Sunday School: Day 2

Author: CatholicApologetics
Jesus
Christianity
Religion
Catholicism
Sunday School

Posts

Total: 64
Topic's author
#31
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Tradesecret
I apologize for not responding to your previous question! I had read your comment but decided to wait for a better time to answer. Regrettably, it slipped my mind, but I’ll search and answer it immediately after sending this message.

do you think it is significant that whereas before the fall, man was naked and not ashamed, that after the fall, knowing he was naked, it doesn't actually say he was ashamed.   I know many people suggest it is the case, after all he hid in the garden, and he said, he was afraid because he was naked. 
Before the Fall, the nakedness of Adam and Eve signified total innocence and a harmony with God, themselves, and creation. After they sinned, although Genesis does not explicitly say they felt “shame,” Adam’s hiding from God and his fear because of being naked reveal a profound loss of that original innocence. Genesis 3:7, "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons." Key words: sewed fig leaves. The couple, awakened to the disorder of sin, attempt to cover their shame and guilt (thought the effort proves unsatisfactory, for God reclothes them with animal skins in 3:21—perhaps a faint intimation that sin must be dealt with by blood sacrifice).

if is he ashamed of his sin, why did he immediately blame Eve and God - rather than confessing his sin and asking for forgiveness?
Genesis 3:9 says, "But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'" God's question ("Where are you?") was not a literal inquiry of Adam's whereabouts, but an invitation for Adam to confess his wrongdoing and seek forgiveness. God questions the sinner in order to draw forth contrition and give him an opportunity for confession (which He also does in Genesis 4:9), but Adam’s first impulse was to evade responsibility by blaming Eve and, indirectly, God (“The woman whom You gave me”). This is because the Fall introduced not only guilt but also a wounded human nature inclined to fear and pride, instead of humble repentance. This behavior reveals how sin disrupts our relationship with God and with one another, weakening our will to do good and prompting self-preservation tactics rather than contrition and honest confession.
#32
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
What do you consider a "genuine question"?
If your posts "are no meant for debate" , what is the reason form them?
Give me an example of an "argumentative comment"? 
I "genuine question" is a question that seems genuine. It's very plain and simple. If I think it's a genuine question, I will entertain it. These posts are meant to clarify Church teaching, not argue their validity.

Then it is exactly as I said it is , that only YOU will decide what is a genuine question and which is not.  You are a joke. and a coward.


These posts are meant to clarify Church teaching, not argue their validity.

Your  posts are nothing more than sermons. Sermons that you  want to be left to go unchallenged. 

And you ignored the remaining two of my "genuine questions".  
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
what would be a  "genuine question" concerning his Answer
I have no idea, but if he doesnt want to debate, then he doesnt want to debate. 

I know. He simply wants to use this religion forum as a pulpit and go unchallenged.

Topic's author
#34
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
You're not forced to participate in these posts. I've offered to debate (which still stands if you're interested) but you've declined it.

#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
You're not forced to participate in these posts.

 Oh I know that. But you have also said that you will not respond to argumentative comments and questions that you deem not to be "genuine questions".


I've offered to debate (which still stands if you're interested) but you've declined it.

 Stop your shite,  have a good look at what your own OP  DICTATES that show exactly what you are all about hence your "WARNING". #1



I like to preface these posts with a quick warning: I am not perfect. Like all of us, I am flawed and in need of God’s grace. I am bound to make mistakes, so I ask for your patience as I learn throughout this journey. Yet, I would like to remind everybody that the imperfections I have do not take away from the truth I hope to convey. For example, if I misrepresent a Church teaching, it is a direct consequence of my actions, not the teaching itself being false. I encourage you to correct me charitably if I err and to pose genuine questions in the comments, but keep in mind these posts are not meant to debate and I may not respond to argumentative comments.#1

This was you simply covering your own arse as  some those reading here can clearly see.  What they cannot see, is that this cowardly practice was one that the bible dunce the Reverend Tradesecret  often tried to implement on many of his threads once he'd been backed into one of the many theological corners that he was stupid enough to paint himself in. 

The irony here is that you  have decided that a question of ""Do animals have free will?" is a "genuine question"  that is suitable for "debate". #1 FFS! And you actually responded with an answer using 537 words!  You then summarised with another 247 words including closing remark. 

This is where your answer should have started and stopped:

CatholicApologetics wrote: ANSWER.

Animals do not have free will the way humans do.#1


It was fkn sermon you absolute clown. A sermon that you do not wish to be challenged on. 



I've offered to debate (which still stands

Here you go then.
How do you know that animals do not have free will?  Considering they appear to do just as what they like and please?
Why didn't god allot them free will?



#36
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
From a Catholic perspective, the “death” God warned of was both spiritual and eventual physical death. Though Adam and Eve remained physically alive that day, they immediately lost the original holiness and communion with God (spiritual death). This separation inevitably led to their mortal condition (physical death). God did not lie; rather, His warning encompassed the deeper reality that sin ruptures our relationship with Him and brings lasting consequences, culminating in the loss of access to the Tree of Life, which symbolized eternal union with God.

Adam and Eve did not die spiritually. They continued to worship God even after being expelled from the Garden.

What did Adam and Eve teach their children?
Implicit in the Genesis stories is the fact that Adam and Eve not only gave birth to these sons, but they also loved them, raised them, and instructed them in the primeval faith. Adam and Eve taught their children to pray and to live the good life of faith, even if Cain chose to shirk it (see Wis 10:1–3; 1 Jn 3:2).

Their children continued to worship God. In the biblical Book of Genesis, Cain and Abel are the first two sons of Adam and Eve. Cain, the firstborn, was a farmer, and his brother Abel was a shepherd. The brothers made sacrifices, each from his own fields, to God.

Topic's author
#37
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
You can interpret these posts as sermons if you wish. Many people hold incorrect misconceptions about Catholic teachings. The purpose of these posts is to clarify any misunderstandings and share the Catholic Church’s beliefs on specific topics. Even if you disagree with this approach, you should nonetheless show respect to others. Open dialogue thrives in an environment of civility and understanding, and such an approach benefits all involved.

Topic's author
#38
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Shila
From a Catholic perspective, “spiritual death” refers to the loss of sanctifying grace and the original state of holiness—an interior rupture in one’s relationship with God—rather than a complete cessation of religious devotion or inability to worship. Adam and Eve, while they continued to believe in and teach their children about God, no longer enjoyed the fullness of communion with Him as they did in Eden. Their eventual physical death, along with the trials their descendants faced, flowed from this initial spiritual rupture. Thus, “dying on that day” should be understood in its deeper theological sense, where the immediate effect was the forfeiture of intimate friendship with God and the beginning of mortal existence apart from Eden’s privileges.
#39
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
From a Catholic perspective, “spiritual death” refers to the loss of sanctifying grace and the original state of holiness—an interior rupture in one’s relationship with God—rather than a complete cessation of religious devotion or inability to worship. Adam and Eve, while they continued to believe in and teach their children about God, no longer enjoyed the fullness of communion with Him as they did in Eden. Their eventual physical death, along with the trials their descendants faced, flowed from this initial spiritual rupture. Thus, “dying on that day” should be understood in its deeper theological sense, where the immediate effect was the forfeiture of intimate friendship with God and the beginning of mortal existence apart from Eden’s privileges.
God paid an even higher price for ending his relationship with Adam and Eve. He had to offer his son as sacrifice to bring the descendants of Adam and Eve back to heaven.
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics

You missed my questions. Were they not "genuine" enough in your opinion? Or have you deemed them to be "argumentative?  



I've offered to debate which still stands

Here you go then.
How do you know that animals do not have free will?  Considering they appear to do just as  they like and please?
Why didn't god allot them free will?



Topic's author
#41
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
I'm waiting to receive the debate invite. Let's make it three rounds and rated.
Topic's author
#42
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Shila
God wasn't the one to end the relationship.
#43
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
God wasn't the one to end the relationship.

God ended the days in paradise. And brought death into the world.
What did God do to Adam and Eve after sinning?
Subsequently, God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, condemned Adam to work in order to get what he needed to live and condemned Eve to give birth in pain, and placed cherubim to guard the entrance, so that Adam and Eve would never eat from the "tree of life".

Topic's author
#44
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Shila
Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden was a direct consequence of their own disobedience, which fractured the perfect communion they initially had with God. While God did banish them from the Garden and impose certain penalties (labor, pain in childbirth, etc.), it was ultimately humanity’s choice to sin that led to this rupture. God’s actions—barring access to the Tree of Life—reflect His justice and mercy: by preventing fallen humanity from living forever in a state of sin, He also set the stage for redemption (Genesis 3:15), pointing to the promise of salvation that would be fulfilled in Christ.

Consider Genesis 3:15, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This is a crucial verse in Genesis, which some think is an etiology that explains the origin of man's instinctive fear of snakes. More likely, the proverbial antagonism between men and snakes was evoked for the purpose of symbolizing man's ongoing struggle against sin and evil, which is personified by the serpent (cf. 4:7; Sir 21:2). In any case, neither interpretation captures the full meaning of the text, which foretells the eventual triumph of the women and her offspring over Satan after a protracted period of hostility. In a spiritual and prophetic sense, the "woman" is Mary, the Mother of God, whose "seed" (Jesus, the Redeemer) will ultimately destroy sin and death by His passion, death, and resurrection. 
#45
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,969
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
To what extent do you think the Book of Genesis 2 speaks to the question of free will?


#46
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden was a direct consequence of their own disobedience, which fractured the perfect communion they initially had with God. While God did banish them from the Garden and impose certain penalties (labor, pain in childbirth, etc.), it was ultimately humanity’s choice to sin that led to this rupture. God’s actions—barring access to the Tree of Life—reflect His justice and mercy: by preventing fallen humanity from living forever in a state of sin, He also set the stage for redemption (Genesis 3:15), pointing to the promise of salvation that would be fulfilled in Christ.
Here is a good example of God applying double standards. He punished Adam and Eve for desiring and gaining wisdom. Then send Jesus and prophets to teach humans gods morality.

Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

God even got jealous they became like Gods.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

After expelling them from the garden God sent prophets to rein them back to heaven.
For what purpose did God send the prophets?
So God sends his prophets to warn his people, so they'll turn from sin and its destruction. When Israel refuses to listen, they experience the awful consequences of their own ways, just like the prophets warned. But when Israel listens, they receive God's promised mercy.


#47
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,969
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Shila

Here is a good example of God applying double standards. He punished Adam and Eve for desiring and gaining wisdom. Then send Jesus and prophets to teach humans gods morality.

Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Nonsense, you are imposing a puerile literalism that may sharpen doctrinal debate, might serve a contrarian agenda, might feel "cool" in an internet debate forum, but it has nothing to do with understanding, your misguided attempt at Biblical literalism is just ridiculous.

Genesis is a foundational narrative to half of the world’s people; this would be completely unaccountable if it were merely a literal description of very unusual events that occurred in the distant past.  A literal translation of Genesis makes it remote and irrelevant and quite frankly, doesn’t make sense. A literal translation could never account for its historical status as the western world’s foundational orienting myth for over three thousand years of mankind’s development, and to treat it as merely an historical narrative account alters its original intent and completely obfuscates the profound truths which the symbolic narrative imparts.

God even got jealous they became like Gods.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

After expelling them from the garden God sent prophets to rein them back to heaven.
For what purpose did God send the prophets?
So God sends his prophets to warn his people, so they'll turn from sin and its destruction. When Israel refuses to listen, they experience the awful consequences of their own ways, just like the prophets warned. But when Israel listens, they receive God's promised mercy.
I think you are intentionally trying to misunderstand, and in the process making yourself look foolish.  You don’t appear to even know what Gensis is about.

It certainly isn’t about two individuals named Adam and Eve, it is about mankind, the Hebrew word “Adam” translates to the word “Mankind”, and this is explicitly confirmed in the first two verses of Genesis 5.  The word "Genesis" means "in the beginning", it relates the true nature of mankind and poignantly addresses the subject of “knowledge”, particularly speaking to the development of the “reflective knowledge” that distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it talks to the consequences of our having taken that humanizing step.

The Genesis narrative is about the genesis of consciousness, the birth of something new, it is a new beginning that represents a new life, with new potential and new opportunities to move beyond all previous limitations and constraints, and along with that new life come the deepest truths of human essence.  It is therefore a necessary preface to the Bible that introduces the birth of “free will” and sets an explanatory stage for exploring its attendant consequences and associated moral responsibility.

In so doing it establishes the basis for all that follows. Genesis teaches us to recognize the relationships inherent in wholeness, growth from incompleteness to wholeness is the real subject of Genesis. Genesis is an orienting myth that provides us with subjective meaning, it tells us why things are like they are and it positions us within the universe and speaks to our relevance in the grand scheme of things, relating our emotional reaction, establishing its significance, providing its meaning, and demanding a response. It conveys a deep understanding of the birth of consciousness and the subsequent transition from a life based on instinct to one involving self-awareness, explaining and relating the resultant requirements for conscious and moral decision-making, as well as responsible stewardship for Life and Earth, over which we have been "given dominion" because of the unique way we think.


#48
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,969
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
God even got jealous they became like Gods.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Nonsense, Genesis has nothing to do with jealousy, it uses the metaphor of becoming like Gods, knowing good and evil, to explain our fallen nature.

We say we come into this world, but no, we come out of it, we say we face reality, but no, we are part of reality, we are in reality, to step outside of reality and look upon it from a distance, from outside of it, as though we are Gods, that is the problem of the nature of Man that Genesis speaks to with the Tree of Knowledge, and that is why it says we are “fallen”. How can an integral part of reality “face” reality?  The only way is to conceive of reality, and in so doing conceive of ourselves also, in a completely inappropriate way, in a way that distances us from it, a way that takes us out of reality so that we can be separated from it in order to “face” it.  It is the way that the Eastern faiths say is an illusion, and the way the Western faiths say is the way a God would look upon reality, it is to think that we are Gods and to think that we can be the “judge” of what is good and evil as though we weren’t part of it. 

Science, philosophy, and Genesis concur that the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable without a distinction between subject and object, knowledge requires a distinction between the knowing subject and the reality known and our access to self-reflective consciousness achieved that, but when we ate from the fruit of that tree, we necessarily separated ourselves from perfection, we were no longer perfectly attuned to, and One with nature, we were "cast out of the garden of perfection", so to speak.

What Genesis tells us is that the first humans were the first animals to image reality in a detached and symbolic manner, and everything that is distinctively human, language, culture, science, technology, it all followed from that "break" with the true reality we were once part of. We are separated from reality by this bifurcation of things into “us” and “not us”, by this “illusion” that reality is not an unbroken whole, the  illusion that the whole is not greater than the parts, and the illusion that we can somehow stand outside of and apart from reality and face it.  Genesis tells us that we stand apart from it and look upon the universe "as if we were Gods", seeing a “reflection”, an inverted and artificial image of ourselves as beings that are separate from reality. Interestingly, evolutionary theory tells us that this “change of state” caused an unprecedented explosion in brain growth which resulted in something believed even today to unique to humans, because the brain explosively grew faster than the evolution allowed the female’s body to accommodate that growth in brain size, we alone have painful childbirth, that as a consequence “we conceive in sorrow”, so to speak.

The tree of life then represents the need to transcend the first tree. Genesis tells us that we do not “face” reality, that “we” and “it” are one and the same. To eat from “the fruit of the tree of life” then, is to overcome that separation, to once again transcend the illusion brought about by our having partaken of “fruit of the tree of knowledge”. To transcend our fallen state of reflective knowledge is to live in the moment, to transcend the artificial categories we have artificially imposed on the unbroken wholeness. It is to overcome that flaming sword of reason which turns us in every direction and to reenter the Garden of Perfection. It is to transcend the artificial distinctions we make in our minds and love the ultimate reality (God) and love one another as we love ourselves, because there is no real distinction in the true, unbroken reality, they are one and the same.

For us, and only for us, this thing that made us human and gave us “dominion” over the earth, science’s crossing of the threshold of reflection and faith’s “casting us out of the Garden of perfection”. This cognitive break with the whole transformed the world of perfection that we were once perfectly attuned to into a terrifying world of separate things and events.  It became a world where we are naked, ashamed, where we must toil to survive, where we must have faith to live, and where we must recognize that we are also spiritual beings. What Genesis is telling us is that unless we accept a deeper understanding of our profound interrelatedness with all of life, until we recognize that a part can never be whole, if we don't consciously "eat from the fruit of the tree of life" so to speak, we will never find inner peace and external harmony, we will continue to lay waste to our mother earth and go on killing ourselves and each other.


#49
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker


Nonsense, you are imposing a puerile literalism that may sharpen doctrinal debate, might serve a contrarian agenda, might feel "cool" in an internet debate forum, but it has nothing to do with understanding, your misguided attempt at Biblical literalism is just ridiculous.

Genesis is a foundational narrative to half of the world’s people; this would be completely unaccountable if it were merely a literal description of very unusual events that occurred in the distant past.  A literal translation of Genesis makes it remote and irrelevant and quite frankly, doesn’t make sense. A literal translation could never account for its historical status as the western world’s foundational orienting myth for over three thousand years of mankind’s development, and to treat it as merely an historical narrative account alters its original intent and completely obfuscates the profound truths which the symbolic narrative imparts.
Literal and figurative are ways that the writer of Genesis refers to things, how Moses factually portrays the reality of God’s creative acts and infused things made with symbolism. God’s authorized realistic account of his creative acts employs literal representations and portrayals that entail various figures of speech. No one has the liberty to interpret any portion of Genesis 1–2, either literally or figuratively.We are obligated to read the text as written. Thus, the real issue under debate is not our interpretation of Genesis 1–3 but our submission to the biblical text’s factual and authoritative representation. The issue at stake is this: Do we believe the Creator’s authorized, factual portrayal of how God created all things, or do we prefer to believe modern scientists’ dubious and shifting representation of how all things self-assembled beginning billions of years ago, including both the world and all living creatures and plants that populate the earth? Which is the authority for our confidence? On what authority does our faith rest concerning the beginnings of God’s creation? Is it scientists’ fluctuating interpretations of God’s created world? Or is the authority for our confidence the factual account of Genesis 1–3authorized by God? Scripture, not the shifting sands of scientism, sufficiently grounds our faith.

Example: God even got jealous they became like Gods knowing good a devil.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
God stopped them from eating from the tree of life or they would live forever by banishing them from the Garden.
Why did God wanted  Adam and Eve to live like ignorant creatures become apparent? He put the knowledge in a tree and not in humans. Then banned them from eating its fruit so the knowledge would not be transferred.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death. 


#50
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
What Genesis is telling us is that unless we accept a deeper understanding of our profound interrelatedness with all of life, until we recognize that a part can never be whole, if we don't consciously "eat from the fruit of the tree of life" so to speak, we will never find inner peace and external harmony, we will continue to lay waste to our mother earth and go on killing ourselves and each other.
That is the opposite of what Genesis teaches us.
For starters God tells us not to eat from the tree of knowledge.
Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded him, “You may eat the fruit from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat the fruit from the tree which gives the knowledge of good and evil. If you ever eat fruit from that tree, you will die!”

Then God is afraid humans will live forever.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
God stopped them from eating from the tree of life or they would live forever by banishing them from the Garden.

#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics

I'm waiting to receive the debate invite. Let's make it three rounds and rated.

Quite happy here on the open forum, where I can challenge and be challenged on my thoughts, ideas, comments and opinions. thank you.

How about my questions. You keep ignoring them.


How do you know that animals do not have free will?  Considering they appear to do just as  they like and please?
Why didn't god allot them free will?




Topic's author
#52
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
You can still challenge and be challenged on your thoughts, ideas, comments and opinions in a formalized debate. A formalized debate compel both parties to be respectful and engage with a superior level of conduct (otherwise voters will penalize your side).

As for your questions, I'm sensing some hostility. It seems to me that you have a bad attitude towards God and the Bible. If you engage the topic in a calm and open-minded state, I'd be more than happy to answer your questions.

#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics




As for your questions, I'm sensing some hostility. It seems to me that you have a bad attitude towards God and the Bible.

Well, thank you for proving my point.  That because you only  "sense hostility" in my genuine questions,  you have simply filed my particular questions under "not genuine and are argumentative".  When in truth, my questions should have been filed under - too challenging.

This is a forum a religion forum, it is not a religious forum for you to use only as a pulpit  and for you to go unchallenged. << That is what your "Warning #1" was all about.
Topic's author
#54
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 120
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
Well, Stephen, if you want me to entertain your questions, I'd suggest you phrased them in a way that doesn't seem assertive. I'm not any more obliged to answer an easy question than a hard one. Whether or not I want to answer a question is entirely my choice. You can call that cowardly and disingenuous or you can call it... preference. If you bear such distaste with the way I'm doing things, why not ignore the post?



#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
You are exposed for what you really are.  Just another cowardly fraud that refuses to  be challenged. 
The irony being  that you were exposed by your own hand at your very first post. 

It matters not to me. I am happy simply to have asked the question openly, and that could and sometimes does, cause others to think and sometimes pose to others themselves.


#56
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
You are exposed for what you really are.  Just another cowardly fraud that refuses to  be challenged.  
The irony being  that you were exposed by your own hand at your very first post. 

It matters not to me. I am happy simply to have asked the question openly, and that could and sometimes does, cause others to think and sometimes pose to others themselves.
Why don’t you block him like you have done to others who challenged you?
#57
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
Why don’t you block him like you have done to others who challenged you?

Not blocked anyone . I have been blocked by others though.

I  don't mind being challenged on my thoughts, opinions and ideas, Shila. 
#58
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Why don’t you block him like you have done to others who challenged you?

Not blocked anyone . I have been blocked by others though.

I  don't mind being challenged on my thoughts, opinions and ideas, Shila. 
Not true! I have been blocked by you. Please remove the block.
#59
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,735
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
Not true! I have been blocked by you.

Well I am able to respond to your posts so I do not have you on block. If I remember correctly. I have only ever blocked two people that no longer frequent here , they were permanently banned from the site..

And I have no reason to block CatholicApologetics. So its him who's court the ball is in.
#60
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,177
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Well I am able to respond to your posts so I do not have you on block. If I remember correctly. I have only ever blocked two people that no longer frequent here , they were permanently banned from the site..

And I have no reason to block CatholicApologetics. So its him who's court the ball is in.

This is the message  I get which I click on your profile.
You have been blocked. Your interactions with this member are now limited. Among other things, you will not be able to send private messages, tag the member in posts and comments, nor invite the member to debate.

The same message comes up when I respond to your post. That is why your name does not appear at the top in my responses.
“Stephen has blocked you.”