|
Post by Skilly on May 25, 2006 5:58:51 GMT -5
In short, and to put it very baldly, if you want to know about God on the authority of Christ you will discover all you can discover in the doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Roman Catholic church does not "own" the monopoly on how to achieve a kinship with Christ (or God). Christ does not mention the name of "his religion" in the Bible, and as Franko pointed out, it was more likely Judasim. He refers to "church" - a coming together of like minded individuals - which can be any religion.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 25, 2006 6:15:30 GMT -5
The word cathedral, incidentally means the seat of authority, vested in the Bishops. They have the God given authority directly from Christ to tell us the truth backed by the promises of Christ. OK I am going to go now where I promised myself I would not go ... because it is a 90 degree turn of the topic and where franko most assuredly did not want this thread to descend to. "They have the God given authority from Christ to tell us the truth" ?? Are you implying there is something to hide? Doesn't Christ say "I am the way, the truth, the life" . He doesn't say "I give the truth to the Bishops to give to you as they see fit". A Christian finds truth by discovering Christ, by finally accepting Christ as their saviour. The fallacy to me, is that a man who does not believe in Christ but lives his life doing so much good in the world, living his life according to the teaching of the Lord becuase he feels that it is right to help others in need, not because a book tells him he must, will not get into heaven, according to the Bible. And yet, a muderer, a child abuser can live his life as a priest "knowing, loving, believing" the Lord and he will receive salvation? That is malarky to me. A guy on death row can be the meanest SOB there ever was and just as they are about to inject him pray "Forgive me Lord Jesus, I accept you as my saviour" (just to be safe you know, what would be the harm afterall) and he is welcomed into the kingdom of God??? Were the Bishops directed by Christ not to tell the truth about the sexual abuse scandals? *sorry franko* Cause let's be clear, even if the Pope did not know about it, when he did find out about it he did nothing, and by his inaction condoned it. If that is the "God given authority given by Christ" than that is no God of mine. Cause my Christ, neither directly nor indirectly, would not condone such actions.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 25, 2006 9:29:03 GMT -5
Maybe someone should start a "What About the Bible" tread . . . though this is one, somewhat. A Christian finds truth by discovering Christ, by finally accepting Christ as their saviour. The fallacy to me, is that a man who does not believe in Christ but lives his life doing so much good in the world, living his life according to the teaching of the Lord becuase he feels that it is right to help others in need, not because a book tells him he must, will not get into heaven, according to the Bible. [More Controversy Alert] Yes . . . and no. While Jesus did say that He and He alone is the way, the truth, and the life, in the Revelation of John we read about two possible Judgements: one of believers whose names are written int he Book of Life, and one of those who are not believers but may be judged by their lives (I think that CS Lewis puts it well in The Last Battle -- but I'm not going to look up the exact place where he talks of those worshiping Tash actually worship Aslan if that is where their hearts are). Maybe. That's where the grace of God comes in (we don't like God's grace -- we think that people should fry in hell; that is not what God wants -- He wants everyone to find His love). It is a matter of . . . well, I can't think of the word right now. "I'm going to ask for forgiveness just in case" does not cut it if it is not meant. The thief on the cross did, and Jesus said that he'd be in paradise with Him. He does not condone much of what we do. We tend to focus on actions; He focussed on attitudes. And I think that ours are pretty pathetic at times.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 25, 2006 12:06:29 GMT -5
Sooooooooo....
What about the movie hey?! Gee I hear that Tom Hanks is doing great in there....
...not to mention that the popcorn is very good too.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on May 25, 2006 12:41:30 GMT -5
Sooooooooo.... What about the movie hey?! Gee I hear that Tom Hanks is doing great in there.... ...not to mention that the popcorn is very good too. LOL, going to wait for it to go to the local Drive-in, then we'll go watch, the Mrs. doesn't like going to the Theater, so we'll wait a couple of weeks to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 25, 2006 12:51:28 GMT -5
Sooooooooo.... What about the movie hey?! Gee I hear that Tom Hanks is doing great in there.... ...not to mention that the popcorn is very good too. Mrs Dis and I should be going this Friday, Doc. HA already gave his two cents worth, I'll drop mine after I see it. Too bad about the popcorn really. I liken the cost to buying a beer at the Bell Centre. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 25, 2006 15:06:32 GMT -5
Continuing to veer off topic . . . Log may have link to Noah's floodRandy Boswell, CanWest News Service Published: Friday, May 19, 2006 An Ontario farmer digging a backyard pond has unearthed a scientific stunner - a perfectly preserved tree from the end of the last ice age that could yield clues about prehistoric climate change and the catastrophic collapse of a glacial dam in ancient Canada that has been linked to Noah's flood. Ottawa CitizenDiscussion continues . . .
|
|
|
Post by duster on May 25, 2006 16:52:58 GMT -5
Well said. And the attacks on the WTC was descrived by one well known Christian idiot leader as a retaliation by God for the sins that country has committed. A quick glance at human history demonstrates conclusively that vastly more people are killed by secular ideologies than religion. That "truism" is a canard that long since had its wings clipped. Total war is a recent invention, as is nuclear annihilation, which is incidentally condemned by most religions, but not by secular governments. Religion is not a control tool. Irreligion is. Just as abuses of democracies do not disprove the value of democracy neither does the abuse of religion. It is a very popular scapegoat however, but usually for other unstated reasons. I respectfully disagree on several points regarding some of your statements. Keep in mind that I'm not Catholic or even Christian. Please understand that, although I respect your faith and opinion, an avalanche of Catholic rhetoric means nothing to me. Total war is not a recent invention. It began perhaps with basic siege warfare and was refined as an instrument of policy as far back as Sargon and Tiglath-Pileser, to name a few. In a classical setting, one could argue that the conflict between Rome and Carthage was total war as well. "Delenda est Carthago" was the motto for the Third Punic War and Dido's Carthage was, indeed, wiped off the face of the map. An examination of Roman warfare in the fourth century AD clearly shows that total extermination of the opposition was state policy and, from an Imperial perspective, required out of necessity. This was balanced by the concept of "Mercy" applied judiciously. The idea of cutting off the hands of an opposing nation's peasants, as opposed to killing them outright, was economic as well as military. Today's religions oppose nuclear war because it is tantamount to collective suicide as opposed to enabling change in their favour. There are no references to any religion being opposed to total war prior to nuclear weapons. In my mind, all religions are political and conveniently irreligious when necessary. No exceptions. For example, there is no doubt that Constantine made Christianity the official religion in an attempt to "win over" the Eastern part of the Empire, not the Western half which was already his more or less. An examination of the Tetrarchy and how it broke down after the abdication of Diocletian makes this quite clear. It had nothing to do with Christianity's basic values. Constantine, in effect, gave up his right as Pontifex Maximus and eliminated the concept of divinity of the Emperor - a concept originally created by Augustus as a counter to Mark Anthony's official impersonation of Dionysus in Ptolemaic Egypt three centuries earlier. Both were very important concessions and Constantine must really have felt he had no choice but share power. This concept of divinity of the Emperor was a political necessity in the East for cultural reasons, more so than in the West, and was at the root of all Christian persecutions. If you read Pliny's correspondence with Trajan, it's clear the latter viewed Christianity as opposing state policy i.e. as a dissident political movement. So did Marcus Aurelius, Decius, Galerius, Diocletian, Julian etc... In rough terms, Christianity was Rome's Al-Quaida, Hezbollah, Taliban and Hamas all rolled into one. You could argue that early Christians were killed for their religion since they opposed state policy as an organized group i.e opposed to the Emperor being the supreme religious and political authority. It really didn't matter if they turned the other cheek or died in the Arena willingly. As you likely know, when Rome was sacked by Alaric on 410 A.D., Christianity was universally blamed for its' fall at the time, and not Honorius in Ravenna. Augustine's "City of God" was, in essence, an attempted defense of Christianity when it was accused of undermining the supposed martial traits, virtues and "dignitas" of ordinary Romans, ultimately leading to the city's fall. Religion is most certainly a control tool. Using Christianity (or Islam) as an example, the concept of "sinning" and punishment for non adherence (or conformity) to basic rules of conduct makes it so. The Catholic sale of Indulgences shows its more cynical side. The threat of excommunication was a real one at the beginning of the first millenium A.D. and throughout the Middle Ages since it hit at the very core of feudal authority. What happened to Frederick II comes to mind, among many others. Never mind Geoffroi de Bouillon and his ilk, consider the wars of religion in France, the Thirty Years War, The Albigensian Crusade, The Teutonic Knights' annual forays in Lithuania, even the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 - all had Church mandates from the Pope to win or reclaim by force the hearts and souls of heretic or pagan individuals as stated goals or at least, eliminate any opposition to those objectives in order to further extend or maintain control. In a more contemporary setting, consider the issue of birth control in Latin America and Quebec's "Revanche du Berceau". So what does this have to do with Dan Brown? Well, if anything, it makes us re-examine the facts behind our origins. If it provokes discussion and dissention, I'm all for it. It's what books are for. My issues with his book are historical not religious, but who cares? It's historical fiction and as such, the premise is "what if"? In no way does it insult me as a European. No more so that British cooking...
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 20:12:13 GMT -5
Well since people are giving a religious background of themselves, I might as well give my 2 cents: I was raised Presbyterian, went to church every Sunday, Sunday School, Explorers, Bible Camp and even read Scripture on Sundays at the request of our Minister as a Teenager. So to say I was brought up religiously is a bit of an understatement. However, as I got older and more educated in school learning about how the Earth was created and mans evolution etc, etc. I started to lean towards the fact the my religion was more and more a Fairy tale than Fact. Then once Sunday I was sitting in Church looking around at the signs and pictures with sayings such as "Follow me", "Pray to me", "Learn from me" etc... that I realized that religion kind of resemble a form of a Cult. People blindly following a leader, in my case God, following his orders (10 commandants), paying him with the Church collection etc... Anyway you get my point, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it wasn't for me. I felt that I was living in a dream world pretending that there was something out there that really wasn't. Now don't get me wrong, I still go to the odd Church service (my better half is Catholic) but I go for a different reason, more for the good it preaches, Love mankind and what not. If I had children I would most definitely send them to Church, not really to learn about God, but to learn Morals and how to treat your fellow man. To me the Bible is a wonderful story that should be shared as a piece of Fiction and not fact. Good post. Religion can be a cult. Cults are usually focused upon an individual, usually fairly charismatic.. as in Jonestown. I think it's quite easy to prove the existence of God. I'll show you what I mean. Do you believe in cause and effect? Intelligence and purposefulness have shown up after some 14 billion years in mankind. Whatever caused mankind, must have the characteristics of intelligence and purposefulness. One can get a little more sophisticated in the analysis and presentation, but this is actually a pretty solid argument. I keep hearing things like "people following blindly" and blind faith" That may describe your experience, but it sure doesn't explain the faith of an awful lot orf adults. Faith is a reasoned assent of rational creatures. What is blind or irrational about it? Seriously. Saint Augustine, a platonist philosopher, whose thinking was so powerful that it led the western world from the 4th to 11th century would blow the brains off any thinker I can think of except Aquinas. THey were theologians, but also the most seminal thinkers in the history of the western world. The common word "information" is for instance based upon Plato's theory of "Forms", a stunningly brilliant insight into the nature of existence. The western world was essentially built upon the thinking of Aquinas. Truth is, it's atheism that I find really quite dogmatic, blind and dumb, while I've very seldom net an agnostic who has much grounding in even the fundamental questions or issues of philosophy or religion. They are not easy subjects I grant, but a lot of people sure think they are. Even the idea that the story of Christ is a nice little story about being nice, hardly does justice to the historical documents which are very consistant and about a hundred times more plentiful than virtually any documents of antiquity. The later gnostic stuff, most of which is whacky add on stuff as virtually all scholars agree is mere distraction. I have no problem with people trying to follow their conscience and hopefully do some good, but...where does good come from? How did you get here? Where did the moral idea of "good" coem from? Is this just your "Blind faith? As far as I know I am a Catholic first by the grace of God, and certainly because a very exhaustive search of the greatest thinkers (including aheists) led exactly there. My own integrity absolutely requires that I affirm this...and not in the least "blindly" and I'd be a liar and a fraud with what I know, if I did not. This is not to say, that people who disagree with me, on the basis of their ideas, must be dishonest or fraudulent. (like Dan Brown)
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 25, 2006 20:15:08 GMT -5
Continuing to veer off topic . . . Log may have link to Noah's floodRandy Boswell, CanWest News Service Published: Friday, May 19, 2006 An Ontario farmer digging a backyard pond has unearthed a scientific stunner - a perfectly preserved tree from the end of the last ice age that could yield clues about prehistoric climate change and the catastrophic collapse of a glacial dam in ancient Canada that has been linked to Noah's flood. Ottawa CitizenDiscussion continues . . . Ok I am going to need a Biblical expert here .... around what year did Noah build his ark?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 25, 2006 20:20:04 GMT -5
I think it's quite easy to prove the existence of God. I'll show you what I mean. Yep. I know God exists because I study his laws everyday ..... The Laws of Physics. Everything on this earth can be explained mathematically. That in itself shows that there is something more than "random causality" at play. The entire universe has structure.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 25, 2006 20:28:50 GMT -5
Continuing to veer off topic . . . Log may have link to Noah's floodRandy Boswell, CanWest News Service Published: Friday, May 19, 2006 An Ontario farmer digging a backyard pond has unearthed a scientific stunner - a perfectly preserved tree from the end of the last ice age that could yield clues about prehistoric climate change and the catastrophic collapse of a glacial dam in ancient Canada that has been linked to Noah's flood. Ottawa CitizenDiscussion continues . . . Last Updated: Friday, 19 March, 2004, 11:06 GMT Did Noah really build an ark?By Jeremy Bowen Presenter, Noah's Ark In the Bible, God tells Noah he has to build an ark and load a pair of every kind of animal before a great flood engulfs the world. It is widely regarded as a myth, but could it actually be true? news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3524676.stm
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 25, 2006 20:35:44 GMT -5
The article I posted above says there is evidence from Islam that a flood occured 5000 years ago. The tree in franko's add is 8000 years old. A cataclysmic event does not take 3000 years to occur.
Also the Bible specifically says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, not a tsunami caused by 3000 years of glacial retreating caused the water to rise. The question I have is if the glaciers were present in Canada (150 km north of Toronto no less) than wouldn't the glaciers also have been in Europe/Asia? Not sure where Noah lived, but in any event the great flood (as described in the Bible) is geologically and mathematically impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 20:40:19 GMT -5
I think it's quite easy to prove the existence of God. I'll show you what I mean. Yep. I know God exists because I study his laws everyday ..... The Laws of Physics. Everything on this earth can be explained mathematically. That in itself shows that there is something more than "random causality" at play. The entire universe has structure. I think it was Heisenberg the physicist who said the MOST amazing thing about the universe was its INTELLIGIBILIY. Intelligence is a functiion of mind. Quantum mechanics is not completely random, and random as most believe, does NOT mean random in itself, but rather, just unpredictable to our means of measurement. The number province or state of the next license plate that dirves by your house is forever random to you. Your mathematics cannot predict it. License plate numbers are not of course random at all. They are highly ordered. So is the universe and its laws are not accidental. Science to be possible requires cause and effect relationships. The universe is intelligently ordered to develop intelligent life. Cause and effect. That is why, in part I find atheism, just a failure to adequately consider the evidence, and also (except for a few esoteric philosophers) almost every human who ever lived believes in some notion of a Supreme Being. It's commn sense, but unfashionable to talk about. Except in a DAWINKY thread of course. Well, I would certainly agree, that almost everything on earth, if it physical can be examined profitably and to some extent with mathematics, but a couple of points. Have you ever heard of Godels's Theorem? Can math or any science tell me what a fly is ? P.S. This is one incredible hockey game!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 20:55:30 GMT -5
The word cathedral, incidentally means the seat of authority, vested in the Bishops. They have the God given authority directly from Christ to tell us the truth backed by the promises of Christ. OK I am going to go now where I promised myself I would not go ... because it is a 90 degree turn of the topic and where franko most assuredly did not want this thread to descend to. "They have the God given authority from Christ to tell us the truth" ?? Are you implying there is something to hide? Doesn't Christ say "I am the way, the truth, the life" . He doesn't say "I give the truth to the Bishops to give to you as they see fit". A Christian finds truth by discovering Christ, by finally accepting Christ as their saviour. The fallacy to me, is that a man who does not believe in Christ but lives his life doing so much good in the world, living his life according to the teaching of the Lord becuase he feels that it is right to help others in need, not because a book tells him he must, will not get into heaven, according to the Bible. And yet, a muderer, a child abuser can live his life as a priest "knowing, loving, believing" the Lord and he will receive salvation? That is malarky to me. A guy on death row can be the meanest SOB there ever was and just as they are about to inject him pray "Forgive me Lord Jesus, I accept you as my saviour" (just to be safe you know, what would be the harm afterall) and he is welcomed into the kingdom of God??? Were the Bishops directed by Christ not to tell the truth about the sexual abuse scandals? *sorry franko* Cause let's be clear, even if the Pope did not know about it, when he did find out about it he did nothing, and by his inaction condoned it. If that is the "God given authority given by Christ" than that is no God of mine. Cause my Christ, neither directly nor indirectly, would not condone such actions. If Franko wanted to know if Jesus "married" Magdalen, then he sure as hell is beginning a religious topic, and this involves the following Is there a God Can one know this by reason alone, outside of religion. I think the answer is yes. Did Jesus exist in history and can you know this beyond reasonable doubt? Are the gospels..which are NOT the gnostic nonsense reliable as historical cocuments. Did the members of the church He founded invent his horrible death? Did they invent the 40 days he spent with them after rising from the dead? Is it impossible to rise from the dead? If one believes so, why? Is the Catholic church exactly what it says it is, Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic directly from Jesus? Is most thought of most people on most things, like your faith in mathematics based upon a bad idea from the 17th century and a self-refuting idea at that? (I would say yes to that ) Does a different philosophical base open new vistas of what can be known? Do people have to be dismissive and insulting in discussing religious issues, ascribing words like blind, unjust, prejudiced etc. ? So. Do you agree that all of the above are part and parcel of a discussion of the American greedy fraud's book?
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 25, 2006 22:00:48 GMT -5
Continuing to veer off topic . . . Log may have link to Noah's floodRandy Boswell, CanWest News Service Published: Friday, May 19, 2006 An Ontario farmer digging a backyard pond has unearthed a scientific stunner - a perfectly preserved tree from the end of the last ice age that could yield clues about prehistoric climate change and the catastrophic collapse of a glacial dam in ancient Canada that has been linked to Noah's flood. Ottawa CitizenDiscussion continues . . . Ok I am going to need a Biblical expert here .... around what year did Noah build his ark? Here's an interesting one . . .
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 25, 2006 22:12:43 GMT -5
The article I posted above says there is evidence from Islam that a flood occured 5000 years ago. The tree in franko's add is 8000 years old. Every religion seems to have a creation story and a flood story . . . starting with Sumer and the Gilgamesh epic.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 25, 2006 22:16:40 GMT -5
The article I posted above says there is evidence from Islam that a flood occured 5000 years ago. The tree in franko's add is 8000 years old. A cataclysmic event does not take 3000 years to occur. Ah, that rotten carbon dating.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 25, 2006 22:41:33 GMT -5
Truth is, it's atheism that I find really quite dogmatic, blind and dumb, while I've very seldom net an agnostic who has much grounding in even the fundamental questions or issues of philosophy or religion. They are not easy subjects I grant, but a lot of people sure think they are. Atheist and agnostics are "not grounded" in even the fundamental questions or issues of religion". Religion? Why would they be mired in what they believe is an irrelevant question? Further....... Dogmatic? Blind? Dumb? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Christian way NOT to pass judgement, insults, condemnation or persecutions of OTHERS who do not believe what you believe? Isn't GOD the only one who is perfect and has the right to judge? "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matthew 7:1-2 RSV)
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 22:51:00 GMT -5
A quick glance at human history demonstrates conclusively that vastly more people are killed by secular ideologies than religion. That "truism" is a canard that long since had its wings clipped. Total war is a recent invention, as is nuclear annihilation, which is incidentally condemned by most religions, but not by secular governments. Religion is not a control tool. Irreligion is. Just as abuses of democracies do not disprove the value of democracy neither does the abuse of religion. It is a very popular scapegoat however, but usually for other unstated reasons. I respectfully disagree on several points regarding some of your statements. Keep in mind that I'm not Catholic or even Christian. Please understand that, although I respect your faith and opinion, an avalanche of Catholic rhetoric means nothing to me. Total war is not a recent invention. It began perhaps with basic siege warfare and was refined as an instrument of policy as far back as Sargon and Tiglath-Pileser, to name a few. In a classical setting, one could argue that the conflict between Rome and Carthage was total war as well. "Delenda est Carthago" was the motto for the Third Punic War and Dido's Carthage was, indeed, wiped off the face of the map. An examination of Roman warfare in the fourth century AD clearly shows that total extermination of the opposition was state policy and, from an Imperial perspective, required out of necessity. This was balanced by the concept of "Mercy" applied judiciously. The idea of cutting off the hands of an opposing nation's peasants, as opposed to killing them outright, was economic as well as military. Today's religions oppose nuclear war because it is tantamount to collective suicide as opposed to enabling change in their favour. There are no references to any religion being opposed to total war prior to nuclear weapons. In my mind, all religions are political and conveniently irreligious when necessary. No exceptions. For example, there is no doubt that Constantine made Christianity the official religion in an attempt to "win over" the Eastern part of the Empire, not the Western half which was already his more or less. An examination of the Tetrarchy and how it broke down after the abdication of Diocletian makes this quite clear. It had nothing to do with Christianity's basic values. Constantine, in effect, gave up his right as Pontifex Maximus and eliminated the concept of divinity of the Emperor - a concept originally created by Augustus as a counter to Mark Anthony's official impersonation of Dionysus in Ptolemaic Egypt three centuries earlier. Both were very important concessions and Constantine must really have felt he had no choice but share power. This concept of divinity of the Emperor was a political necessity in the East for cultural reasons, more so than in the West, and was at the root of all Christian persecutions. If you read Pliny's correspondence with Trajan, it's clear the latter viewed Christianity as opposing state policy i.e. as a dissident political movement. So did Marcus Aurelius, Decius, Galerius, Diocletian, Julian etc... In rough terms, Christianity was Rome's Al-Quaida, Hezbollah, Taliban and Hamas all rolled into one. You could argue that early Christians were killed for their religion since they opposed state policy as an organized group i.e opposed to the Emperor being the supreme religious and political authority. It really didn't matter if they turned the other cheek or died in the Arena willingly. As you likely know, when Rome was sacked by Alaric on 410 A.D., Christianity was universally blamed for its' fall at the time, and not Honorius in Ravenna. Augustine's "City of God" was, in essence, an attempted defense of Christianity when it was accused of undermining the supposed martial traits, virtues and "dignitas" of ordinary Romans, ultimately leading to the city's fall. Religion is most certainly a control tool. Using Christianity (or Islam) as an example, the concept of "sinning" and punishment for non adherence (or conformity) to basic rules of conduct makes it so. The Catholic sale of Indulgences shows its more cynical side. The threat of excommunication was a real one at the beginning of the first millenium A.D. and throughout the Middle Ages since it hit at the very core of feudal authority. What happened to Frederick II comes to mind, among many others. Never mind Geoffroi de Bouillon and his ilk, consider the wars of religion in France, the Thirty Years War, The Albigensian Crusade, The Teutonic Knights' annual forays in Lithuania, even the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 - all had Church mandates from the Pope to win or reclaim by force the hearts and souls of heretic or pagan individuals as stated goals or at least, eliminate any opposition to those objectives in order to further extend or maintain control. In a more contemporary setting, consider the issue of birth control in Latin America and Quebec's "Revanche du Berceau". So what does this have to do with Dan Brown? Well, if anything, it makes us re-examine the facts behind our origins. If it provokes discussion and dissention, I'm all for it. It's what books are for. My issues with his book are historical not religious, but who cares? It's historical fiction and as such, the premise is "what if"? In no way does it insult me as a European. No more so that British cooking... Terrific post. I do not have anything like the histrical acuity to adress all particulars and I very much appreciate the very considerable erudition and effort you put into this for my edification. I am happy to attempt a response, but it won't be immediately exhaustive or perhaps not even ever. A couple of quick points in passing however. I don't think I have much engaged in Catholic rhetoric, but I do hope to have presented some things somewhat reasonably, and not too rhetorically. I really do fancy myself as pretty dedicated to an intelligent and very circumpect pursuit of reality. Truth is a confrmity of the mind to what is. Not to argue, for I did use pretty universal language to describe the total warfare adoption in WWII and the nuclear issue, but and I am genuinely asking this, is it not the case that one of the "virtues" of the Roman practice, was to allow the people's conquered to pretty much carry on with their societies but provide tribute etc. Was it not also generally the case, and I think of the crusades, feudal conflicts and even the Alamo ( Of Ghengis Khan I am not sure) that if inhabitants did not resist, then they were generally spared? I am also familiar with the brutality that was war in these times as Roman practice influenced Christian thought and practice. Another point, and I fully accept the concept of a just war as (I think) developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas, a principle of justifiable self-defence for nations or peoples. Is it your contention that the principles of just war were essentially without issue or sterile, so to speak. That is not my impression, but I admit it to be an impression. I have, of course no problem at all with the idea that religion can be considered as like a tool, useful in effecting changes in behavior. It is very much about changing ideas and behaviours. I take exception to a reductionism that says any given religion is only that. I find almost all religions to be excellent vehicles of practical or moral truths for life, and vehicles dealing with the Why of life, the Reasons to live, purpose. To disprove religion in general, or demonstrate its' vacuity, an effort of very long heritage, one must show that its' putative object, or God as variously described doesn't exist, and that there is therefore no logically compelling basis to any moral law or religious practice, or some compelling demonstration that religious belief is not generally a very good thing. That something is useful does not affirm its reality. Durkheim, the father of sociology had faith that "God" was just what you have suggested; a useful too, the universal policeman to keep the masses in line. But of course that was something he just believed on faith an undemonstrated dogma of his attitude. Not a proof of anything. To show that something is useful. like a tool, does not at all show that it is false. If it tends towards positive outcomes, and religion does on any number of fronts, then if might more rightly be seen as at least mildly suggestive of being real. LIke Durkheim your faith is that religions are essentially political things, and none can doubt the huge political impacts of religion...and irreligion of course. And history including Catholic history is replete with terrible examples of religious zeal being subverted for political objectives, or otherwise expressed, temporal objectives. That is the abuse of religion I spoke of. But your faith, failing effective argument demonstrating that the objective, point or means of religions are all false, remains but your own act of faith without proof. It is not at all a new idea, and I don' t mean that in an insulting way. My suspision or surmise, is that your faith, is a direct consequence of your cosmology whih derives from your epistemology which will probably trace to a variant of Descartes. That's the usual. Again, with no offence intended, Descartes and his modern children, Kant and others are forever stuck inside their heads, mired in subjectivism. That's why people on the street say thngs like "That's true for you." as an illustration. Again thanks for the utterly awesome post which will open up some new channels for mel, and I'll try to do them justice fairly soon. EDIT: I have just been looking up usages of the phrase "total war" and there are variants. What it means to me, is a war waged llike the bombing of Dresden, a war unbridled. Incidentally concerning Catholicism's position on the use of large scale nuclear weapons, (not the small tactical batllefield ones). I have asked any number of people what we should do if (say Russia ) should unleash its store of ICBM"s at us to annihilate us completely. Should we unleash a massive retaliatory strike? Every person said Yes. I say absolutely not. The church says absolutely not. It is not a matter of political practicality. It is a moral issue. It's unspeakably wrong to incinerate babies and grandparents intentionally.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 25, 2006 22:53:20 GMT -5
Ok I am going to need a Biblical expert here .... around what year did Noah build his ark? Here's an interesting one . . . Creation was 4,000 years ago? I know Creation is wrong because I FEEL older then that....... I read somewhere that the Bible's story is rooted in a flood that happened in the Black Sea. Something to the effect that the Mediterranean water were rising but the Bosporus peninsula held them back until they broke through. The waters would rise so fast that it would certainly look like an act of God.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 23:12:27 GMT -5
Here's an interesting one . . . Creation was 4,000 years ago? I know Creation is wrong because I FEEL older then that....... I read somewhere that the Bible's story is rooted in a flood that happened in the Black Sea. Something to the effect that the Mediterranean water were rising but the Bosporus peninsula held them back until they broke through. The waters would rise so fast that it would certainly look like an act of God. Hey Crank..I really like that moniker.....not that it suits you at all of course....I hate to think of what folks would pick for moi! You don't Really think that Christianity, except for a small number of "fundamentalists" or biblical literalists, think the earth is only a few thousand years old, eh? After all, the guy who discovered and figured out and named what we call " The Big Bang ", was Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and physicist of dare I say universal renown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2006 23:20:18 GMT -5
After all, the guy who discovered and figured out and named what we call " The Big Bang ", was Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and physicist of dare I say universal renown. The only time in history that nuclear explosions created life. It's much easier to believe that it was created. It's too complicated for it to be explained by science. From years of experimentation, or bad beans, nothing good ever came out of gas.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 23:46:10 GMT -5
In short, and to put it very baldly, if you want to know about God on the authority of Christ you will discover all you can discover in the doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Roman Catholic church does not "own" the monopoly on how to achieve a kinship with Christ (or God). Christ does not mention the name of "his religion" in the Bible, and as Franko pointed out, it was more likely Judasim. He refers to "church" - a coming together of like minded individuals - which can be any religion. My other posts should indicate pretty unambiguously that I do not hold the view you dscribe. Franko's confusing out-of-context response to my original post does not in any way hold that Christiantiy and Judaism are the same thing, and the church is not a coming together of like-minded folks except accidentally. The church is the Body of Christ. My post, and the several thousand denominations of protestantism point to the necessity of authoritve teaching, which the apostles and their direct ordained successors claimed and delivered under the primacy of Peter and his successors, constitute the teaching authority of the church from day one until today. It is usually described as being the "fullness" of revelation. This is not to the exclusion of other religions or fine and honorable people everywhere. You can insist with protestants through the ages that Peter didn't really get the keys to the kingdom of heaven as reported in the bible and is the tradition of the earliest church, but the record is pretty clear going back to the earliest leaders of the church.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 23:50:17 GMT -5
After all, the guy who discovered and figured out and named what we call " The Big Bang ", was Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and physicist of dare I say universal renown. The only time in history that nuclear explosions created life. It's much easier to believe that it was created. It's too complicated for it to be explained by science. From years of experimentation, or bad beans, nothing good ever came out of gas. Good one...I think......I don't know enough about the science....what a stunning impossible thing life is, eh? Beggars the imagination. Now I'm going to go get some latenight beans...watched the game and ranted here all night.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 0:28:10 GMT -5
The word cathedral, incidentally means the seat of authority, vested in the Bishops. They have the God given authority directly from Christ to tell us the truth backed by the promises of Christ. OK I am going to go now where I promised myself I would not go ... because it is a 90 degree turn of the topic and where franko most assuredly did not want this thread to descend to. "They have the God given authority from Christ to tell us the truth" ?? Are you implying there is something to hide? Doesn't Christ say "I am the way, the truth, the life" . He doesn't say "I give the truth to the Bishops to give to you as they see fit". A Christian finds truth by discovering Christ, by finally accepting Christ as their saviour. The fallacy to me, is that a man who does not believe in Christ but lives his life doing so much good in the world, living his life according to the teaching of the Lord becuase he feels that it is right to help others in need, not because a book tells him he must, will not get into heaven, according to the Bible. And yet, a muderer, a child abuser can live his life as a priest "knowing, loving, believing" the Lord and he will receive salvation? That is malarky to me. A guy on death row can be the meanest SOB there ever was and just as they are about to inject him pray "Forgive me Lord Jesus, I accept you as my saviour" (just to be safe you know, what would be the harm afterall) and he is welcomed into the kingdom of God??? Were the Bishops directed by Christ not to tell the truth about the sexual abuse scandals? *sorry franko* Cause let's be clear, even if the Pope did not know about it, when he did find out about it he did nothing, and by his inaction condoned it. If that is the "God given authority given by Christ" than that is no God of mine. Cause my Christ, neither directly nor indirectly, would not condone such actions. Again. This is in fact the substance of the thread. I suspect you don't like my posts and would reject them because I fully agree with the teachings and pedigee of the Catholic church. I have not idea of what you mean about something to hide? This makes no sense to me. The bible was put together by the authority of the Catholic church. The bible does not contain the fullness of the teaching of Christ or the sacraments of Christ. The first pope, Peter was selected personally by Christ according to the bible which is a very reliable source. This is recognized in the earliest practice of the church as is relying on traditon and the oral teaching of the apostles, who annointed their successors and gave them theri authority. Where the heck did you think it came from. Deal with it. The things you call fallacies, the church also finds fallacies. One saying comes to mind (and it causes me some pause) "AS you live, so shall you die." John wayne waited t'il his death bed to become a Catholic..it seemed too demanding earlier.. But people do obviously "convert" or take the road less travelled. I'm a big enough jerk now..but I can't imagine what a monster I'd be without religion. People ask me if I'm religious, and I say quite truthfully, "Of course not, that's why I NEED religion." The scandals of thirty to forty years ago that are such a terrible damned thing, were the consequence of a liberalisation of guidelines regarding homosexually oriented individuals and it was a bloody awful mess. Some Bishops did a poor job in administering the situation, but until 1986, it was not certain that sexual agressors were very unlikely to change, and measures taken and responses to the situation were often bad. Pope John Paul II has also been criticised for being slow to believe the extent of the problem as I recall. There may well be grounds for some criticism and if well founded, then so be it. The most recent change regarding admission of persons of homosexual orientation, which of course the same critics now decry as unfair and harsh, should have a very postitive impact, and tons of steps in screening and training have been undertaken based upon exhaustive study of the issue. It is hard for people to understand that peoplel, even those who have received, literally, holy orders, can as creatures with free wills, always sin. A just man sins 70 times per day it says somewhere in the bible, and the pope and all bishops, priests and nuns have confessors and spiritual directors to help them acheive mature and holy lives. I have found the ordained religious persons to be about the finest, and most totally giving people I have met in my life. They freely give up a lot in this life in hope of the promises of Christ. It's a road I see very few others even try to walk. Some will fail. Some will fail and get up again and keep trying. Some will prevail. The church is a place, not for perfect people, but for people who need the grace of God. It is for sinners, a Greek word that means to miss the mark, like an arrow missing a target. The target is a mature and loving person. Our parents often provide pretty good examples of this struggle. And Boom Boom.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 0:51:07 GMT -5
Truth is, it's atheism that I find really quite dogmatic, blind and dumb, while I've very seldom net an agnostic who has much grounding in even the fundamental questions or issues of philosophy or religion. They are not easy subjects I grant, but a lot of people sure think they are. Atheist and agnostics are "not grounded" in even the fundamental questions or issues of religion". Religion? Why would they be mired in what they believe is an irrelevant question? Further....... Dogmatic? Blind? Dumb? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Christian way NOT to pass judgement, insults, condemnation or persecutions of OTHERS who do not believe what you believe? Isn't GOD the only one who is perfect and has the right to judge? "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matthew 7:1-2 RSV) You sure confuse a lot of stuff. With few exceptions I find very few atheists and agnostics who have devoted much serious time or study to the big questions. Should I lie about that? Everyone is dogmatic. The question is whether the dogma is true of not. Dumb...well....ya. I've met a lot of dumb "believers" too if that's any consolation. You just took a quote of Christ's for example and completely misused it. We are not to judge others as of no worth, hence opposition to capital punishment etc. We are of course to jusge behaviours. A separate issue. And I made this reference after any number of hardly nuanced phrases of like manner, and I really just wanted to make the point, that a lot of conversations I have with people aren't particularly edifying or intellectually challenging or stimulating. Blind? I find materialism to be a blind world view. It has no grounds whatsoever. It's a three hundred and some year old idea that has no basis. In short it's a blind faith. Actually, a couple of years ago, I got into this online "resident Catholic" thing because a person with highly insulting and abusive language was giving Franko a whupping in what he thought was a sound "science"- based rationality. I stepped in to point out his dogmatic, self-contradictory and naive beliefs about both the limits of science and the nature of religious faith. Towit. The belief that scientific enquiry is the only reliable source of knowledge about this world is not the result of a scientific experiment. It is a dogma, a false one, and self-contradictory. One gets the sense that some people think that there's some intellectual high ground or standard that goes with agnosticism or atheism. I've never seen much to defend that notion. That's a blind faith.
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on May 26, 2006 4:01:43 GMT -5
I have asked any number of people what we should do if (say Russia ) should unleash its store of ICBM"s at us to annihilate us completely. Should we unleash a massive retaliatory strike? Interesting choice of a villain in the context of this discussion. The Russian Orthodox Church could raise her eyebrow.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 6:09:30 GMT -5
Creation was 4,000 years ago? I know Creation is wrong because I FEEL older then that....... James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday'. further . . .
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 6:10:51 GMT -5
You don't Really think that Christianity, except for a small number of "fundamentalists" or biblical literalists, think the earth is only a few thousand years old, eh? Complete with fossils!
|
|