If I noted it, as you say, does that not mean that I have shown you that my understanding is the correct one?
Not even remotely. Really, thinking that if you get one part of something right, that means you get it all right automatically? No, Jane. It doesn’t work like that. For such an accomplished scholar, one would have thought you would have known that.
Let's see. I have repeatedly claimed that the RCC is the only right one. But not really. You know this because I believe what I say! Well, there is no arguing with that.
So, where have you said that the RCC isn’t the only right one, Jane. Where is this caveat of your “not really”. Since you seem to indicate that you don’t believe what you say, I find that fascinating, that you proselytize something that you have evidently no trust in. Or is it simply that you are trying your best to avoid responsibility for your claims by now claiming that they are really only unsupported opinions like any other theist’s claims?
But if you want evidence of your own words, I’m happy to oblige:
[quoe]The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. You claiming the RCC is right.
Thanks to Dictionary.com, I can demonstrate that you have misunderstood:
it strikes me that
Fig(urative). it seems to me that. ...
Thus, when I wrote: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. my meaning was:It seems to me that the CCC approach is correct. Thus your claim that I am stating that it is correct is shown to be incorrect. I stated my opinion.
Ah, so you don’t actually believe what the RCC says? You only think it “might” be true? Interesting. Seems that someone might be as agnostic as many here.
It just “strikes” you as the right approach but you have nothing to support that it is, they might be correct, they might not. Thanks for the evidence that even such a theist as you has nothing to support their beliefs as being the truth that they want to claim.
Yes. You need to explain to me why I must account for every difference of opinion on a subject, when I make a statement or express my opinion. It will slow things down mightily if I must restate what I have already said
Jane, you claim that your beliefs are the only right ones for a Christian. You have made statements that are absolute, that God does this, that God does that with no caveats of “I think that God does this or that”. You have tried to establish yourself as an authority. Other Christians do the same thing and none of you have any evidence to support your claims. In this instance about free will.
Beyond that, the vast majority of Christendom does believe in free will. Evidence for that statement? Go to adherents.com (or any one of many other statistical sites) and look up which body of Christians is the largest in the world. Not by a little but by a lot. Then tell me why I must account for the views of small clusters of sects and a few denominations before I post anything here.
Nice appeal to popularity fallacy there, Jane. You need to show that your claims of being the right brand of Christianity, and yep, you’ve done it again with your attempts to support your claims of being right with such pathetic fallacies, is the only right one. Now, since JC said that his followers would be able to do miracles just like him and even greater, that should be easy for you. You can start by healing an amputee. Otherwise, no matter how many people might believe something, it simply isn’t true.
What claims have I made? What lies?
I’ve shown you, Jane. Repeatedly. Playing dumb like this is funny to watch but doesn’t remove your lies.
Re tombs: Christ’s is not particularly important because he is not there. St. Peter’s is important because he is there. Christians venerate all the sites associated with Jesus, either real or legendary. They always have and always will. The fact that there are a couple of places that contend for the honor of being his temporary tomb is irrelevant to me and to many others.
Oh yes?, then show me that St. Peter is there, Jane. And it’s amusing again to see you declare things irrelevant to you. It’s a sure indication that you simply have no answer and realize the problem you have. Your religion is built on special places and bits and piece of human bodies and claims of magical relics. But that one special place where the most important act of your religion supposedly took place, darn you have no idea where it is. Since your religion lost that location, what else has it made mistakes in or made up? Why believe that any of your myths occurred at all?
Since I have not so much as breathed a word about any of this, what is the relevance of this to me? Why are you writing long posts that jump from one unrelated subject to another? Why the accusations that I am desperate to connect my claims (what claims???) to your posts? What on earth does that even mean? I am not attempting to create an atheist straw man (whatever that is supposed to mean). You have gone so far beyond anything that I have written that I am utterly baffled.
Because your entire religion is based on the claims that these events are true. No exodus, no events around the cruxifiction to be notice, then your religion falls apart since it is based on lies. And if you are too ignorant of the English language to realize the times you’ve claimed something, then alas I can do little for you. A claim is when you say something happened or something is real etc. Until you can support those claims with evidence, those claims are by definition baseless, no more than the claim of a child that they’ve seen the “real” Santa Claus in their living room.