The rotten fruit can only be judged if no such fruit exists in the accuser.
Any followers of Christ as pissed off at other so called "Christians" as I am?
- Thread starter Love_Conquers_All
- Start date
The rotten fruit can only be judged if no such fruit exists in the accuser.
This statement doesn't agree with what it says in scripture. And what's with referring to people as accusers seriously if someone murders someone and confesses or is caught is everyone that judges their action as sin suddenly accusing them of murder wrongly or something I think observer would be a better fit in this statement. Actions are things someone actually does so there is no need to accuse anyone.
Last edited:
This is a classic argument for the existence of a theistic God, not necessarely the Christian God.
I will answer you question by quoting Toma D'Aquinas:
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever–and this we call God.
Here is the argument in syllogistic form:
1.Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2.If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3.So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4.Hence God exists.
So the argument is simple. There are degrees of perfection, therefore there is the best possible thing, and therefore there is the best or the perfect being, which we call God.
Ok, so I have to ask seriously and please dont take this the wrong way. The idea of, "and hence God exists" with this information given is a serious projection in your mind?
Based solely only on this argument, no.
But I have other arguments
.Plus, the most powerful proof come from the Bible, the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of redemption from sin!
Based solely only on this argument, no.
But I have other arguments
Plus, the most powerful proof come from the Bible, the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of redemption from sin!
Hmmm let me throw this fact out and see what you think of it. Did you know the first written account of Jesus did not happen until 90 years AFTER his supposed death. Meaning that if a one year old was alive at the time of his death, he would have been 90 years old at the time he first wrote about Jesus's life.
I can more certainly. But before I do, think about this. Before you have a way to figure out how to reason away any information I give you, think about what it means if I am right. Contemplate it BEFORE, I give you proof.
George Orwell said, and its one of my favourite quotes being both a socialist and a roman catholic, that with socialism, as with the christian religion, often its followers were among its worst representatives.
Orwell's one of my favourite writers, in terms of loyal opposition I think only Simone Weil comes close and only because she, like Orwell, used the propaganda and proposals of the socialists in opposition to criticise the socialists in power. Orwell drew that conclusion in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, when he decided the various parties and authorities didnt really try very hard to measure up to their supposed ideas or ideology, he was impressed with the anarchists precisely because they appeared most concerned about it, Weil used Lenin's State and Revolution, which talks about creating a state with less power than most US libertarian capitalists propose, to attack Lenin's regime.
The point is that you've got to be the change you want to see in the world, a lot of people who profess religious beliefs dont get that, or they conscious or unconsciously know they fall short so prefer to focus on others short comings, failings and criticise those instead. The worst example of this is political religion, like political islam, totalitarian in its intent or practice, breeding fanaticism rather than thinking and encourages people to die for something perfect, although imaginary (the order they want to create, not an analysis of religious beliefs there), rather than live with something imperfect (when the later choice, being the more difficult, is what God or true religion demands I think). Although there's a lot of religious belief that falls short of that and is still a bad thing.