Evidence for God from Science

Of course not.

Why ask such a retorical question?

Joh 16:13

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

Kerux wrote:So, truth is unknowable?

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

According to what you apparently think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, (according to your thinking or should we say According to Judah?) we can only know some truth, not most truth and especially not all the truth?

Is that what you think?

You edited your comment after I posted my response.
You had originally posted just the first sentence.

There are doctrinal matters over which many sincere Christians have disagreements. This must surely indicate to you that there are differing understandings regarding some meanings of what is written in Scripture.

You are very bold in proclaiming your personal view to be "the truth" even although other Christians would disagree.
I am not as bold when it comes to the issue of transubstantiation.

You are very bold in proclaiming your personal view to be "the truth" even although other Christians would disagree.

Would they disagree just as boldly?

And if so, is their 'boldness' acceptable but mine isn't?

you edited your comment after I posted my response.
You had originally posted just the first sentence.

No, I stated my opinion and then supported it with Scripture. I didn't edit.

So far, all you have provided is your opinion, and mostly about what others feel or should do. What about you?

Judah wrote:This [disagreement] must surely indicate to you that there are differing understandings regarding some meanings of what is written in Scripture.

I am not as bold when it comes to the issue of transubstantiation.

Yes, there are different understandings, but only one truth, and truth does not contradict itself. You seem to think that Christians should agree on everything, and in those areas of disagreement we should somehow tread more softly, as to not offend.

Did Christ or Paul or any of the apostles shun controversal issues as to not offend? Christ was very candid with Nicodemus, "Art thou a teacher of Israel and do not know these things?"

You may not be so bold when it comes to the presumption that a human priest can change elements into the literal body and blood of Christ that can then be spit out upon the ground, but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't.

I was once raised Catholic as I have already stated. That, I believe also gives me a little more liberty, I feel, in this area, not that it is needed.

Kerux wrote:

Judah wrote:This [disagreement] must surely indicate to you that there are differing understandings regarding some meanings of what is written in Scripture.

I am not as bold when it comes to the issue of transubstantiation.

Yes, there are different understandings, but only one truth, and truth does not contradict itself. You seem to think that Christians should agree on everything, and in those areas of disagreement we should somehow tread more softly, as to not offend.

Did Christ or Paul or any of the apostles shun controversal issues as to not offend? Christ was very candid with Nicodemus, "Art thou a teacher of Israel and do not know these things?"

You may not be so bold when it comes to the presumption that a human priest can change elements into the literal body and blood of Christ that can then be spit out upon the ground, but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't.

I was once raised Catholic as I have already stated. That, I believe also gives me a little more liberty, I feel, in this area, not that it is needed.

What if you're wrong? Should others treat you the same way?

Kerux wrote:

Judah wrote:This [disagreement] must surely indicate to you that there are differing understandings regarding some meanings of what is written in Scripture.

I am not as bold when it comes to the issue of transubstantiation.

Yes, there are different understandings, but only one truth, and truth does not contradict itself. You seem to think that Christians should agree on everything, and in those areas of disagreement we should somehow tread more softly, as to not offend.

Did Christ or Paul or any of the apostles shun controversal issues as to not offend? Christ was very candid with Nicodemus, "Art thou a teacher of Israel and do not know these things?"

You may not be so bold when it comes to the presumption that a human priest can change elements into the literal body and blood of Christ that can then be spit out upon the ground, but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't.

I was once raised Catholic as I have already stated. That, I believe also gives me a little more liberty, I feel, in this area, not that it is needed.

First, you need to chill Kerux. I was just, you know, '"joking around"'.

Second, you know nothing of catholicism because if you did, you would've known it is not by the 'power' of the priest that transubstantiation occurs; It is by the power of Christ himself. Are you telling us God is not capable of doing that? You're not putting limitations on Christ now are you? I must ask, do you really believe in the divinity of Christ? Did you read the article I posted the link to or are you afraid it would make more sense than you care to admit? Perhaps it will show you another side of your truth? But if you're not prepared for that I understand.

Third, don't get offended if the truth is thrown back at you because my truth comes from the mouth of Jesus himself when he repeatedly said 'this is my flesh'. Are you calling him a liar? When he called himself the vine or the shepherd, you didn't hear anyone object, did you? He had no reason to explain that he was speaking allegorically, everyone understood it as such. Did everyone understand the allegory when he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Quite the opposite, they took him very literally and called him on it. And what did he say in response? Did he correct himself by saying wait a minute, I really didn't mean what I said? I was speaking allegorically? Again, quite the opposite. He intensified his talk even further. Even the disciples left him because they understood him literally and he didn't correct them. When he was left with the 12 he asked them if they wanted to leave too but they told him they had no one else to go to. They understood what he was talking about. If you truly want to understand the eucharist scripturally, read the article. But I suspect you want to hold on to your version of the truth so I don't blame you.

Fourth, I'm just "joking around" man, you know, just in case (switch to Jack Nicholson's voice here) "you can't handle the truth".

In Christ,

Byblos.

First, you need to chill Kerux.

Second, you know nothing of catholicism.....

Third, don't get offended if the truth is thrown back at you...

I need to chill?

What if you're wrong? Should others treat you the same way?

People are free and welcome to treat me the same way I treat them. I'l do my best to be Christ-like. And when I'm not,
make no mistake about it, the Holy Spirit
is very quick to let me know.

Kerux wrote:

First, you need to chill Kerux.

Second, you know nothing of catholicism.....

Third, don't get offended if the truth is thrown back at you...

I need to chill?

You forgot

Byblos wrote:Fourth, I'm just "joking around"

Well, now that you bring it up, 'forth' is misspelled.

Kerux wrote:Well, now that you bring it up, 'forth' is misspelled.

Now that was very polite, thank you. Corrected.

Kerux wrote: {clip} ... You seem to think that Christians should agree on everything, and in those areas of disagreement we should somehow tread more softly, as to not offend.

If your understanding of what I think is that Christians should agree on everything, then it is very clear that you have completely misunderstood my entire message.

Quoting myself from an earlier post:

I have given my position in my first post, essentially that I remain "agnostic" on transubstantiation.

However, I understand the RC reasoning and do acknowledge the Last Supper as a sacrament, a spiritual mystery, due to something I sense (spiritually discern) that is very important about it. I see there is room for interpretation (metaphors being something more than metaphors in a literary sense due to a spiritual component) and Protestants will believe one thing, Catholics another, and I am happy enough with the idea of varying layers of belief according to faith.

Surely that I see room for interpretation - and for differing beliefs as a result, and being happy with the idea of varying layers of belief according to faith - is actually the opposite of "thinking that Christians must agree on everything".

And any treading softly per your words "in those areas of disagreement we should somehow tread more softly, as to not offend" is not actually about treading softly so much as being humbly aware that none of us are infallible - that we can each get it wrong because we are human and our understanding is imperfect.
As I said in that same previous post:

What I am questioning is how one can always be certain of objective reality where there is the possibility of a spiritual component involved, and that some things do require an exercise of faith to deepen one's understanding of its nature.

It may be that our physical senses aid us to perceive only a certain part of reality, and one day we stop seeing "but a poor reflection as in a mirror".
As we are told in 1 Corinthians 13:12 "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Yes, you did edit your comment. You had already posted just the first sentence. Then you would have had to click on the "Edit" button in order to add the sentences that followed. Editing a post includes the addition of further text, not just an alteration of existing text. Also, the post itself tells that you edited it once and gave the time that you did so.

I have stated my own position on the issue back in my first post.
You then called one view "ridiculous" (although you showed a misunderstanding of that view, as Byblos has since pointed out) and then a discussion on reality, and of knowledge and truth being knowable, followed.

I have not offered opinions on how anyone should think or feel.
However, I have pointed out that sincere Christians believe differently on matters of doctrine, the possibility of causing offense to others through flippant humour, and that our knowledge is imperfect (as per 1 Cor.13:12).

I have said that you are more bold than I am prepared to be about a claim to knowing the truth on this issue.
I'm afraid I hear more arrogance than truth.
And sadly, I hear nothing by way of intelligent and respectful debate to the excellent points raised by Byblos.

Yes, you did edit your comment. You had already posted just the first sentence. Then you would have had to click on the "Edit" button in order to add the sentences that followed. Editing a post includes the addition of further text, not just an alteration of existing text. Also, the post itself tells that you edited it once and gave the time that you did so.

You seem to be a nit picker so I'll nit pick back, although it is not my style.

No, I didn't edit my comment. I added to my comment. In no way did I change or alter my comment. All I did was supply Scriptural support for my comment, which, IMO, showed you to be in error in your thinking, and instead of admitting that, you went into personal attack mode - stating your opinion about my alleged arrogance.

I edited my post, as you rightly state. Had I changed in any way the comment I had already made, I would have edited my comment and then you would be correct.

I'm afraid I hear more arrogance than truth.

Romans 2

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

As Byblos puts it, I think we all need to "chill" here.

Kerux wrote:

There, that's better.