Roman 2:14

>>2450927
Nice interpretation out of your ass. The point Paul was making that even gentles can follow the teachings of God and find salvation in the natural law that's found in us without knowing the Gospel.

The ones that reject God and His Gospel are going to Hell or living on a self-made Hell already.

>>2450939
nice interpretation.

>>2450946
One that's logical and doesn't take the scriptures out of context. Someone from another religion has higher chances of getting to heaven than an atheist.

File: netchaev.jpg (13KB, 500x383px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x383px

>>2450951
>talks about logic
>thinks heaven is real

>>2450939
I prefer natural law too, than worshipping a Jew and turning the the other cheek and welcoming refugees. Can I be saved?

>>2450993
Heaven is real because it's living in the Grace of God. Everyone that accepts God on his heart can go back to him. Only the ones that reject it face Hell, that is, being away from God's presence.

>>2451008
That's a nice dream you have in your head, but it bears no relevance to reality.

I like this natural law thing. I think I'm gonna go with it.

Enjoy giving your stuff away for free for people you don't even know, and enjoy licking Mahmoud and Jamal's balls, christards!

>>2451023
Reality is that these are just letters.

And these are not.

What's behind them?

>>2451028
thats not being a "chill dude".

>>2451023
Another materialistic atheist that rejects everything that's not "muh reality"? You know that reality isn't only the things that you can perceive, right? If everyone was as stupid as you are, physics and math wouldn't be the same.

But keep being arrogant. Surely you know better than everyone else just based on your own perception.

>>2451028
Arrogant fuckwit.

>>2451040

You realise reality is beyond all thoughts and concepts, right?

>>2451109
Then you're admitting that you can't truly know all of reality, therefore accepting that metaphysics and theology are legitimate ways to know what can't be perceived by our senses.

>>2451040
"Where is the man who can clamber to heaven?"

We humans have a limited perception. If it's outside the range of our five senses, we are blind to it. You can't change,study, or manipulate things that you cannot perceive, it's impossible. Therefore, we men have made an art of systematically investigating the things that we can perceive and basing our understanding of reality on it. This is the most efficient way, and has given birth to the scientific method, which is served us so well that we are traveling the stars and examining through telescopes and light patterns the very beginnings of our universe. The methods we use, while not 100% perfect, are by far the best ways of seeing reality for what it is.

But when you get to religion it's all about what was written thousands of years ago, believing what is literally impossible, and adhering to doctrine no matter how foolish or nonsensical. I do not believe it's arrogant to put a responsible amount of trust in the scientific method seeing as the results it has borne out over the years have led to great accomplishment. When one adheres to even the most rudimentary forms of logic and reason, things like heaven, and all that bullshit go out the door. I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, which means I do not know and I admit that I do not know. Yeah
, there may be a heaven. But it's about as likely as there being a Narnia or a mansion in Upstate New York owned by a bald telepath who lords it over a gang of mismatched freaks.

Leave it to somebody steeped in religion define logic and rational thinking as "arrogant" or offensive.

>>2451118

The universal is in the particular and the particular is in the universal. Knowing this spec of dust is knowing all creation.

>>2451119
>agnosticism
Move along folks, here comes the truly illuminated.


>When one adheres to even the most rudimentary forms of logic and reason, things like heaven, and all that bullshit go out the door.

So you're entirely forgetting that God can be logically inferred and all of the teachings of the Church have been proven rationally? You only need to accept one single thing: God exists. It's something you believe into or not. Like the first man that said that a straight line was an infinite succession of spots between two spots. He made a leap of faith to accept it and from that he built the basics of geometry. It's the same with God.

>>2451146

>all the teachings of the church have been proven rationally

lolwot

File: hmmmm.png (530KB, 594x460px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 594x460px

>>2451146
>God can be logically inferred and all of the teachings of the Church have been proven rationally?

I....what?? Are you serious? when were they "proven rationally"? which teachings? By whom?

And when you say that God can be logically inferred what do you mean? Inferred from what, the Bible? Nature? The feeling you have deep in your heart when you're at the end of your rope and there's nobody else to turn to?

File: IMG_0017.png (11KB, 530x286px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 530x286px

The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.

Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers.[citation needed] Points relevant to the ontological proof include

4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

>>2451152
>>2451170
Oh yeah, I forgot that "rationally" means "scientifically proven" for these nu-atheist kind of people. Move along folks.

Scientism followers are worse than fundamentalists.

File: download.png (160KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x320px

>>2451182
Thats not proof, its a theory like everything else.

>>2451205
Yeah dude, you're smarter than Leibniz and Aquinas for sure.

>>2451202
>I forgot that "rationally" means "scientifically proven"

Not necessarily, but it's a great start. How do you define "rationally"?

Is it just something you convince yourself to believe so much that it doesn't occur to you that it could be false?

>>2451215
Apparently.

File: IMG_0962.jpg (15KB, 426x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 426x240px

>>2451205

>>2451224
You're making the affirmation that nothing short of deductive reasoning is valid for knowledge - when inductive knowledge is as valid.

I mean, this divinization of science is just so stupid. No wonder math and philosophy students are seen as a laughstock, people just venerate deductive reasoning as the sole fountain of truth.

>>2451202

>every tenant of Catholic theology has been scientifically proved

This is probably the most retarded thing I've ever read

>>2450951
>Someone from another religion has higher chances of getting to heaven than an atheist.
Right, because the violent Muslim is more moral than the righteous atheist.

>>2451252
Stick around, there's always bigger fish, or hooks.

>>2451237
Why wouldn't you hold up the single most successful and logical means of deducing facts as something good? Do you have a better system?

And I do not worship science. I have even said that it is not 100% reliable and that in theory you're heaven could exist. You are the one who has just blanketly denied that anything I've said has any validity. You've made erroneous inferences from my statements such as I am an atheist and I worship science. It seems to me, strictly going by the conversation we had on this origami ingestion board, that you are the one with the faulty logic. Which lends no credence to your argument and makes you look like a grade-A jackball

>>2451202
>he sincerely uses the term "scientism"
Trademark of the pseud.

>>2451252
Welcome to /his/.

There's some chips and hypocrisy on the table over there and feel free to help yourself to the soda and literal retardation.

File: 1477140088369.png (568KB, 712x576px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 712x576px

>>2451262
>violent Muslim
Tautology.

>>2451146
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'd love to see those scientific proofs for the papal infallibility, transubstantiation, the bodily ascension of Mary, let alone there being a heaven in the first place...

>>2451146
Are catholicucks getting delusional? Is licking all that dirt off refugee feet finally affecting your brains?

>>2450927
>"Just be a chill dude and you don't need religion.."
That's literally the opposite of what he said there

>>2451454
>le cuck meme
>if you follow the teachings of JesusChrist you're a cuck

>>2451392
you've got to first accept God, then understand the basics of theology. Papal infallibility is something that's called upon to make modifications to catechism, not meant to say "The Pope is never wrong"

>>2451237
>>2451296
Science doesn't use deductive reasoning, it uses inductive reasoning as a rule.