- Jan 24, 2015
- Reaction score
I didn't attack you.
Sure you did. Practically you fired me out of your Catholic church - and I would not be astonished if you yourselve would not be a Catholic in your owen but only a starger person who tries to be more papal than a superpope himself.
Pointing out your inconsistency is not an attack.
Which inconsistency? You said something, that's all. And now you try to force me into a defense role - without to use any argument about anything.
I did understand your position on agnosticism.
I doubt this becauae you heard it the first time in your life in my way and I needed a long time to find this out.
I don't agree
Sure you don't agree. But this means absolutelly nothing without any reason.
with your position on agnosticism and how it relates to Catholicism. Your philosophy of "agnosticism" does not mesh with your Catholic beliefs.
Are you an allknowing entity?
Either you have knowledge of Christ or you don't.
What a nonsense. Did you learn from Christ to tie your shoe laces? And god is by the way also always new.
That is the inconsistency I am pointing out.
You pointed nothing out. You seem to have some wrong ideas about agnosticisim and do not like to change this ideas. If for example someone says 3+4=7 or 3+4=8 then this has absolutelly nothing to do with whether someone is a good or bad Catholic - whatever this could be.
You can't say you don't know if God exists or not and still believe that Christ is Lord and Savior.
Why not? Not to know god means not not to believe in god. It's in the opposite - who not knows needs belief. I'm by the way not happy about the word savior - I prefer the word "Heiland" in case of Jesus the Christ. Redeemer is the translation of this word. But this word also sounds strange to me. "Healer of all and everything" is this what I think about. Christ makes sane.
Those beliefs are mutually exclusive.
What is exclusive? Nothing is exclusive in the Christian religion.