you, the grammar police??? Its not like you write impeccable english yourself, now, is it? Duh?
Is it really difficult for you to comprehend what sunday school students can master instantly????
We are talking of RADICAL EVIL. In the time of jesus, that would be the CRUCIFIXION. Clearly, mastery over death caused by natural causes and disease isn't radical evil. Prophets do it all the time.
Not at all. You were the one assigning blame from the start, were you not? I am merely pointing out that you are misguided in assigning blame.
Nonsense. I am not angry. As for arrogance, it originally comes from the latin word meaning 'to claim for one's self'. Clearly, truth is something that can be claimed for one's self.
Duh?
The resurrection was the empirical evidence (well, at least for those who witnessed it) for god's victory over radical evil. And as I have said before, death through natural causes isn't nearly radical evil enough.
What religion before christianity had a god that is absolute love, hmmm?
Any chance of facts and logic soon?
Nonsense. He doesn't need blood payments to understand -- he needs to subject himself to blood payments to be UNDERSTOOD.
Over and over and over like a broken record.
You don't find it clear enough?
Your argument vacillates from one premise to another contradictory premise -- free will. If man has free will, then you cannot ascribe man's error to god.
Is that finally clear? I should hope so.
Hmmm.
Or, you could just put some sensible thoughts in your post. It wouldn't hurt, you know, unless you do not have the aptitude for it.
Of course. Have you?
