Trying again--why is God silent?

[Lucy the Valiant]

How can one tell that "God is the essence of existence.  He is not a thing within our existence.  He is Existence."

 

 

They're mythologies, stories no more based on real events than Hercules and his slaying of the Nemean Lion.

 

 

By "God Variable," I'm referring to any component of the supernatural as is related to the god of the bible (or the koran, or even a pantheistic or deistic entity, but there seems to be a predominantly Christian participation on this thread) to explain a natural phenomenon. The argument to which I'm referring is the argument that "one doesn't have to ignore science in order to believe in the spiritual realm." I suggest when the natural explanation is accepted, the supernatural one is dismissed. Likewise, I'm suggesting that when a supernatural explanation is accepted, a natural one is dismissed. I am unaware of any theory that simultaneously appeals to natural and supernatural explanations, one that includes variables from both natural and supernatural ("God") elements. 

 

This is interesting to me - I'm not sure how a solid understanding of the laws of gravity "dismisses" the belief / explanation that gravity *as a natural law* could have been designed, orchestrated, and yes, sustained by God. The same harmony exists in all the natural laws, really - the 2nd law of thermodynamics (just as an example) is an explanation of *what* happens, but not *why.* To me, the "supernatural" part of that understanding supports and affirms the "natural" part; science (as we can know and observe) parallels what the Bible teaches about God.

 

I think, in these conversations, sometimes believers think unbelievers haven't already explored these things - read the arguments, watched the videos, done the praying etc.

 

A lot of the time, we have btdt. 

 

I agree with you here. Though the reverse of this observation is also true - believers are (and historically have been) curious, intellectual, fascinated by nature and the laws of science. I am not a trained scientist, nor am I a great intellectual, but I do read scientific publications and articles and watch and listen to what goes on in the world around me.  I, too, as a believer, have also gone through periods of struggle in my faith; the fact that I have arrived at a different "life conclusion" than my atheist neighbors doesn't make either of us "better than" the other, kwim? It's a different conclusion, based on the same evidence. (This happens all the time in science - in faith, too.)

 

The problem with this answer is that it moves the goalposts to accommodate the argument again. This time, the God Hypothesis can't be illogical because the parameters of logic don't apply to God. In other words, God is outside nature, time, physical laws, and now logic. This is fine if it's used consistently, but then one shouldn't insist their faith is logical and reasonable, and shouldn't feel upset should one argue it is irrational. I expect God is understood to similarly exist outside of the rational, and that shouldn't be understood as an insult or ridicule to hear it said out loud. 

 

 

Evolution isn't a belief, it's an explanation of an observed phenomena, namely the biodiversity of the earth. One doesn't need to believe in it as it requires no faith to accept as fact or true. One either understands it or doesn't (or understands some, and doesn't understand some). The origins of the universe are being explored in the same way, using the same exact methodology - appeal to observation, data, experimentation, peer review, etc. In the same way there is no need to apply God to the theory of evolution (not saying one doesn't understand evolution and also have faith in God, but it's not necessary to do so), there's likely no reason to apply God to the theory of the origins of the universe. I'm suggesting the point to which one applies the theory of evolution, one suppresses the God hypothesis. For example, either genes replicate naturally, or they don't, and the theory of evolution doesn't include any suggestion of divine direction.

 

 

It seems to me this is the argument the video itself was created to support. 

 

 

Except when he wants us to suppress our reason, right? The bible and the history of the church are peppered with examples of suppressing curiosity and reason in order to hold faith to a higher value. 

 

One prayer of St. Ignatius is particularly illustrative of this virtue of giving up all autonomy, including freedom of thought (which includes satisfaction of curiosity). It is by no means unique in this respect, but particularly articulate of the idea I'm proposing.

 

Suscipe (St. Ignatius of Loyola)

 

Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty,

my memory, my understanding

and my entire will,

All I have and call my own.

 

You have given all to me.

To you, Lord, I return it.

Everything is yours; do with it what you will.

Give me only your love and your grace.

That is enough for me.

 

 

 

The video upholds reason insofar as it is understood by Dr. Craig Lane, a man who eagerly dismisses information when it does not serve the [his] faith. He's a master of appeal to incredulity, the same appeal Cricket used upthread, the same argument that wouldn't be accepted for the revolution of the sun around the earth. 

 

I'm not Catholic, so forgive me if I'm missing something huge here that all Catholics know.

 

There is a difference between a supra-rational God (going above our reason, which does make sense to me because we are the created beings, not the divine creator), and a irrational God (doing things that directly go against human reason).

 

An evolutionary understanding of the origins of life *does* require acceptance of un-verifiable ideas and concepts (though people don't like to use the word faith).

 

 

CAVEAT: I'm a gentle person by nature, and more curious than combative; this is one of the more respectful discussions I've seen regarding the OP's question, and I thought I'd wave and step a toe in to the discussion. Christianity doesn't have all the answers, but secular humanism doesn't, either. At some level, we each consider the rich, vast, marvelously intricate and creative universe we all live in, and make the best conclusion we can. *gratefully raises a glass to respectful conversation*

[mamaraby]

CAVEAT: I'm a gentle person by nature, and more curious than combative; this is one of the more respectful discussions I've seen regarding the OP's question, and I thought I'd wave and step a toe in to the discussion. Christianity doesn't have all the answers, but secular humanism doesn't, either. At some level, we each consider the rich, vast, marvelously intricate and creative universe we all live in, and make the best conclusion we can. *gratefully raises a glass to respectful conversation*

1) The opposite of Christianity is not secular humanism.

2) Humanism is not a catch all for those who don't believe in any gods/goddesses or the supernatural. It is possible to be atheist and not humanist.

3) Neither atheism or Humanism says that it has all the answers. That would be impossible.

[Lucy the Valiant]

1) The opposite of Christianity is not secular humanism.

2) Humanism is not a catch all for those who don't believe in any gods/goddesses or the supernatural. It is possible to be atheist and not humanist.

3) Neither atheism or Humanism says that it has all the answers. That would be impossible.

 

Not disagreeing at all. Should have included atheism in my caveat. :)

 

(Though to me, "opposite of Christianity" could be many things, including yes, secular humanism, but also atheism.)

[albeto.]

Hell might be dry, have you ever thought of that ??

 

That would be a low, dirty trick.

 

:glare:

[albeto.]

With Tap's boring droning chum telling stories with endless analogies ....

 

omdg

[albeto.]

Since many of us consider beer and wine to be among God's good gifts to us, my money is on hell being dry.  Or, the wine will be corked and the beer skunky. 

 

 

I'm not so high brow that I mind spitting out chunks of cork. 

 

Just sayin'. 

[Rosie_0801]

Not disagreeing at all. Should have included atheism in my caveat. :)

 

(Though to me, "opposite of Christianity" could be many things, including yes, secular humanism, but also atheism.)

 

Don't you think talk of "opposites" in religion is reducing it to something one dimensional?

 

I'm an atheist pagan, but I'm not the opposite of a Christian. Other than the theist v atheist bit, I can't even imagine how anyone can think so.

[albeto.]

This is interesting to me - I'm not sure how a solid understanding of the laws of gravity "dismisses" the belief / explanation that gravity *as a natural law* could have been designed, orchestrated, and yes, sustained by God. The same harmony exists in all the natural laws, really - the 2nd law of thermodynamics (just as an example) is an explanation of *what* happens, but not *why.* To me, the "supernatural" part of that understanding supports and affirms the "natural" part; science (as we can know and observe) parallels what the Bible teaches about God.

 

To impose a god variable to a theory that is fully sustainable by natural evidence is to dismiss in part what the theory is, how it explains the observed phenomena. It does so by contradicting what the theory explains, and imposing a variable that lacks evidence and is based solely on faith claims. In short, it alters the theory to something it's not. It dismisses the actual explanation, and modifies it to fit a particular belief. 

 

I'm not Catholic, so forgive me if I'm missing something huge here that all Catholics know.

 

There is a difference between a supra-rational God (going above our reason, which does make sense to me because we are the created beings, not the divine creator), and a irrational God (doing things that directly go against human reason).

 

Can you explain what the difference is? When God of the bible acts in ways that defy our moral code, the rationalization for this is that his ways are beyond ours (ie, Isaiah 55:8-9). Can you share an example of God going above our reason, but not against it? 

 

An evolutionary understanding of the origins of life *does* require acceptance of un-verifiable ideas and concepts (though people don't like to use the word faith).

 

This is an untrue statement. Can you share an example of what you mean by this?

[mamaraby]

Not disagreeing at all. Should have included atheism in my caveat. :)

 

(Though to me, "opposite of Christianity" could be many things, including yes, secular humanism, but also atheism.)

But you're setting up a false equivalency and perpetuating a rather inflammatory way of presenting anything that isn't Christianity as "secular humanism," the proverbial big bad wolf who is usually blamed as being out to destroy Christmas, America, and everything Christians hold sacred. It's not cute. It's more than a little tiresome, actually. I get the impression that you want us all to sing kumbaya over these apparently unknown similarities. Meh, not feeling it.

 

Also, tiny difference being that atheists do believe we can probably eventually figure out the answers to things given enough time (like infinitely off into the future), though while we're science-ing it up, we'll probably come up with new questions. That's ok, off to do more science! No divine mysteries or faith required.

[Redeemed7]

This was mentioned by Scarlett way back and I'm not sure if it has been fully addressed or not as I haven't had time to read the last three pages, so forgive me if some of this has already been stated.

 

Again, God didn't separate himself from us we separated ourselves from God. It started in the garden with the first sin. Sin separated us from him and it still does today. Sin can't enter heaven and without redemption through Christ's blood we can't enter heaven. But, that is our choice not his.

 

Col 1:13-14

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

 

 

He has chosen to speak audibly at times and still some didn't hear. I believe a previous poster made a comment about this.

 

John 12:27-30

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

 

God does a lot of things to get our attention, but often we choose to ignore him. In the end God is going to send two witness to preach the gospel and perform miracles. Some will believe yet most people won't even believe them after the witnesses are killed and then ascend into heaven.

 

Rev 10:5-12

 

5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

 

But, guess what he doesn't give up. He sends three angels.

 

Rev14:6-9

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

 

To me this would work for most people right? Nope, here's what finally happens.

 

Rev 19:11-1 I won't post all because of the length, but I will paraphrase and you can read it yourself to get the full picture. Heaven is opened up and Jesus is coming back riding a white horse with his army.

 

Verse 19 says

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

 

They are waging a war with Christ coming from heaven. They don't care. They can no longer say they didn't see or couldn't hear. They know who he is and they simply do not care.

 

Here's the basic point. God never has nor will separate himself from us. We separate ourselves from God. If you think he is an immoral, evil monster, then would you really want to spend eternity with him? I'm not trying to be provocative. Really, God isn't going to make anyone spend eternity with him who doesn't want to. We make the choice to accept or reject him. God says we are without excuse. We can't blame him.

 

Romans 1:19-21

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

I am stating theses things not as a know it all, because the more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know. I state them with love, respect, and I hope gentleness. Everyone has the right to disagree. That is ok. But, I do hope you will ponder the verses I listed and maybe one day if you see any of it come to pass you will remember this post. Then again you can say it is rubbish. Everyone has that right.

[.Michelle.]

The problem with this answer is that it moves the goalposts to accommodate the argument again. This time, the God Hypothesis can't be illogical because the parameters of logic don't apply to God. In other words, God is outside nature, time, physical laws, and now logic. This is fine if it's used consistently, but then one shouldn't insist their faith is logical and reasonable, and shouldn't feel upset should one argue it is irrational. I expect God is understood to similarly exist outside of the rational, and that shouldn't be understood as an insult or ridicule to hear it said out loud. 

 

Again, you're asserting something that no theologian has.  It's always been stated that God exists outside of creation.  The Creator is not subject to His creation.  It has never been posited that God is tucked away in some corner of the universe.  God is outside of nature, outside of time, outside of the physical laws of the universe, and, yes, outside of human logic.  This isn't moving the goalposts.  This is the field as it has always been.

 

 

Evolution isn't a belief, it's an explanation of an observed phenomena, namely the biodiversity of the earth. One doesn't need to believe in it as it requires no faith to accept as fact or true. One either understands it or doesn't (or understands some, and doesn't understand some). The origins of the universe are being explored in the same way, using the same exact methodology - appeal to observation, data, experimentation, peer review, etc. In the same way there is no need to apply God to the theory of evolution (not saying one doesn't understand evolution and also have faith in God, but it's not necessary to do so), there's likely no reason to apply God to the theory of the origins of the universe. I'm suggesting the point to which one applies the theory of evolution, one suppresses the God hypothesis. For example, either genes replicate naturally, or they don't, and the theory of evolution doesn't include any suggestion of divine direction.

 

I've used "belief" in a casual way.  I disagree with you that applying the theory of evolution disproves God.  God is the Creator of all and exists outside of creation.  The natural processes of our existence do not disprove His existence.  To make a really bad analogy, the fact that my children's hearts beat on their own doesn't mean I didn't give birth to them.

 

 

It seems to me this is the argument the video itself was created to support. 

 

The video was made to support this conclusion.  The statement "The universe has a cause" is not an argument.  It's the conclusion of the argument.

 

 

Except when he wants us to suppress our reason, right? The bible and the history of the church are peppered with examples of suppressing curiosity and reason in order to hold faith to a higher value. 

 

Holding faith as the pinnacle does not suppress reason.  It's a conversation I often have with my children.  "Would you rather be smart, happy, or good?"  It's not that being smart or being happy are bad.  It's just that being good is better than being either.  Beyond that, my religion has been a patron of science and reason throughout history.

 

One prayer of St. Ignatius is particularly illustrative of this virtue of giving up all autonomy, including freedom of thought (which includes satisfaction of curiosity). It is by no means unique in this respect, but particularly articulate of the idea I'm proposing.

 

Suscipe (St. Ignatius of Loyola)

 

Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty,

my memory, my understanding

and my entire will,

All I have and call my own.

 

You have given all to me.

To you, Lord, I return it.

Everything is yours; do with it what you will.

Give me only your love and your grace.

That is enough for me.

 

This is the same point as above.  And, frankly, it disproves your point.  The prayer itself asserts that liberty, memory, understanding, and free will are all gifts from our Creator.  This one person, St. Ignatius, is offering them all back to God because it is enough for him to have God's love and grace.  He's saying that all of those other things would be nothing without God's love and grace.  To make another bad analogy, it's like a child whose every material need is provided for but whose parents don't love him.  How many would give back all of the toys to have the true love of a parent?

 

 

The video upholds reason insofar as it is understood by Dr. Craig Lane, a man who eagerly dismisses information when it does not serve the [his] faith. He's a master of appeal to incredulity, the same appeal Cricket used upthread, the same argument that wouldn't be accepted for the revolution of the sun around the earth. 

 

I can't really accept that Dr. Lane is relying on a lack of imagination in his audience.  All of his videos rely on the wonder and awe that people have in the universe.  That we live in such an amazing and rare material world is the basis of his argument.  I'm unclear about your last statement, though.  What is the same argument that wouldn't be accepted for the revolution of the sun around the earth?

 

[Lucy the Valiant]

But you're setting up a false equivalency and perpetuating a rather inflammatory way of presenting anything that isn't Christianity as "secular humanism," the proverbial big bad wolf who is usually blamed as being out to destroy Christmas, America, and everything Christians hold sacred. It's not cute. It's more than a little tiresome, actually. I get the impression that you want us all to sing kumbaya over these apparently unknown similarities. Meh, not feeling it.

 

Also, tiny difference being that atheists do believe we can probably eventually figure out the answers to things given enough time (like infinitely off into the future), though while we're science-ing it up, we'll probably come up with new questions. That's ok, off to do more science! No divine mysteries or faith required.

 

 

Agreeing that opposite was a poor word choice; "differing conclusion" might be closer to what I'm trying to say.

 

I was trying to agree with your 2nd point, though; Christians, also, accept (by faith) that there are things we don't understand now, but we will eventually. And we'll come up with more questions, too. The difference is in the object of our faith - the collective efforts and intelligence of the human race vs. the concept of an intelligent designer.

[Lucy the Valiant]

To impose a god variable to a theory that is fully sustainable by natural evidence is to dismiss in part what the theory is, how it explains the observed phenomena. It does so by contradicting what the theory explains, and imposing a variable that lacks evidence and is based solely on faith claims. In short, it alters the theory to something it's not. It dismisses the actual explanation, and modifies it to fit a particular belief. 

 

Still not clear on this - how does the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of the existence of God alter or dismiss the theory of gravity? (Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense; I don't see how either theory excludes the other.)

 

Can you explain what the difference is? When God of the bible acts in ways that defy our moral code, the rationalization for this is that his ways are beyond ours (ie, Isaiah 55:8-9). Can you share an example of God going above our reason, but not against it? 

 

This is sort of the same as what Michelle is saying (I think) - God is not part of his creation, so he transcends it, encompasses it. The ability to live again after death is something that is supra-rational to me; as a finite, limited creation, I don't understand it. And yet, it's not irrational to consider that the God who IS Life, who created life, is able to live in ways we cannot.

 

This is an untrue statement. Can you share an example of what you mean by this?

 

Well, scientific proof requires the ability to observe and also to repeat, right? The theories of origins of life are neither observable nor repeatable, right? The fact is that we're not 100% sure when / how / where non-living chemicals and elements first became living - an evolutionary approach to biogenesis considers that that life was self-actualized (if I'm understanding correctly); an Intelligent Design approach considers that a powerful being infused the chemicals and elements with life. The scientific evidence is the same, but the conclusions are different; however, both require some acceptance of non-verifiable phenomena & ideas (i.e., God did it *OR* a simple, basic life form did it by itself). 

 

My main point is that just because Christianity doesn't have all the answers doesn't make it an inferior conclusion.

 

(I am terrible at tone on the internet; please hear the questions as humble, thinking, willing to be corrected, truly curious. And if I am misunderstanding, I'd appreciate the help there, too.) And now, off to work for most of the weekend . . .

 

[Free]

Well, scientific proof requires the ability to observe and also to repeat, right? The theories of origins of life are neither observable nor repeatable, right? The fact is that we're not 100% sure when / how / where non-living chemicals and elements first became living - an evolutionary approach to biogenesis considers that that life was self-actualized (if I'm understanding correctly); an Intelligent Design approach considers that a powerful being infused the chemicals and elements with life. The scientific evidence is the same, but the conclusions are different; however, both require some acceptance of non-verifiable phenomena & ideas (i.e., God did it *OR* a simple, basic life form did it by itself).

 

You are confusing the Theory of evolution with the study of Abiogenesis. There are currently few different hypotheses explaining how life could have arisen from complex self-organizing molecules, but no conclusive evidence for these hypotheses yet.

 

The Theory of evolution explains how all the diversity of life that we see today originated from a common ancestor through accumulation of genetic changes over long periods of time. There is overwhelming evidence for the TOE and it is not based on non-verifiable phenomena.

 

 

[Aura]

Why does it seem that everyone assumes that the Bible is speaking literally? I don't believe that. I know others don't believe that, but in this particular thread, either you believe the Bible literally or you don't believe the Bible at all.

 

I believe the Bible is mostly figurative or allegorical, with a bit of historical thrown in---mainly the history of the Jewish nation--so in discussions of creation and damnation and such, what the Bible is saying is relating principles of living, not science. The Bible is not exclusive. God is not damning anyone. There is no one-way trip to eternal damnation. And there is a lot less conflict between what the Bible says and what science says.

 

Believing the Bible is allegorical really changes the way these kind of conversations go. So does anyone else believe the Bible is primarily allegorical or figurative, not literal?

[.Michelle.]

Why does it seem that everyone assumes that the Bible is speaking literally? I don't believe that. I know others don't believe that, but in this particular thread, either you believe the Bible literally or you don't believe the Bible at all.

 

I believe the Bible is mostly figurative or allegorical, with a bit of historical thrown in---mainly the history of the Jewish nation--so in discussions of creation and damnation and such, what the Bible is saying is relating principles of living, not science. The Bible is not exclusive. God is not damning anyone. There is no one-way trip to eternal damnation. And there is a lot less conflict between what the Bible says and what science says.

 

Believing the Bible is allegorical really changes the way these kind of conversations go. So does anyone else believe the Bible is primarily allegorical or figurative, not literal?

 

The Bible is a collection of books.  To say that the Bible as a whole is allegorical or that it is literal is like saying the library is allegorical or literal.  But, yes, I agree with your point.  Some books are historical.  Some are allegorical.  Some are poetry.  Some are folktales.  Some historical books foreshadow other historical books.

[Free]

The difference is in the object of our faith - the collective efforts and intelligence of the human race vs. the concept of an intelligent designer.

 

On what basis should we decide where to place our faith?

 

For example, if I see evidence that modern medicine is effective about 80% of the time vs. traditional medicine which is say effective only 40% of the time, I will place my faith in modern medicine, knowing fully well that I may not be certain of a cure.

 

Similary, I have seen, repeatedly, that humans when they put their minds to it are capable of solving questions which seem unsolvable. On the other hand I have never seen any evidence of a non-human intelligent designer. On what basis should I be placing my faith on this Intelligent Designer?

 

[sunflowerlady]

Why does it seem that everyone assumes that the Bible is speaking literally? I don't believe that. I know others don't believe that, but in this particular thread, either you believe the Bible literally or you don't believe the Bible at all.

 

I believe the Bible is mostly figurative or allegorical, with a bit of historical thrown in---mainly the history of the Jewish nation--so in discussions of creation and damnation and such, what the Bible is saying is relating principles of living, not science. The Bible is not exclusive. God is not damning anyone. There is no one-way trip to eternal damnation. And there is a lot less conflict between what the Bible says and what science says.

 

Believing the Bible is allegorical really changes the way these kind of conversations go. So does anyone else believe the Bible is primarily allegorical or figurative, not literal?

Aura, speaking only for myself, I never spent any time in churches that teach scripture in the way you describe. My experience is with fundamentalist and very conservative Evangelical churches. They use the term "Bible believing" to self identify as the "real" Christians who really believe the word of God.

 

Six day creation-yep

Noah and flood-yes

Jonah swallowed and spit out by giant fish-check

Walls of Jericho falling at sound- absolutely

 

Christians who did not believe these sorts of things as literal would have been looked at as liberal compromisers.

 

So that is why I was genuinely surprised to hear the belief that heaven is not a place and that streets of gold and such were allegorical.

 

Now I am away from those types of churches and am glad of it. I am just trying to work through what I do or do not believe at this point.

 

And this illustrates my earlier points of all the different Christian viewpoints and which one is the "right" one.

[Aura]

Aura, speaking only for myself, I never spent any time in churches that teach scripture in the way you describe. My experience is with fundamentalist and very conservative Evangelical churches. They use the term "Bible believing" to self identify as the "real" Christians who really believe the word of God.

 

Six day creation-yep

Noah and flood-yes

Jonah swallowed and spit out by giant fish-check

Walls of Jericho falling at sound- absolutely

 

Christians who did not believe these sorts of things as literal would have been looked at as liberal compromisers.

 

I absolutely get this! I have never been to church that believes like I do either. "Real" Christians believe all those things. If you don't, you're not a real Christian.  :rolleyes:  But I know that there are other churches that do believe the Bible is mostly figurative. My brother goes to one. And I know that there are many people who believe this, too, even here on TWM, but they just seem to be absent in this thread. I'm wondering why.

So that is why I was genuinely surprised to hear the belief that heaven is not a place and that streets of gold and such were allegorical.

 

Now I am away from those types of churches and am glad of it. I am just trying to work through what I do or do not believe at this point.

 

And this illustrates my earlier points of all the different Christian viewpoints and which one is the "right" one.

 

I agree. 

 

[Matryoshka]

Believing the Bible is allegorical really changes the way these kind of conversations go. So does anyone else believe the Bible is primarily allegorical or figurative, not literal?

 

I think most 'mainline' Protestant groups think this way of the Bible (with parts of it being historical, but not all), along with the Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

 

This whole 'literal Bible' thing is pretty much an American conservative/Evangelical Protestant thing.  And this is part of why they keep saying the above groups are not "real" Christians.  (I think the other big part is 'accepting Jesus as your personal savior', which has also not been part of the other traditions).  I think a lot of this thinking came out of the Second Great Awakening, which is quite recent historically.

[albeto.]

Again, you're asserting something that no theologian has.  It's always been stated that God exists outside of creation.  The Creator is not subject to His creation.  It has never been posited that God is tucked away in some corner of the universe.  God is outside of nature, outside of time, outside of the physical laws of the universe, and, yes, outside of human logic.  This isn't moving the goalposts.  This is the field as it has always been.

 

The video presents a logical argument for the reasonableness of believing in the god of the bible. Either we can use our logic and reason to explore the god of the bible, or our logic and reason is unable to address this problem as the very subject lies outside its parameters, and is therefore irrelevant. So which is it? Is it reasonable to believe in God as the video suggests, or is belief beyond reason? It makes sense to me that belief is beyond reason, it requires faith. In fact, that's precisely what faith is - belief without reason or evidence. But then to appeal to reason only so far as God can be held accountable to reason is a bit of a bait and switch tactic, and moves the goal posts according to the standard of reason subjectively determined by any individual. To Cricket, faith is applied at a different point with regards to understanding of the world than Aura applies it. So who's right (rhetorical question)? How would one know (not rhetorical)? 

 

I've used "belief" in a casual way.  I disagree with you that applying the theory of evolution disproves God.  God is the Creator of all and exists outside of creation.  The natural processes of our existence do not disprove His existence.  To make a really bad analogy, the fact that my children's hearts beat on their own doesn't mean I didn't give birth to them.

 

I understand you used it casually, but it contributes to the confusion because it's really not an accurate word to use here. But to be clear, I didn't suggest the theory of evolution disproves God, only that it doesn't include God in the explanation of biodiversity. God is superfluously tacked on, or rather it's left on, given less and less wiggle room as Christians increasingly understand and accept evolution (or any scientific theory, is the point). 

 

Holding faith as the pinnacle does not suppress reason.  It's a conversation I often have with my children.  "Would you rather be smart, happy, or good?"  It's not that being smart or being happy are bad.  It's just that being good is better than being either.  Beyond that, my religion has been a patron of science and reason throughout history.

 

I disagree that faith does not suppress reason. Faith is defined by believing in a thing without evidence. When evidence exists to the contrary of a faith claim, then to maintain that faith claim is to suppress reason. I don't mean one applies either faith or reason entirely, but at some point in one's faith, there exists the abdication of reason in favor of maintaining a particular faith claim. For creationists for example, that point is closer to a literal reading of the bible. On the other end of the spectrum, it's drawn where science is less known, and answers are still speculative. No one abdicates reason altogether, only when it conflicts with the faith claim they believe to be true in spite of a lack of evidence or contrary to known evidence. 

 

This is the same point as above.  And, frankly, it disproves your point.  The prayer itself asserts that liberty, memory, understanding, and free will are all gifts from our Creator.  This one person, St. Ignatius, is offering them all back to God because it is enough for him to have God's love and grace.  He's saying that all of those other things would be nothing without God's love and grace.  To make another bad analogy, it's like a child whose every material need is provided for but whose parents don't love him.  How many would give back all of the toys to have the true love of a parent?

 

In Catholic theology, there are two kinds of grace, actual and sanctifying. Sin reduces the amount of actual grace in the soul, and that is understood to have negative practical applications. It's why one goes to the sacrament of reconciliation for even venial sins. The more autonomy one has, the more pride, the more sin, the less grace. St. Ignatius was offering up that which might cause temptation to sin - autonomy, reason, free will. After all, the argument goes, what good is all the intellect if it keeps one from divine union? Why put off today what one will just have to do tomorrow (purge oneself from sin before justification can be complete, otherwise understood as Purgatory)? St. Ignatius is illustrating the virtue of abdicating reason insofar as it interferes with faith, and I'd say even as the god of the gaps gets compressed into tinier and tinier gaps, there still comes at some point a line to cross between faith and reason. At some point, one may choose to apply St. Ignatius' approach and give over reason for the sake of maintaining faith. 

 

 What is the same argument that wouldn't be accepted for the revolution of the sun around the earth?

 

The argument from incredulity Cricket appealed to upthread. She applied it to human behavior, and I suspect if someone were to come and apply it to the revolution of the earth, they would not get such support from this community (or most communities). 

[unsinkable]

The video presents a logical argument for the reasonableness of believing in the god of the bible. Either we can use our logic and reason to explore the god of the bible, or our logic and reason is unable to address this problem as the very subject lies outside its parameters, and is therefore irrelevant. So which is it? Is it reasonable to believe in God as the video suggests, or is belief beyond reason? It makes sense to me that belief is beyond reason, it requires faith. In fact, that's precisely what faith is - belief without reason or evidence. But then to appeal to reason only so far as God can be held accountable to reason is a bit of a bait and switch tactic, and moves the goal posts according to the standard of reason subjectively determined by any individual. To Cricket, faith is applied at a different point with regards to understanding of the world than Aura applies it. So who's right (rhetorical question)? How would one know (not rhetorical)?

 

 

I understand you used it casually, but it contributes to the confusion because it's really not an accurate word to use here. But to be clear, I didn't suggest the theory of evolution disproves God, only that it doesn't include God in the explanation of biodiversity. God is superfluously tacked on, or rather it's left on, given less and less wiggle room as Christians increasingly understand and accept evolution (or any scientific theory, is the point).

 

 

I disagree that faith does not suppress reason. Faith is defined by believing in a thing without evidence. When evidence exists to the contrary of a faith claim, then to maintain that faith claim is to suppress reason. I don't mean one applies either faith or reason entirely, but at some point in one's faith, there exists the abdication of reason in favor of maintaining a particular faith claim. For creationists for example, that point is closer to a literal reading of the bible. On the other end of the spectrum, it's drawn where science is less known, and answers are still speculative. No one abdicates reason altogether, only when it conflicts with the faith claim they believe to be true in spite of a lack of evidence or contrary to known evidence.

 

 

In Catholic theology, there are two kinds of sin, actual and sanctifying. Sin reduces the amount of actual grace in the soul, and that is understood to have negative practical applications. It's why one goes to the sacrament of reconciliation for even venial sins. The more autonomy one has, the more pride, the more sin, the less grace. St. Ignatius was offering up that which might cause temptation to sin - autonomy, reason, free will. After all, the argument goes, what good is all the intellect if it keeps one from divine union? Why put off today what one will just have to do tomorrow (purge oneself from sin before justification can be complete, otherwise understood as Purgatory)? St. Ignatius is illustrating the virtue of abdicating reason insofar as it interferes with faith, and I'd say even as the god of the gaps gets compressed into tinier and tinier gaps, there still comes at some point a line to cross between faith and reason. At some point, one may choose to apply St. Ignatius' approach and give over reason for the sake of maintaining faith.

 

 

The argument from incredulity Cricket appealed to upthread. She applied it to human behavior, and I suspect if someone were to come and apply it to the revolution of the earth, they would not get such support from this community (or most communities).

There is sanctifying GRACE and actual GRACE.

 

And there is mortal SIN and venial SIN.

 

It seems like you flubbed them up.

[HRAAB]

. 

 

 

In Catholic theology, there are two kinds of sin, actual and sanctifying. Sin reduces the amount of actual grace in the soul, and that is understood to have negative practical applications. It's why one goes to the sacrament of reconciliation for even venial sins. The more autonomy one has, the more pride, the more sin, the less grace. St. Ignatius was offering up that which might cause temptation to sin - autonomy, reason, free will. After all, the argument goes, what good is all the intellect if it keeps one from divine union? Why put off today what one will just have to do tomorrow (purge oneself from sin before justification can be complete, otherwise understood as Purgatory)? St. Ignatius is illustrating the virtue of abdicating reason insofar as it interferes with faith, and I'd say even as the god of the gaps gets compressed into tinier and tinier gaps, there still comes at some point a line to cross between faith and reason. At some point, one may choose to apply St. Ignatius' approach and give over reason for the sake of maintaining faith. 

 

 

 

The two kinds of sin are venial and mortal.  There are two kinds of grace: sanctifying and actual.  

 

I know you know that  :001_smile: .

 

I appreciate you putting into words what I'm thinking but am totally incapable of articulating

[.Michelle.]

The video presents a logical argument for the reasonableness of believing in the god of the bible. Either we can use our logic and reason to explore the god of the bible, or our logic and reason is unable to address this problem as the very subject lies outside its parameters, and is therefore irrelevant. So which is it? Is it reasonable to believe in God as the video suggests, or is belief beyond reason? It makes sense to me that belief is beyond reason, it requires faith. In fact, that's precisely what faith is - belief without reason or evidence. But then to appeal to reason only so far as God can be held accountable to reason is a bit of a bait and switch tactic, and moves the goal posts according to the standard of reason subjectively determined by any individual. To Cricket, faith is applied at a different point with regards to understanding of the world than Aura applies it. So who's right (rhetorical question)? How would one know (not rhetorical)? 

 

I'm still not sure what you're disagreeing about.  The video is specifically about whether or not the universe began at a specific point in time and whether all things that begin at a specific point in time have a cause.  It actually doesn't really go into "the god of the bible."  It's about a first cause or unmoved mover.  It's taking us back to the point when the universe and all of its natural processes sprung into being and then asking, what caused the universe to happen?  It's very obvious to me that we cannot use the laws and logic of this universe to explain what happened before this universe existed.  It is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

I understand you used it casually, but it contributes to the confusion because it's really not an accurate word to use here. But to be clear, I didn't suggest the theory of evolution disproves God, only that it doesn't include God in the explanation of biodiversity. God is superfluously tacked on, or rather it's left on, given less and less wiggle room as Christians increasingly understand and accept evolution (or any scientific theory, is the point). 

 

Again, I disagree.  The existence of God is not tacked on.  Without God, there is no existence.  Everything exists because of God.  I know you disagree, but I don't think you really understand what people are saying when they say that God is the cause of everything.  It is not a line of reasoning that says, oh, we don't know why this happens, so it must be God doing it.  Everything is because God Is.  So when we, through our human intellect, discover the natural processes that occur throughout the universe and use science to test and experiment with these processes, it doesn't diminish God as the Creator of all creation.

 

I disagree that faith does not suppress reason. Faith is defined by believing in a thing without evidence. When evidence exists to the contrary of a faith claim, then to maintain that faith claim is to suppress reason. I don't mean one applies either faith or reason entirely, but at some point in one's faith, there exists the abdication of reason in favor of maintaining a particular faith claim. For creationists for example, that point is closer to a literal reading of the bible. On the other end of the spectrum, it's drawn where science is less known, and answers are still speculative. No one abdicates reason altogether, only when it conflicts with the faith claim they believe to be true in spite of a lack of evidence or contrary to known evidence. 

 

And again, I disagree.  I'm assuming that I'm on the other end of the spectrum, but I don't assume a supernatural explanation for areas of knowledge which haven't been fully explored by science.  I don't hold to a "here there be dragons" approach to science.  I also would disagree with your definition of faith.  Again, I know that you will disagree with what I am about to quote from the Catechism, but I'm not trying to make you believe this.  I just want you to see that you are inaccurate in what you seem to think that I believe.  From CCC159:

 

"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.  Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.  The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

 

In Catholic theology, there are two kinds of sin, actual and sanctifying. Sin reduces the amount of actual grace in the soul, and that is understood to have negative practical applications. It's why one goes to the sacrament of reconciliation for even venial sins. The more autonomy one has, the more pride, the more sin, the less grace. St. Ignatius was offering up that which might cause temptation to sin - autonomy, reason, free will. After all, the argument goes, what good is all the intellect if it keeps one from divine union? Why put off today what one will just have to do tomorrow (purge oneself from sin before justification can be complete, otherwise understood as Purgatory)? St. Ignatius is illustrating the virtue of abdicating reason insofar as it interferes with faith, and I'd say even as the god of the gaps gets compressed into tinier and tinier gaps, there still comes at some point a line to cross between faith and reason. At some point, one may choose to apply St. Ignatius' approach and give over reason for the sake of maintaining faith. 

 

In Catholic theology, there are two kinds of grace: actual and sanctifying.  The two kinds of sins are venial and mortal.  Mortal sin makes us enemies of God and robs are souls of grace.  Venial sin is displeasing to God, but does not rob our souls of grace.  The sacrament of reconciliation is not required for venial sins, only mortal.  Venial sins are forgiven through participation in the Mass and reception of the Eucharist.  I think you are ascribing motivations to St. Ignatius based on your own belief... not his.  God gave us free will.  God gave us reason.  We can be autonomous and rational without sinning through pride.  St. Ignatius is not illustrating the virtue of abdicating reason because abdicating reason is not a virtue.  St. Ignatius is saying that all of those gifts are nothing compared to the love and grace of God. 

 

CCC1804: "Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith.  They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life.  The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.

 

The moral virtues are acquired by human effort, through education and deliberate acts, but they are elevated by grace.

 

The argument from incredulity Cricket appealed to upthread. She applied it to human behavior, and I suspect if someone were to come and apply it to the revolution of the earth, they would not get such support from this community (or most communities). 

 

I'll leave that for Cricket to explain because I've pretty much lost the thread of that conversation.

 

[albeto.]

Still not clear on this - how does the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of the existence of God alter or dismiss the theory of gravity? (Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense; I don't see how either theory excludes the other.)

 

Either gravity explains why an object falls, or God's pulling it down to the earth does. Is God directing gravity every time, or did God create the theory and set it into motion? In either case, it's imposing a variable into the theory that doesn't exist. It's a different theory now. The new theory [God looks like / manages gravity] is accepted in lieu of the standard one, the purely natural explanation. 

 

This is sort of the same as what Michelle is saying (I think) - God is not part of his creation, so he transcends it, encompasses it. The ability to live again after death is something that is supra-rational to me; as a finite, limited creation, I don't understand it. And yet, it's not irrational to consider that the God who IS Life, who created life, is able to live in ways we cannot.

 

The idea of an immortal soul is natural to human behavior. This isn't a Christian concept or even a religious one. The video I linked on page one of this thread offers a natural explanation for this phenomenon. This explanation does not require faith to be accepted. It can be (and has been, and is continuing to be) scrutinized, details painstakingly explored, falsified, compared and contrasted to other studies in related research, analyzed, reviewed, and essentially undergoes all kinds of nit picking until those knowledgeable in a field of science accept is as being an accurate explanation. If it's not accepted, it will be due to evidence that suggests a different explanation. I suspect it's pretty accurate, and new information will modify what we understand today, but not change it in any fundamental way. 

 

But back to the question, the doctrines related to eternal life include eternal pain and torment. Think about that for a minute. Not only does our moral code generally respond to torture with disdain (clever euphemisms reducing this cognitive dissonance notwithstanding), but eternal torture is morally abhorrent by our standards. Whether one considers eternity in a physical, literal Hell, or being trapped with a divine creature they loathe with no possibility of parole, this idea would be repulsive to us in any other context. Imagine if I were to suggest that children who don't graduate high school ought to be tortured for 40 years, then let go and allowed to work off their debt to society? You'd think I was a cruel, sadistic psychopath. But at least the children would have the opportunity to graduate because they'd all be in school anyway, and the torture would have a time limit. In the Christian religion, a person who does not hear or cannot in good conscience believe the biography of the Christ is punished for eternity. Eternity. This isn't just "beyond our ways," but in every way antithetical to our moral code. I'm leaving out JW and Mormon beliefs for the time being, but the similar logical and ethical problems apply. The crime that bears punishment here is lack of faith. It is in every way, a thought crime. That's repugnant to our moral code, one that values and celebrates freedom, and yet an integral part of the beliefs pertaining to eternal life in the Christian religion. 

 

Well, scientific proof requires the ability to observe and also to repeat, right? The theories of origins of life are neither observable nor repeatable, right? The fact is that we're not 100% sure when / how / where non-living chemicals and elements first became living - an evolutionary approach to biogenesis considers that that life was self-actualized (if I'm understanding correctly); an Intelligent Design approach considers that a powerful being infused the chemicals and elements with life. The scientific evidence is the same, but the conclusions are different; however, both require some acceptance of non-verifiable phenomena & ideas (i.e., God did it *OR* a simple, basic life form did it by itself). 

 

Not necessarily. Taniqua linked a couple articles explaining how this works. Maybe she can link them again? Free already addressed the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, but in reply to your comment, being 100% sure is never an expectation. For every fact we uncover, the details about that fact lead to more questions. We can never expect 100% accuracy with regard to understanding anything, and that's not a problem anywhere else. If you feed your children vegetables even if they'd rather more flavorful, less nutritious food, you will be applying the idea that you don't need to know 100% about nutrition to know that broccoli is healthier than a snickers. That's very simplified, but illustrates the point I think. We may not know the exact time and day abiogenesis occurred in any given environment, but we know how how evolution guided the process of life to the point we see today. I'm not sure what you mean by self actualization in this context, but the scientific evidence is not the same with regard to abiogenesis and ID. There exists no evidence for an intelligent designer. This is a concept born from Christian theology that presumes the story in Genesis is accurate to some extent. NOVA has an interesting program about the battle between the Dover school district and creationists [Intelligent Design on Trial]. This illustrates the correlation between the argument of ID and the Christian doctrine of creationism. 

 

My main point is that just because Christianity doesn't have all the answers doesn't make it an inferior conclusion.

 

If we're talking about explaining the natural world (gravity, heliocentrism, evolution, etc), if a faith based answer lacks the insight and information an evidence based answer provides, why would it not be understood to be inferior? Would you say the same about the Shinto religion? It offers concepts such as kami to explain the natural world. Is that on equal par with gravity as well? 

 

(I am terrible at tone on the internet; please hear the questions as humble, thinking, willing to be corrected, truly curious. And if I am misunderstanding, I'd appreciate the help there, too.) And now, off to work for most of the weekend . . .

 

Fwiw, I think you're doing just fine. :)

[albeto.]

Why does it seem that everyone assumes that the Bible is speaking literally? I don't believe that. I know others don't believe that, but in this particular thread, either you believe the Bible literally or you don't believe the Bible at all.

 

I believe the Bible is mostly figurative or allegorical, with a bit of historical thrown in---mainly the history of the Jewish nation--so in discussions of creation and damnation and such, what the Bible is saying is relating principles of living, not science. The Bible is not exclusive. God is not damning anyone. There is no one-way trip to eternal damnation. And there is a lot less conflict between what the Bible says and what science says.

 

Believing the Bible is allegorical really changes the way these kind of conversations go. So does anyone else believe the Bible is primarily allegorical or figurative, not literal?

 

I think the reason this conversation reflects a literal interpretation is because that's the point of view of many who are responding. 

 

In reply to your comment, I think an allegorical reading of the bible is fare more reasonable than a literal reading, but it does raise the question, what parts are literal? Did Jesus literally come back from the dead? Does his blood literally cleans one from sin? Did he exist as a real person or as a kind of spiritual figurehead? Is eternal life an expectation in any way? Does "sin" explain human behavior? Those questions are interesting to me, too. 

[albeto.]

There is sanctifying GRACE and actual GRACE.

 

And there is mortal SIN and venial SIN.

 

It seems like you flubbed them up.

 

Thanks for the heads up. That was indeed a typo. Off to edit...

[albeto.]

The two kinds of sin are venial and mortal.  There are two kinds of grace: sanctifying and actual.  

 

I know you know that  :001_smile: .

 

I appreciate you putting into words what I'm thinking but am totally incapable of articulating

 

I blame [lack of] coffee. 

[Scarlett]

Alberto said>>>But back to the question, the doctrines related to eternal life include eternal pain and torment. Think about that for a minute. Not only does our moral code generally respond to torture with disdain (clever euphemisms reducing this cognitive dissonance notwithstanding), but eternal torture is morally abhorrent by our standards. Whether one considers eternity in a physical, literal Hell, or being trapped with a divine creature they loathe with no possibility of parole, this idea would be repulsive to us in any other context. Imagine if I were to suggest that children who don't graduate high school ought to be tortured for 40 years, then let go and allowed to work off their debt to society? You'd think I was a cruel, sadistic psychopath. But at least the children would have the opportunity to graduate because they'd all be in school anyway, and the torture would have a time limit. In the Christian religion, a person who does not hear or cannot in good conscience believe the biography of the Christ is punished for eternity. Eternity. This isn't just "beyond our ways," but in every way antithetical to our moral code. I'm leaving out JW and Mormon beliefs for the time being, but the similar logical and ethical problems apply. The crime that bears punishment here is lack of faith. It is in every way, a thought crime. That's repugnant to our moral code, one that values and celebrates freedom, and yet an integral part of the beliefs pertaining to eternal life in the Christian religion. >>>

 

Thank you for pointing out JWs do not believe in immortality of the soul or in eternal torment.

[albeto.]

I'm still not sure what you're disagreeing about.  The video is specifically about whether or not the universe began at a specific point in time and whether all things that begin at a specific point in time have a cause.  It actually doesn't really go into "the god of the bible."  It's about a first cause or unmoved mover.  It's taking us back to the point when the universe and all of its natural processes sprung into being and then asking, what caused the universe to happen?  It's very obvious to me that we cannot use the laws and logic of this universe to explain what happened before this universe existed.  It is putting the cart before the horse.

 

At minute 3:25, the video gets into the God stuff. At minute 3:50 it specifically references the god of the bible as the cause for the existence of the universe. 

 

Using logic is always appropriate when analyzing data, and data is all we have to analyze, even against such big questions as the origins of the universe. 

 

Again, I disagree.  The existence of God is not tacked on.  Without God, there is no existence.  Everything exists because of God.  I know you disagree, but I don't think you really understand what people are saying when they say that God is the cause of everything.  It is not a line of reasoning that says, oh, we don't know why this happens, so it must be God doing it.  Everything is because God Is.  So when we, through our human intellect, discover the natural processes that occur throughout the universe and use science to test and experiment with these processes, it doesn't diminish God as the Creator of all creation.

 

I think I do understand, and at one time I believed very much as you do, so I'm not at all unfamiliar with the arguments. I'm suggesting that at some point one must accept a claim on faith because faith accepts a thing to be true despite lack of evidence. For the Catholic, this means faith in the god of the Catholic church, as revealed through the bible and the magesterium of the CC (specifically 142-155) . For example, you say without God there is no existence. There simply is no evidence to support such a claim, and in fact when appealing to nothing more than natural explanations, existence can be accounted for. The explanation for existence doesn't require any god variables to make reasonable sense, and because these god variables are not predicated on any evidence, and originate with the Judeo-Christian faith, we know they are faith-based claims, believed in spite of the lack of evidence. 

 

And again, I disagree.  I'm assuming that I'm on the other end of the spectrum, but I don't assume a supernatural explanation for areas of knowledge which haven't been fully explored by science.  I don't hold to a "here there be dragons" approach to science.  I also would disagree with your definition of faith.  Again, I know that you will disagree with what I am about to quote from the Catechism, but I'm not trying to make you believe this.  I just want you to see that you are inaccurate in what you seem to think that I believe.  From CCC159:

 

"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.  Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.  The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

 

lol, same link as I just posted. Great minds think alike, eh? ;)

 

In answer to this point, "there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason," is not only obviously fabricated and arguably self-important, but contradicts itself in the very next sentence. The idea that God revealed mysteries that are otherwise unknowable to humanity is an unreasonable claim simply because there exists no evidence to give reason to such a being. There exists no evidence that confirms the existence of this God being, or any revelation of any information. It is as unreasonable to believe it's true anyway as it is to believe kami exist, despite the lack of evidence and all the evidence to the contrary. Your god alone of all the gods that have ever existed and exist today supposedly gets a pass when it comes to believing without evidence, and that doesn't reflect a reasonable position. It reflects a position of faith, and the two are mutually exclusive despite the assurances of the church itself. 

 

In Catholic theology, there are two kinds of grace: actual and sanctifying.  The two kinds of sins are venial and mortal.  Mortal sin makes us enemies of God and robs are souls of grace.  Venial sin is displeasing to God, but does not rob our souls of grace.  The sacrament of reconciliation is not required for venial sins, only mortal.  Venial sins are forgiven through participation in the Mass and reception of the Eucharist.  I think you are ascribing motivations to St. Ignatius based on your own belief... not his.  God gave us free will.  God gave us reason.  We can be autonomous and rational without sinning through pride.  St. Ignatius is not illustrating the virtue of abdicating reason because abdicating reason is not a virtue.  St. Ignatius is saying that all of those gifts are nothing compared to the love and grace of God. 

 

CCC1804: "Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith.  They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life.  The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.

 

The moral virtues are acquired by human effort, through education and deliberate acts, but they are elevated by grace.

 

My typo has been exposed (a number of times!) and subsequently corrected, it now reads there are two kinds of grace, etc. The sacrament of reconciliation is offered even when one does not commit a moral sin. It's encouraged, and if I recall correctly, required (?) at least once per year regardless of any lack of mortal sin. I might be wrong. It's been a while. The point about St. Ignatius refers to abdicating autonomy in hopes of gaining more grace, and all the benefits thereof. He's not the only Saint who references abdicating autonomy in hopes of gaining grace. St. Catherine of Siena, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila were some of my favorite role models as a Catholic. The idea of embracing mortification and of indulgences for the sake of opening one's soul up to receive more grace was very appealing to me, not because I thought of it, but because I learned about it from the Catholic church. These concepts exist specifically because of the tension that exists between reason and faith ("I walk by faith, not by sight," etc). If there exists no tension between reason and faith, then what's the function of faith in your opinion? How would you reply to Heidi or leeannpal who suggest otherwise? 

[albeto.]

Thank you for pointing out JWs do not believe in immortality of the soul or in eternal torment.

 

You're welcome.  :)

 

I don't know much about JW theology, but I understand death is final, there is no expectation of existence or sentience with the exception of the 144,000 who will live in Paradise (forever?). Is that correct? 

[Scarlett]

You're welcome. :)

 

I don't know much about JW theology, but I understand death is final, there is no expectation of existence or sentience with the exception of the 144,000 who will live in Paradise (forever?). Is that correct?

No. :)

 

Not much appeal to that.

 

Anyway, we believe Gods original purpose of perfect humans living on a perfect earth will be realized. That opportunity is open to all of mankind. 144,000 is the number we believe will rule over earth with Christ.

 

Also adding the finality of death comes in because we believe that death is a ceasing to exist state. God of course has the power to restore life to any individual.

[albeto.]

 

 

No.  :)

 

Darn.

 

:laugh:

 

 

Anyway, we believe Gods original purpose of perfect humans living on a perfect earth will be realized. That opportunity is open to all of mankind. 144,000 is the number we believe will rule over earth with Christ.

 

Also adding the finality of death comes in because we believe that death is a ceasing to exist state. God of course has the power to restore life to any individual.

 

That makes sense of the bible verses that refer to ruling over the earth. I always wondered who would need ruling if everyone was a ruler. 

 

By "rule," do you refer to justice, solving disputes and things like this, or more along the lines of having greater privileges? I wonder because if it's the first, the way we think of "ruling" over a land today, would be confusing if the righteous are in Paradise. I wonder what disputes would require rulers to get involved, kwim? 

[.Michelle.]

At minute 3:25, the video gets into the God stuff. At minute 3:50 it specifically references the god of the bible as the cause for the existence of the universe. 

 

Using logic is always appropriate when analyzing data, and data is all we have to analyze, even against such big questions as the origins of the universe. 

 

Yes, but that is because he understands the First Cause or Unmoved Mover to be God.  The argument is not so much "God caused the universe" as it is "the universe had a cause and that cause is what we know as God."

 

I think I do understand, and at one time I believed very much as you do, so I'm not at all unfamiliar with the arguments. I'm suggesting that at some point one must accept a claim on faith because faith accepts a thing to be true despite lack of evidence. For the Catholic, this means faith in the god of the Catholic church, as revealed through the bible and the magesterium of the CC (specifically 142-155) . For example, you say without God there is no existence. There simply is no evidence to support such a claim, and in fact when appealing to nothing more than natural explanations, existence can be accounted for. The explanation for existence doesn't require any god variables to make reasonable sense, and because these god variables are not predicated on any evidence, and originate with the Judeo-Christian faith, we know they are faith-based claims, believed in spite of the lack of evidence. 

 

I do agree that I accept many of the claims of my religion on faith because these have to do with the immaterial world.  But then again, Catholics don't make faith explanations for natural processes.  The Galileo controversy wasn't so much over what he said, but over the fact that he wanted the Church to teach it as a matter of faith, as doctrine.

 

lol, same link as I just posted. Great minds think alike, eh? ;)

 

:001_smile:

 

In answer to this point, "there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason," is not only obviously fabricated and arguably self-important, but contradicts itself in the very next sentence. The idea that God revealed mysteries that are otherwise unknowable to humanity is an unreasonable claim simply because there exists no evidence to give reason to such a being. There exists no evidence that confirms the existence of this God being, or any revelation of any information. It is as unreasonable to believe it's true anyway as it is to believe kami exist, despite the lack of evidence and all the evidence to the contrary. Your god alone of all the gods that have ever existed and exist today supposedly gets a pass when it comes to believing without evidence, and that doesn't reflect a reasonable position. It reflects a position of faith, and the two are mutually exclusive despite the assurances of the church itself. 

 

But the revealed mysteries don't have to do with the material world.  Revealed mysteries are matters of faith like the Trinity.  There is no science that can "discover" matters of faith.  And the Church makes no claim that these revealed mysteries replace the science of the natural world.  You are completely right in the idea that a person in isolation with only secular materials could make great scientific discoveries about the natural world that are accurate and verifiable.  This person could go his entire life without thinking of anything supernatural.  The discoveries he makes about the world would be absolutely true.  But he doesn't, through his discovery, negate the existence of God.  And I can't prove to you that God exists, because that is a matter of faith.  But I don't think you can say to me that the natural processes of the universe prove that he doesn't exist.  Because my faith tells me that none of the natural processes, nor the universe itself, would be here if it were not for God.

 

My typo has been exposed (a number of times!) and subsequently corrected, it now reads there are two kinds of grace, etc. The sacrament of reconciliation is offered even when one does not commit a moral sin. It's encouraged, and if I recall correctly, required (?) at least once per year regardless of any lack of mortal sin. I might be wrong. It's been a while. The point about St. Ignatius refers to abdicating autonomy in hopes of gaining more grace, and all the benefits thereof. He's not the only Saint who references abdicating autonomy in hopes of gaining grace. St. Catherine of Siena, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila were some of my favorite role models as a Catholic. The idea of embracing mortification and of indulgences for the sake of opening one's soul up to receive more grace was very appealing to me, not because I thought of it, but because I learned about it from the Catholic church. These concepts exist specifically because of the tension that exists between reason and faith ("I walk by faith, not by sight," etc). If there exists no tension between reason and faith, then what's the function of faith in your opinion? How would you reply to Heidi or leeannpal who suggest otherwise?

 

I believe the other corrections occurred while I was still typing, so mea culpa.  I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse.   The sacrament of reconciliation is not required once a year.  Reception of the Eucharist is required once a year, and you can't receive in a state of mortal sin so if that applies, a person would need to make a confession prior to receiving.

 

I don't think the prayer from St. Ignatius indicates a tit for tat, though.  My reading of it is that he would be content to give all of those other things back as long as he had the grace and love of God.  Not, "God, give me grace and love and I will give you all of these other gifts."

 

The function of faith?  To know, love, and serve God in the world.  And the function of reason is to help me to understand this world.  Understanding this universe can absolutely be done without faith.  I still believe in God.

 

[albeto.]

Yes, but that is because he understands the First Cause or Unmoved Mover to be God.  The argument is not so much "God caused the universe" as it is "the universe had a cause and that cause is what we know as God."

 

Okay, that's what I thought. ;)

 

I do agree that I accept many of the claims of my religion on faith because these have to do with the immaterial world.  But then again, Catholics don't make faith explanations for natural processes.  The Galileo controversy wasn't so much over what he said, but over the fact that he wanted the Church to teach it as a matter of faith, as doctrine.

 

That's what I'm getting at, and that's all I'm trying to get at. At some point, faith comes into play as certain claims are accepted as true despite a lack of evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary. Not that people go around willy-nilly ignoring things that are obvious (well...), but that at some point, the faithful individual will maintain a claim as being true based on faith alone. 

 

With regard to Galileo, from what source do you learn that he wanted the church to teach his scientific discovery as a matter of faith? 

 

But the revealed mysteries don't have to do with the material world.  Revealed mysteries are matters of faith like the Trinity.  There is no science that can "discover" matters of faith.  And the Church makes no claim that these revealed mysteries replace the science of the natural world.  You are completely right in the idea that a person in isolation with only secular materials could make great scientific discoveries about the natural world that are accurate and verifiable.  This person could go his entire life without thinking of anything supernatural.  The discoveries he makes about the world would be absolutely true.  But he doesn't, through his discovery, negate the existence of God.  And I can't prove to you that God exists, because that is a matter of faith.  But I don't think you can say to me that the natural processes of the universe prove that he doesn't exist.  Because my faith tells me that none of the natural processes, nor the universe itself, would be here if it were not for God.

 

With reference to the first bold, the church takes a very wishy-washy approach in order to change the goalposts as necessary. They didn't formally acknowledge Galileo's findings for some 350 years, and Galileo was placed under house arrest for the crime of heresy. The Inquisition ruled the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith. 

 

With regard to the second bold, I'm not claiming that (and have corrected this assumption already in this thread). No one can prove a negative, and that includes God. What I am saying is that scientific theories don't include supernatural attributions, and so therefore there is no support for the belief in God. Nevertheless, people do believe in god/s for complex reasons, some of which is explored in the video linked on page one of this thread. I guess that means they do have reason to do so, so I'll try not to suggest there's no reason to believe in God, but rather, I should say there's no objective support for the belief in God. 

 

I believe the other corrections occurred while I was still typing, so mea culpa.  I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse.   The sacrament of reconciliation is not required once a year.  Reception of the Eucharist is required once a year, and you can't receive in a state of mortal sin so if that applies, a person would need to make a confession prior to receiving.

 

Huh. And I was so uncomfortable my last confession because I couldn't figure out what I was truly culpable for (when "sin" looses its meaning, it's hard to apply it to your behavior, kwim?). I could have saved myself some discomfort.  :closedeyes:

 

I don't think the prayer from St. Ignatius indicates a tit for tat, though.  My reading of it is that he would be content to give all of those other things back as long as he had the grace and love of God.  Not, "God, give me grace and love and I will give you all of these other gifts."

 

I don't see it like that, either. I see it more like, "Take my autonomy and I'll love you more because I won't be thinking about other stuff so much, and there will be more room for you. I know you like that because it's good for me, so help me do that." It's kind of like taking chocolate out of the house of the person on a diet. He was on a sin diet, if you will, and asked God to take the chocolate (autonomy) out of the house (soul/spirit/will/whatever). 

 

The function of faith?  To know, love, and serve God in the world.  And the function of reason is to help me to understand this world.  Understanding this universe can absolutely be done without faith.  I still believe in God.

 

What understanding do you have about the universe that doesn't apply life on earth?

(except quantum physics, because that's super confusing, lol!) 

[.Michelle.]

Okay, that's what I thought. ;)

 

 

That's what I'm getting at, and that's all I'm trying to get at. At some point, faith comes into play as certain claims are accepted as true despite a lack of evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary. Not that people go around willy-nilly ignoring things that are obvious (well...), but that at some point, the faithful individual will maintain a claim as being true based on faith alone. 

 

With regard to Galileo, from what source do you learn that he wanted the church to teach his scientific discovery as a matter of faith? 

 

With reference to the first bold, the church takes a very wishy-washy approach in order to change the goalposts as necessary. They didn't formally acknowledge Galileo's findings for some 350 years, and Galileo was placed under house arrest for the crime of heresy. The Inquisition ruled the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith. 

 

This seems to be a neutral source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/#4

 

With regard to the second bold, I'm not claiming that (and have corrected this assumption already in this thread). No one can prove a negative, and that includes God. What I am saying is that scientific theories don't include supernatural attributions, and so therefore there is no support for the belief in God. Nevertheless, people do believe in god/s for complex reasons, some of which is explored in the video linked on page one of this thread. I guess that means they do have reason to do so, so I'll try not to suggest there's no reason to believe in God, but rather, I should say there's no objective support for the belief in God. 

 

I can live with that.

 

Huh. And I was so uncomfortable my last confession because I couldn't figure out what I was truly culpable for (when "sin" looses its meaning, it's hard to apply it to your behavior, kwim?). I could have saved myself some discomfort.  :closedeyes:

 

When my oldest made his first confession, he was a touch disappointed that he had no mortal sins to confess.  We had quite a discussion about that.  :lol: 

 

I don't see it like that, either. I see it more like, "Take my autonomy and I'll love you more because I won't be thinking about other stuff so much, and there will be more room for you. I know you like that because it's good for me, so help me do that." It's kind of like taking chocolate out of the house of the person on a diet. He was on a sin diet, if you will, and asked God to take the chocolate (autonomy) out of the house (soul/spirit/will/whatever). 

 

I still don't think that's what he was getting at, but so be it.  It's rather like poetry.  We'll see it through our own filters.

 

What understanding do you have about the universe that doesn't apply life on earth?

(except quantum physics, because that's super confusing, lol!) 

 

I'm using 'world' and 'universe' interchangeably here.  Philosophically, I consider the whole universe to be our world.  I hope our knowledge of our 'world' grows more and more with each generation.

 

[albeto.]

I'm using 'world' and 'universe' interchangeably here.  Philosophically, I consider the whole universe to be our world.  I hope our knowledge of our 'world' grows more and more with each generation.

 

Gotcha. In reference to the bolded part, I wonder what understanding the bible provides that hasn't already been discovered and explained through natural means. 

[.Michelle.]

Are you asking about scientific understanding that the Bible provides that can't be explained by natural means? Because I would say nothing. If you look at that link on Galileo, one of the key points is that when science proves something to be true, the Bible must be read in light of that truth.

 

The understanding that the Bible provides that can't be provided by natural means are matters of faith.

 

Edited to correct autocorrect.

Edited April 17, 2015 by .Michelle.

[Cricket]

Miss a day and miss a lot.  :001_smile:  The conversation has moved on but since I keep being brought up for my incredulity, maybe I’ll explain that statement further.  All I meant was that science doesn’t answer the questions I have, not that science is incapable of explaining how the natural world functions.  I don’t see how science can answer my questions because science doesn’t deal with purpose, only observable natural phenomena.  It doesn’t touch on the essential question of why we are here.  Some people are content with the answer that there is no answer.  I’m not.  The basic principle of biology is life comes from life (well, except the one-time instance in the murky beginnings of history where it didn’t).  It’s logical within the framework of modern scientific thinking to assume that there was life that begat life on this planet because everything we have observed tells us that only life produces life.  (Someone upthread posted some theories about how life began so hopefully I’ll have some time to look those over because that would be interesting.)  If there is life outside of our creation/universe/realm/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, that is fascinating.  Something that existed before the beginning of the universe is naturally outside of it, not part of it.  Even if you only assume matter and energy have always been here, then you are still talking about the eternal.  All very interesting.  I don’t understand how people can brush these ideas aside. 

 

Just an observation, incredulity is on both sides.  Many here can’t believe in God because he doesn’t fit what they think God should be.  The basic argument seems to boil down to “I can’t believe in a God like thatâ€â€”presumably the Christian definition of God—but there is no explanation as to how they arrive at their definition of God and what they think he should be like, if in fact he exists.

[Scarlett]

 

 

 

Darn.

 

:laugh:

 

 

 

That makes sense of the bible verses that refer to ruling over the earth. I always wondered who would need ruling if everyone was a ruler.

 

By "rule," do you refer to justice, solving disputes and things like this, or more along the lines of having greater privileges? I wonder because if it's the first, the way we think of "ruling" over a land today, would be confusing if the righteous are in Paradise. I wonder what disputes would require rulers to get involved, kwim?

Nothing to me indicates it would involve greater privilege...but then again I have zero desire to go to heaven, so I don't know. Ruling, I imagine would involve many things.....not that perfect people would be in disputes necessarily but I imagine an earth full of people would require some oversite.

[albeto.]

Are you asking about scientific understanding that the Bible provides that can't be explained by natural means? Because I would say nothing. If you look at that link on Galileo, one of the key points is that when science proves something to be true, the Bible must be read in light of that truth.

 

The understanding that the Bible provides that can't be provided by natural means are matters of faith.

 

Edited to correct autocorrect.

 

I'm asking what knowledge has been provided by the bible and not natural means. What piece of knowledge has humanity come to learn by divine revelation?

[albeto.]

Miss a day and miss a lot.  :001_smile:  The conversation has moved on but since I keep being brought up for my incredulity, maybe I’ll explain that statement further.  All I meant was that science doesn’t answer the questions I have, not that science is incapable of explaining how the natural world functions.  I don’t see how science can answer my questions because science doesn’t deal with purpose, only observable natural phenomena.  It doesn’t touch on the essential question of why we are here.  Some people are content with the answer that there is no answer.  I’m not.  The basic principle of biology is life comes from life (well, except the one-time instance in the murky beginnings of history where it didn’t).  It’s logical within the framework of modern scientific thinking to assume that there was life that begat life on this planet because everything we have observed tells us that only life produces life.  (Someone upthread posted some theories about how life began so hopefully I’ll have some time to look those over because that would be interesting.)  If there is life outside of our creation/universe/realm/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, that is fascinating.  Something that existed before the beginning of the universe is naturally outside of it, not part of it.  Even if you only assume matter and energy have always been here, then you are still talking about the eternal.  All very interesting.  I don’t understand how people can brush these ideas aside. 

 

Just an observation, incredulity is on both sides.  Many here can’t believe in God because he doesn’t fit what they think God should be.  The basic argument seems to boil down to “I can’t believe in a God like thatâ€â€”presumably the Christian definition of God—but there is no explanation as to how they arrive at their definition of God and what they think he should be like, if in fact he exists.

 

My dispute with your comment had to do with the idea that because you don't know how science explains certain things, your explanation ought to be considered to be just as valid. With human behavior that seems to be a common idea, so I'm sorry to have picked on you. You just happened to have made the comment that caught my attention. 

 

Thanks for the clarification, though. For my part, the answer is 42. ;) 

 

Seriously though, it's the wrong question. It's the wrong question because purpose implies intent and that implies a subject with intent. As there does not seem to be any support for the idea of a subject behind nature, there is no reason to suppose intent, there is no reason to presume purpose. You might as well ask what color is love, or how high is happiness. These things may have different meaning in different cultures, but there is no right or wrong answer because love and happiness refer to complex human emotions, governed by many, many variables, many of which might not yet have been discovered. They're not colors or distance, and so asking about them in that context would be subjective, but not right or wrong. 

 

Just an observation, incredulity is on both sides.  Many here can’t believe in God because he doesn’t fit what they think God should be.  The basic argument seems to boil down to “I can’t believe in a God like thatâ€â€”presumably the Christian definition of God—but there is no explanation as to how they arrive at their definition of God and what they think he should be like, if in fact he exists.

 

An argument from incredulity refers to the idea that because a claim is difficult to understand, or one is not aware of how it works, it's probably not true. That doesn't apply to atheism because there is no claim about who or what God is, there are only speculations based on subjective variables, accepted in faith to be true. 

[Aelwydd]

From the Catechism:

 

 

Again, I can only answer from my faith which is why I quote directly from the Catechism.

 

The only proof are edicts from a male-only elite group of very powerful individuals, who claim to have derived their authority from a combination of previous elite, powerful people and a collection of books they, themselves, picked out as agreeing with their agenda (Nicea ~300 AD).  This same group has had numerous issues throughout the centuries with hunting down midwives and witches (to stamp out any hint of female reproductive control), championed the Holy Wars that killed and decimated countless many, basically supplanted and almost thoroughly stamped out the native cultures of South and Central Americas, ruthlessly suppressed non-Catholic, non-approved books, persecuted Jews, competed with their savage Protestant cousins in martyring each other, employed its own miltary arm to conquer and menace non-Catholic countries, spread deadly pathogens through their missionaries and their colonists, taxed England to the bone, inflicted the Inquisition on a terrorized populace, castrated countless poor boys to sweeten the ears of the church hierarchy because women's voices were too offensive to be heard at all in church, and basically condemned the United States from the beginning, due to its so-called "American Heresy" of separating church from state.  To date, the US, along with France, are the only two countries to have their very own named heresies, courtesy of the Vatican.

 

That's not even touching on the investigations being led into Mother Theresa's alleged abuse of poor Indians, nor the worldwide phenomenon of growing, hiding, moving around, and defending child rapists. According to the pope, only 2% of Catholic priests are pedophiles. Only. Taking into account how most rapes are never even reported, I'm betting it's a damn sight higher than that.  Guess what, scientific studies disagree with the Church, stating in the US, it is has ranged from about 6% to 10%, which is still likely a low estimate. And even if it was not, if someone lined up 100 men and told me I was ok to send my child to spend time with them, because only 5 to 10 of them would molest or rape my child, I'd tell that person how many orifices they could go **** themselves.

 

Now, you may read all that and think, gee, I must be anti-catholic, and be a wicked hater, just completely misrepresenting an organization that has done so much, like feed the poor and build hospitals. Well, I'm not bringing this up to hate on the RCC, but to point out it has a very longstanding credibility issue.

 

If the Church is going to claim it has received a Deposit of Faith, from the Supreme, All Powerful, Holy and Just Ruler of the Universe, then it had better back that claim up with showing itself to be a higher standard than the rest of humanity. If all it offers is the same poor treatment of humanity that can be found everywhere, and in fact, in many cases, acts even more terribly, I ain't gonna believe shit from them.

 

So, do humans have souls? Who knows?  But, I do not consider the RCC's hierarchy to be a trustworthy source of truth and transparency on the issue.

[.Michelle.]

Thanks. I will give that all the consideration it deserves.

[.Michelle.]

I'm asking what knowledge has been provided by the bible and not natural means. What piece of knowledge has humanity come to learn by divine revelation?

 

Knowledge of God.

[albeto.]

Knowledge of God.

 

What knowledge exists? To the best of my understanding, there is only belief. 

[Aelwydd]

What knowledge exists? To the best of my understanding, there is only belief. 

 

 

My belief in a personal God ended with the issues of theodicy. Explain to me why a personal, all powerful, all holy, fundamentally good God would bless a 9 year old with a baby.  So God is responsible for ensouling every zygote on the planet.  He decides to green light the 38 year old-on-a-9 year old union, but meanwhile, faithful the world over can't get pregnant, or suffer multiple miscarriages.

 

There is no justification for that. Full stop. No excuses. No explaining that away.  If God is so wise, why is it even my dog would know to stop the attack of a grown man on a child, but God stands by and uses it to create His next mini-Me?

 

Better an indifferent, uncaring, totally random cosmos, or a unconscious "force/ divine energy."  Imagine an eternity with the Father who tacitly condoned, and even cooperated in such an event as a rape conception. 

[Aelwydd]

Thanks. I will give that all the consideration it deserves.

 

I didn't offer it up to convince you.  There's no logical counterpart to faith. It just is. Catholics have reasons to believe and practice what they do.  

 

My indictment in my previous post was against the ecclesiastical hierarchy.  I explained why I cannot accept the catechism, and church dogma, as credible evidence of a soul. 

[Ipsey]

 

 

That's not even touching on the investigations being led into Mother Theresa's alleged abuse of poor Indians, nor the worldwide phenomenon of growing, hiding, moving around, and defending child rapists. According to the pope, only 2% of Catholic priests are pedophiles. Only. Taking into account how most rapes are never even reported, I'm betting it's a damn sight higher than that.  Guess what, scientific studies disagree with the Church, stating in the US, it is has ranged from about 6% to 10%, which is still likely a low estimate. And even if it was not, if someone lined up 100 men and told me I was ok to send my child to spend time with them, because only 5 to 10 of them would molest or rape my child, I'd tell that person how many orifices they could go **** themselves.

 

 

The RC priest who abused my DH's brother and drove him to suicide at the age of 13 years old (in 1969) isn't even listed on the list of accused/convicted RC priests.

 

http://bishop-accountability.org/

 

We were told about 20 years he was under investigation by the local parish, but we can see what that came too. Haha!  The guy was moved to another state to diddle away with other boys. He's long dead, but I wonder what all he left in his wake.

[Joanne]

Why does it seem that everyone assumes that the Bible is speaking literally? I don't believe that. I know others don't believe that, but in this particular thread, either you believe the Bible literally or you don't believe the Bible at all.

 

I believe the Bible is mostly figurative or allegorical, with a bit of historical thrown in---mainly the history of the Jewish nation--so in discussions of creation and damnation and such, what the Bible is saying is relating principles of living, not science. The Bible is not exclusive. God is not damning anyone. There is no one-way trip to eternal damnation. And there is a lot less conflict between what the Bible says and what science says.

 

Believing the Bible is allegorical really changes the way these kind of conversations go. So does anyone else believe the Bible is primarily allegorical or figurative, not literal?

 

I believed "metaphorically" for many years - most of them on this board! To quote Madeleine Le Engle: The Bible is too serious to be taken literally (or too seriously). (Google suggested this was various people, but I heard Madeleine say it in a video series presented in Sunday school.

 

And in my honest and authentic try to honor the Spirit of the Christian Bible, I was worn down by the relentless "Bible believing" chorus in which the Bible "says what it says," and people who felt if god wasn't a god of miracles such as the flood, the lion's den, furnace, or whale belly, he didn't exist. I couldn't take the unadmitted inconsistencies (following SOME of the OT but not all, for example). And don't even get me started about male "headship."

 

So, I left the faith altogether.