Noah's Ark dinosaurs

God's revelation of Himself is threefold. The Bible is the written Word of God by inspired human authors. However, before the Bible was written, there was and still is a living Tradition that is also a way in which God reveals Himself. This is why there are prayers, doctrines, and practices not found explicitly in the Bible. Now of course Tradition can never directly contradict the Word of God or vice versa. These two sources of revelation give a breath and depth to what we believe that would not be found just in a collection of writings but at the same time is anchored in the written Word of God for stability and soundness. What you seem to asking about the most however is the third aspect of God's revelation. God would not reveal Himself in both letters and traditions without an authority to interpret and clarify things as civilizations advance and things become confusing. That is one of the reasons he established a Church, with a teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit, to help clarify and answer questions when they arose. This is what is often called the Magisterium and instead of changing the Bible or Tradition it is this aspect of revelation that can clear up some things for you, me, and all of us.

There are still plenty of miracles taking place. In fact they are required for the canonization process for saints. After Easter we are going to recognize two more great saints. I always remember a quote that I will paraphrase that I saw in a movie once, "For those who believe no proof is necessary, and for those who do not believe no proof is enough." Something like that anyway - I think the point of that statement is true all the way back to Jesus' day. Jesus did do a lot of obvious miracles and how did that turn out for him? Implicit in your question is that you or more people might believe in Jesus if He did more obvious grand miracles. Well, I don't think Jesus wants you to believe in Him because He can perform miracles. After Lazarus was raised from the dead, he died again. Miracles are like candy they look good and then there gone and your not much better off. I don't meant that you are childish in any way, but it sees to me that the immature like and want miracles, the mature realize that God's eternal embrace of love and forgiveness for me is enough.

Quote: AxelWolf

I doubt you will have the answer to this but ill ask anyways.

I assume people who believe in god believe he is all knowing all powerful and can ANYTHING. God does Miracle all the time according to religion. He created the heavens, earth and man, for God sakes.

He must have known civilization would advance you think he would have directed man to make the bible less ambiguous, so not to create so much confusion. Any idea why he can just change the bible( we wouldn't even know) and clear some things up for us?

Why did he stop doing so many incredibly obvious miracles?

I think the lyrics of Tim Rice sum it up best:


Every time I look at you
I don't understand
Why you let the things you did
Get so out of hand
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?

If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel 4BC had no mass communication

Quote: Buzzard

Quote: aceofspades

Even if I were to suspend disbelief and go with the story of all the world's animals being on board an ark...dinosaurs...really...?!?

here it is

Oh my. Another Clarence Darrow wannabe trapped in Divorce Court. SIGH !

I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of.
Clarence Darrow

Agnostic means without knowledge

Quote: FrGamble

God's revelation of Himself is threefold. The Bible is the written Word of God by inspired human authors. However, before the Bible was written, there was and still is a living Tradition that is also a way in which God reveals Himself. This is why there are prayers, doctrines, and practices not found explicitly in the Bible. Now of course Tradition can never directly contradict the Word of God or vice versa. These two sources of revelation give a breath and depth to what we believe that would not be found just in a collection of writings but at the same time is anchored in the written Word of God for stability and soundness. What you seem to asking about the most however is the third aspect of God's revelation. God would not reveal Himself in both letters and traditions without an authority to interpret and clarify things as civilizations advance and things become confusing. That is one of the reasons he established a Church, with a teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit, to help clarify and answer questions when they arose. This is what is often called the Magisterium and instead of changing the Bible or Tradition it is this aspect of revelation that can clear up some things for you, me, and all of us.

There are still plenty of miracles taking place. In fact they are required for the canonization process for saints. After Easter we are going to recognize two more great saints. I always remember a quote that I will paraphrase that I saw in a movie once, "For those who believe no proof is necessary, and for those who do not believe no proof is enough." Something like that anyway - I think the point of that statement is true all the way back to Jesus' day. Jesus did do a lot of obvious miracles and how did that turn out for him? Implicit in your question is that you or more people might believe in Jesus if He did more obvious grand miracles . Well, I don't think Jesus wants you to believe in Him because He can perform miracles. After Lazarus was raised from the dead, he died again. Miracles are like candy they look good and then there gone and your not much better off. I don't meant that you are childish in any way, but it sees to me that the immature like and want miracles, the mature realize that God's eternal embrace of love and forgiveness for me is enough.

So no real answers I guess. This reminds me of some of great players comments. Well said, but nothing.


God had to know man would crucify Jesus, he is all knowing. So why did he let let Jesus do more obvious grand miracles then? I guess he knew it couldn't be verified or documented in any way, that would be dumb to leave any real proof. Surly he needs the devil to have some hope in recruiting sinners.

Gog had to know we would need more to believe now days he could have found a better way to have Jesus get the word of god around. What your saying is that god a Jesus failed.

This candy comparison just wont cut it this day and age. Any REAL grand miracle would be documented and bring people to god in an instant. It would be the same as if aliens landed on the lawn of the white house ,95% of the world would now believe in life on other planets. This would not just fade and go away like candy.

You should read Mark's Gospel, it is the shortest one. Throughout the Gospel Jesus is constantly telling people he heals or drives out demons from not to go around spreading this news. Scholars call it the "Messianic Secret". There is only one time when someone claims Jesus to be the Son of God when there is no response and that is the centurion at the cross who looked up at Jesus says, "Surely, this man was the Son of God." Jesus does not want you to believe in Him because of His miracles, but rather because of His willingness to sacrifice His life for you.

If all it would take for you to believe in Jesus is someone to change water into wine or walk on water then frankly maybe its better if you keep searching. Christianity is full of miracles but its foundation is Love; all encompassing, unconditional, forever type of LOVE and this is the greatest miracle of all.

Quote: FrGamble

There is only one time when someone claims Jesus to be the Son of God when there is no response and that is the centurion at the cross who looked up at Jesus says, "Surely, this man was the Son of God."

I very much doubt a pagan, polytheistic Roman or Greek centurion would have veen conceived the thought "God."

"Son of a god" would be more plausible, as that had ample precedent in Greco-Roman myth. Many of the gods were children of older gods, like Athena who sprang full-grown from the head of Zeus (I need ot read up on that myth). And that would have awed him, seeing as how petty and vengeful the Greco-Roman Pantheon could be (look up Arachne, or the Trojan War).

But son of the peculiar, unusual, weird Hebrew deity? That would have been an alien thought for a Roman mind at the time. Just as today no one thinks they ought to make a sacrifice to Venus or Jupiter, or thank Neptune for an uneventful voyage at sea, or even think "Jupiter is Rome's only king," when reading about Julius Caesar, even after Caesar himself says it.

Quote: FrGamble

You should read Mark's Gospel, it is the shortest one. Throughout the Gospel Jesus is constantly telling people he heals or drives out demons from not to go around spreading this news. Scholars call it the "Messianic Secret". There is only one time when someone claims Jesus to be the Son of God when there is no response and that is the centurion at the cross who looked up at Jesus says, "Surely, this man was the Son of God." Jesus does not want you to believe in Him because of His miracles, but rather because of His willingness to sacrifice His life for you.

If all it would take for you to believe in Jesus is someone to change water into wine or walk on water then frankly maybe its better if you keep searching. Christianity is full of miracles but its foundation is Love; all encompassing, unconditional, forever type of LOVE and this is the greatest miracle of all.

The way the lesson of the Roman was taught to me was that the Roman's eyes were opened to the Truth at the last and his pagan beliefs were overcome with knowledge of the true God. Sort of an insight conversion to Christianity that was very powerful and provided an example of knowing, thinking inevitability and superiority of that Truth. Sorry, not saying it very well, but it mattered a lot in the context of the times; it was all very well for the Jews to proclaim a Messiah, but the Romans had their own belief structure, whether the traditional gods or Mithras, a secret religion practiced widely within the Roman legions at the time. And so the Roman conversion required a rejection of his entire religious structure, not just a fulfillment of Jewish prophesy that not all Jews accepted.

Quote: AxelWolf

God had to know man would crucify Jesus, he is all knowing. So why did he let let Jesus do more obvious grand miracles then? I guess he knew it couldn't be verified or documented in any way, that would be dumb to leave any real proof. Surly he needs the devil to have some hope in recruiting sinners.

Gog had to know we would need more to believe now days he could have found a better way to have Jesus get the word of god around. What your saying is that god a Jesus failed.

Tim Rice's lyrics say it best from "Superstar"

Every time I look at you
I don't understand
Why you let the things you did
Get so out of hand
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?

If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication

Quote: FrGamble

If all it would take for you to believe in Jesus is someone to change water into wine or walk on water then frankly maybe its better if you keep searching. Christianity is full of miracles but its foundation is Love; all encompassing, unconditional, forever type of LOVE and this is the greatest miracle of all.

Christianity isn't the only thing that is love all encompassing so yeah, I'll need some watery wine to walk on please.

Quote: FrGamble

its foundation is Love; all encompassing, unconditional, forever type of LOVE

This may be an accurate description of a small part of what the Bible says, but it is not consistent with the history of Christianity in any way nor with a far greater part of the Bible. Christianity has a history of brutality and violence that is unmatched. The old testament Christian god seems to not take the 10 commandments very seriously -- at the very least, that god had a murderous streak.

teliot is completely backwards in his argument.

It is only a very small part of the Bible that one could take to show a God very harsh on sin, the vast majority of the Bible is one of compassion, love, and forgiveness culminating in the person of Jesus Christ. Likewise it boggles my mind how one could be so biased and blind as to overlook all the good Christianity has done throughout human history, which is truly unmatched by any other institution, religion, or philosophy.

Quote: teliot

This may be an accurate description of a small part of what the Bible says, but it is not consistent with the history of Christianity in any way nor with a far greater part of the Bible. Christianity has a history of brutality and violence that is unmatched. The old testament Christian god seems to not take the 10 commandments very seriously -- at the very least, that god had a murderous streak.

And I thought I was hostile to religion.

Now, how do I top this.... ;)

Quote: FrGamble

teliot is completely backwards in his argument.

It is only a very small part of the Bible that one could take to show a God very harsh on sin, the vast majority of the Bible is one of compassion, love, and forgiveness culminating in the person of Jesus Christ. Likewise it boggles my mind how one could be so biased and blind as to overlook all the good Christianity has done throughout human history, which is truly unmatched by any other institution, religion, or philosophy.

Sorry, FrGamble, but I think teliot has a much more accurate description of God's depiction in the Bible. You don't even have to cherrypick it, but some outstanding examples are the Flood with wholesale genocide, genocide again in Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot also giving his daughters up to be gang raped, 42 children killed for mocking Elijah's bald head, Passover plagues bringing famine and huge death counts to Egypt, on and on. I mean, really; a holiday celebrating the killing of all non-believing firstborn? Then in the post-Christ era, you have the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Line of Demarkation in the Americas, and the common practice worldwide of sending in priests with warriors to subjugate the natives of new lands into Christianity. The end does not justify the means.

Sorry Babs, but your depiction of the Bible is very inaccurate. Without going into the verses you mentioned and the reasons why God does indeed sometimes deal harshly with the sins of groups of people who oppress, harm, enslave, and kill the innocent - I hope you realize the small sampling of verses and stories you did cherrypick and prooftext are vastly outnumbered by the stories of mercy, love, compassion, and service. Likewise the Feast of the Holy Innocents, is a lamentation for those innocent children killed by an evil dictator in his pursuit to hunt down Christ.
Likewise, in your brief history of Christianity the evils you mention are also representative of brief periods in history and are as usual exaggerated. These awful and sinful acts of Christians are not even close to giving the whole picture of the countless good men and women who have and still today do so much good.

Quote: FrGamble

You should read Mark's Gospel, it is the shortest one. Throughout the Gospel Jesus is constantly telling people he heals or drives out demons from not to go around spreading this news. Scholars call it the "Messianic Secret". There is only one time when someone claims Jesus to be the Son of God when there is no response and that is the centurion at the cross who looked up at Jesus says, "Surely, this man was the Son of God." Jesus does not want you to believe in Him because of His miracles, but rather because of His willingness to sacrifice His life for you.

If all it would take for you to believe in Jesus is someone to change water into wine or walk on water then frankly maybe its better if you keep searching. Christianity is full of miracles but its foundation is Love; all encompassing, unconditional, forever type of LOVE and this is the greatest miracle of all.

Before we can even go any further lets Separate God from Jesus. I know most religions say God and Jesus are one in the same spiritually. But, for all we know Jesus is a false profit and has pulled the biggest con of all times. God may be watching and thinking we(people who believe in Jesus) are all fools. I know some religions believe in God but not Jesus. What makes them wrong?

Quote: teliot

This may be an accurate description of a small part of what the Bible says, but it is not consistent with the history of Christianity in any way nor with a far greater part of the Bible. Christianity has a history of brutality and violence that is unmatched. The old testament Christian god seems to not take the 10 commandments very seriously -- at the very least, that god had a murderous streak.

I am not a Christian apologist. My take is that the brutality and violence would have occurred with or without Christianity; it is a condition of humanity. Layer humanity with whatever set of rules and mores you want, and you will get the same thing. Good people will be good, bad people will be bad.

Religion is powerless to affect humans individually. Religion is powerless to affect humanity. But there will be people who have to believe, and people who cannot believe. Our challenge is not for our side to win, but to move forward under those conditions.

Quote: AxelWolf

I know most religions say God and Jesus are one in the same spiritually.

One (1) religion says that.

Quote: Mosca

Religion is powerless to affect humans individually. Religion is powerless to affect humanity.

Quite the contrary. Religion, as a philosophical system, wields enormous influence on individuals and humanity as a whole. the more comprehensive and detailed religions exert even more influence on believers at all levels.

European history from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance is largely indistinguishable from the history of Christianity. Belief matters a great deal, and so does the practices of religion. Even in the Renaissance the dominant conflict was between Catholics and Protestants. What changed since then was the demotion, well-deserved, of religion from the power sturctures of nation-states, which not incidentally coincides with the rise of nationalism.

While there are good and bad people regardless of their beliefs, the atrocities commited under religious belief are particualrly troublesome. See, you get things like wholesale murder and torture, as in the Crusades and the Inquisition, carried out as the greatest good and unertaken with righteous zeal. This is unmatched by anything secular regimes can do, except for totalitarian ones (which are quasi-religious in nature, complete with worship, ritual and theological-like ideologies).

Quote: Nareed

One (1) religion says that.

I doubt that only one teaches that. that would be insane to think that since there or are so many different religions . I may have went over board when saying MOST. To be clear im not saying they believe they are the same enity or being. I'm just saying that when they talk about, what Jesus wants, it would be what god wants and visa versa. When i ask about why God did or didn't do something, I don't want someone to answer with the reason Jesus did or didn't do something. I assume when Jesus "did miracles" it was directed by GOD. I doubt any REAL Miracles ever took place in the first place most things, like the red sea parting, can possibly be explained by science and nature. Then again, the burnt part of my toast this morning, did look a bit like an Marry.Who do I call?

Quote: FrGamble

Likewise, in your brief history of Christianity the evils you mention are also representative of brief periods in history and are as usual exaggerated.

Careful. I'm not sure that's the best course to take.

I don't deny that religion provides good. You have given countless examples. But to discount the atrocity is to discount people and the suffering they have gone through. That can't be right.

If today were the year 1256, one might look at the devastating weather around us and blame a heretic. A heretic like Nareed. And one would put her in the rack and pull her until limbs separated from her body. That's just one incident. But how big would it be to Nareed? To her family and loved ones?

And this went on for centuries. Not a week, or a month, but hundreds of years. I see neither "brief" nor "exaggerated", a see a serious offense to everything good. And not only was it wrong to do something like that, its very premise was wrong. Nareed and her lack of faith does not influence the weather. Any way you slice it, it was completely wrong, completely false, and completely done in the name of religion.

While you accuse Babs of cherry picking the horrors, it seems you also want to cherry pick in your lack of acceptance of them. Yes, religion does good. But if you take that, you must also take the bad.

Quote: AxelWolf

I doubt that only one teaches that.

One. Chrstianity.

The other two mainstream religions, Judaism and Islam, do not believe Jesus was the son of God. I think Islam regards him as a prophet, but that would put him on a par with other prophets. Their one special prophet is Muhammad, who is considered as having delivered God's final and definitive word. Any prophets after him are regarded as false prophets. As far as Judaism goes, Jesus was just a man like millions of others, not even a prophet like, say, Elijah.

Other than that, I'm not aware that any other religion, like Bhudism, Shintoism, any of the modern pagan sects, Hinduism, etc. even acknowledge a single god, much less the Biblical god, much less Jesus.

If you want to consider the seventeen million or so different Chrsitian denominations as separate religions, then several religions do. But as far as I'm concerned they're just variations of the same thing. And here I include Mormonism and other latter developments.

Quote: Nareed

One. Chrstianity.

The other two mainstream religions, Judaism and Islam, do not believe Jesus was the son of God. I think Islam regards him as a prophet, but that would put him on a par with other prophets. Their one special prophet is Muhammad, who is considered as having delivered God's final and definitive word. Any prophets after him are regarded as false prophets. As far as Judaism goes, Jesus was just a man like millions of others, not even a prophet like, say, Elijah.

Other than that, I'm not aware that any other religion, like Bhudism, Shintoism, any of the modern pagan sects, Hinduism, etc. even acknowledge a single god, much less the Biblical god, much less Jesus.

If you want to consider the seventeen million or so different Chrsitian denominations as separate religions, then several religions do. But as far as I'm concerned they're just variations of the same thing. And here I include Mormonism and other latter developments.

denominations would have been a better word for what I was saying. I have been to many, many different churches and from what I gathered most of them speak about both of them in the same light. Just reading about it (not saying that's you)online and studying it does not give you a real good understanding on what is going. Kind of like AP.

Quote: FrGamble

Likewise, in your brief history of Christianity the evils you mention are also representative of brief periods in history and are as usual exaggerated.

Not at all. These atrocities continue today. Horrible abuses of human rights, going on worldwide. That religion can be used to deny science may be the biggest atrocity of all. Countless future generations will suffer for it.

I am grateful we can move to a point we both agree on. Religion should not and cannot be used to deny science just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

Quote: FrGamble

Sorry Babs, but your depiction of the Bible is very inaccurate. Without going into the verses you mentioned and the reasons why God does indeed sometimes deal harshly with the sins of groups of people who oppress, harm, enslave, and kill the innocent - I hope you realize the small sampling of verses and stories you did cherrypick and prooftext are vastly outnumbered by the stories of mercy, love, compassion, and service. Likewise the Feast of the Holy Innocents, is a lamentation for those innocent children killed by an evil dictator in his pursuit to hunt down Christ.
Likewise, in your brief history of Christianity the evils you mention are also representative of brief periods in history and are as usual exaggerated. These awful and sinful acts of Christians are not even close to giving the whole picture of the countless good men and women who have and still today do so much good.

FrGamble,

I think Face (up a few posts) is right on point with what I was trying to say. I don't think that I am an "as usual exaggerator" (I hope you meant that you find that argument to be exaggerated, not my posts in general) but I also do not suggest that a one-sided condemnation would be accurate either. For every Torquemada, there may be a Mother Teresa, bless Her beauty. But allow me to ask you this, please; if the God of the old Testament was not a vengeful and demanding God who mainly ruled by fear, why was Christ's intercession, or even His existence, necessary in the first place?

I do sense in you the last day or so (between here and similar discussions on DT), a bit of exasperation and frustration, where you usually have the patience of Job in debating us "heathens and infidels" (Kidding on the labels, folks! Just walking a mile in the Padre's moccasins). Do not lose hope; you never know who you are reaching in continuing your debate. I admire your fortitude even as I disagree with your conclusions.

Quote: FrGamble

Just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

Any tangible claim that religion makes can be tested (and denied, if appropriate) by using scientific principles (e.g. the "creation" myth or talking snakes). However, nothing that science has established relies in any way on religion nor can be tested by religious principles. It is not symmetric, not in the least. We do not agree on that. For example, evolutionary biology explains very clearly the biological origins of religion, but religion does not explain the origin of science in any way.

Quote: FrGamble

I am grateful we can move to a point we both agree on. Religion should not and cannot be used to deny science just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

I disagree :)

Religions make claims about the world, too. Such claims need and must be questioned in the light of reason and knowledge, and here science is very helpful. I'll leave the scope of it out in order not to provoke further controversy and debate. Yet I'm sure we can all come up with a great deal.

I will say that, to its credit, the Roman Catholic church has been willing to at least examine their beliefs in light of scientific findings. But also that it does not do so enough.

Quote: beachbumbabs

FrGamble,

I think Face (up a few posts) is right on point with what I was trying to say. I don't think that I am an "as usual exaggerator" (I hope you meant that you find that argument to be exaggerated, not my posts in general) but I also do not suggest that a one-sided condemnation would be accurate either. For every Torquemada, there may be a Mother Teresa, bless Her beauty. But allow me to ask you this, please; if the God of the old Testament was not a vengeful and demanding God who mainly ruled by fear, why was Christ's intercession, or even His existence, necessary in the first place?

I do sense in you the last day or so (between here and similar discussions on DT), a bit of exasperation and frustration, where you usually have the patience of Job in debating us "heathens and infidels" (Kidding on the labels, folks! Just walking a mile in the Padre's moccasins). Do not lose hope; you never know who you are reaching in continuing your debate. I admire your fortitude even as I disagree with your conclusions.

Thanks Babs, you are correct in so many ways as usual. I did not mean you exaggerate at all it is just that from the history I have read about the crusades, inquisition, etc. there is much myth and exaggeration that often are allowed to stand as history. I also confess that recently there has been a lot of difficult things at the parish and maybe I am using the forums to vent a little bit. We have a funeral in a few hours for a courageous young man who died recently, can I ask for your prayers for him and his family.

Anyway back to the pedagogy of God throughout the Holy Bible. I believe when read as a whole you do not see a change in God rather a good teacher who takes a violent world and slowly brings them along towards loving their neighbors. You can't have a teacher in kindergarten teaching calculus. You have to begin with the basics and build on it. God is slowly but surely teaching humanity important lessons so that they will be ready for the message of Jesus Christ. A message that admittedly His followers in the Church have still struggled with throughout history up to today.

Quote: teliot

Any tangible claim that religion makes can be tested (and denied, if appropriate) by using scientific principles (e.g. the "creation" myth or talking snakes). However, nothing that science has established relies in any way on religion nor can be tested by religious principles. It is not symmetric, not in the least. We do not agree on that. For example, evolutionary biology explains very clearly the biological origins of religion, but religion does not explain the origin of science in any way.

The truth that all things must be tested by using scientific principles does not itself rest on scientific principles. It rests on philosophical notions of the order and logic of the universe; a notion that is supported by the religious idea that God created the universe with order and purpose. Therefore the origin of science is really found in philosophy, a philosophy that is supported by and strengthened by a religious worldview.

Quote: FrGamble

I am grateful we can move to a point we both agree on. Religion should not and cannot be used to deny science just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

LOL.... We wouldn't want any FACTS or LOGIC to get in the way. The church loves science unless its used to debunk the church.
You cant pick and choose what science you want to use, it all or don't use any of it. That would be crazy I know. God should not have given us science if he didn't want is to use it. He seems to make a lot of mistakes.

You statement reminds me of how system players think. System players often say real math should not be used to disprove their systems. But then they use funny math to try to prove their systems.

Christians=system players?

Quote: teliot

It is not symmetric, not in the least. We do not agree on that.

It seems appropriate that your post #666 was anti-religion :)

Quote: gpac1377

It seems appropriate that your post #666 was anti-religion :)

I am of Jewish heritage, ergo I have horns. Atheism does not begin to describe how I view religion. Perhaps a good start is this:

http://www.npr.org/2005/11/21/5015557/there-is-no-god

Which begins, "I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy ... " -- Penn Gillette

Quote: teliot

Atheism does not begin to describe how I view religion.

Much respect :)

Quote: FrGamble

Thanks Babs, you are correct in so many ways as usual. I did not mean you exaggerate at all it is just that from the history I have read about the crusades, inquisition, etc. there is much myth and exaggeration that often are allowed to stand as history. I also confess that recently there has been a lot of difficult things at the parish and maybe I am using the forums to vent a little bit. We have a funeral in a few hours for a courageous young man who died recently, can I ask for your prayers for him and his family.

Anyway back to the pedagogy of God throughout the Holy Bible. I believe when read as a whole you do not see a change in God rather a good teacher who takes a violent world and slowly brings them along towards loving their neighbors. You can't have a teacher in kindergarten teaching calculus. You have to begin with the basics and build on it. God is slowly but surely teaching humanity important lessons so that they will be ready for the message of Jesus Christ. A message that admittedly His followers in the Church have still struggled with throughout history up to today.

I can offer you this, Father; the peace in knowing, regardless of whether you attribute it to your belief in Christ, simply personal integrity, or other value system, that you are among the good people walking the earth, and your efforts in living an ethical and worthwhile life do not go unnoticed. May you find serenity in guiding your followers to their own acceptance of their loss with the comfort Christ can offer. I am sure they will need your strength and compassion, and your genuine grief at their loss speaks well of your caring for the living; may your belief in the afterlife help them remember their beloved young man with joy.

Quote: FrGamble

God is slowly but surely teaching humanity important lessons so that they will be ready for the message of Jesus Christ. .

Why so slow? He created the heavens and earth in 6 days. So now why is it taking him thousands of years to teach us everything( sounds like he is building an army). He needs a good manager.

Its so slow, its going in reverse. Every day more and more people are fading away from believing. If Jesus does not return soon, in a few hundred years science will be so advanced, very few of us will believe in god, just like most of us don't believe in mythology now. After long enough, if we have not destroyed ourselves (most likely outcome) we will probably be debating whether or not "AI" robots should be able to vote or if they deserve human rights.

Quote: teliot

Perhaps a good start is this:

http://www.npr.org/2005/11/21/5015557/there-is-no-god

Which begins, "I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy ... " -- Penn Gillette

Honestly, I don't see how that's helpful, but I'm just a plain, ordinary non-believer. Maybe I need to spend more time navel-gazing.

Quote: Nareed

One. Chrstianity.


Other than that, I'm not aware that any other religion, like Bhudism, Shintoism, any of the modern pagan sects, Hinduism, etc. even acknowledge a single god, much less the Biblical god, much less Jesus.

.

This is actually wrong there are many monotheistic religions around today like Zoroastrianism, admittedly very small. Sikhism is also monotheistic. Hell even certain sects of Hinduism are monotheistic, though arguably perhaps better to describe those sects as pantheists but it is incredibly complex and the notion of parabrahman is arguably monotheistic.

Other things are right though Jesus technically has a special place in Islam he isn't divine but for instance he will come back to earth before the time of judgement to defeat the false prophet. He is also the result of a virginal birth islams view is somewhat similar to Christianity with the one significant difference being Jesus is not divine he was simply empowered by the divine to perform miracles.

When people throughout history claimed to be christian and then did terrible things they were not following what the bible says they ought to do. That is a huge distinction from saying Gods word prescribes such actions.

Quote: pew

When people throughout history claimed to be christian and then did terrible things they were not following what the bible says they ought to do.

Except such things involved all levels of ecelsiastical authorities. So when a pope calls for a crusade, which is it? Is he infallible or not a Christian?

Quote: Nareed

Except such things involved all levels of ecelsiastical authorities. So when a pope calls for a crusade, which is it? Is he infallible or not a Christian?

Being pope, priest, pastor, or congregant, doesn't mean one is a christian. Going to church doesn't make one a christian although many people that attend church are christian. Equating Roman Catholicism to Christianity is an incorrect view. We have to go back to that religion nonsense to go any further into it.

Quote: pew

Being pope, priest, pastor, or congregant, doesn't mean one is a christian. Going to church doesn't make one a christian although many people that attend church are christian. Equating Roman Catholicism to Christianity is an incorrect view. We have to go back to that religion nonsense to go any further into it.

So being pope, a priest, quoting the Bible to justify an action, loudly proclaiming allegiance to Jesus, loudly proclaiming to be doing God's work, all that, and pressumably more, does not mean any Chrisitanity is involved at all.

Excuse me, but that's just avoiding responsibility, not to mention denying the religion has evolved and changed over time.

See, as deficient as, say, the US and Britain have been dealing with the legacy of slavery and the slave trade, they have not said "Well, those poeple who did that were not really Americans (or English)."

Quote: Nareed

So being pope, a priest, quoting the Bible to justify an action, loudly proclaiming allegiance to Jesus, loudly proclaiming to be doing God's work, all that, and pressumably more, does not mean any Chrisitanity is involved at all.

Excuse me, but that's just avoiding responsibility, not to mention denying the religion has evolved and changed over time.

See, as deficient as, say, the US and Britain have been dealing with the legacy of slavery and the slave trade, they have not said "Well, those poeple who did that were not really Americans (or English)."

I think you are talking about religion which is not relationship with the creator God. Christianity is not a group of people sharing a lifestyle, that would be a religion.

Quote: FrGamble

The truth that all things must be tested by using scientific principles does not itself rest on scientific principles. It rests on philosophical notions of the order and logic of the universe; a notion that is supported by the religious idea that God created the universe with order and purpose. Therefore the origin of science is really found in philosophy, a philosophy that is supported by and strengthened by a religious worldview.

There is nothing substantial that humans do that requires some random religion thought. Build a car? Cure a disease? Internet? Fly a plane? Science is necessary for everything we think of as "progress." That's the difference. Science doesn't need some random creation myth. There are hundreds of such myths, none have helped farms produce more food. The universe has no purpose. That's religious thinking. Religious belief makes the universe smaller, not larger.

Science of itself is not necessarily progress, it can be and has been used to do grave harm. I hate to tell you but not only is science completely dependent on philosophical ideas and religious thought for everything from the scientific method to the very inspiration to explore and strive to understand a universe that has order and logic to it, but it also needs ethics and morality to guide it. I don't think I understand how you think religious belief makes the universe smaller. I think religious belief opens up our universe to not only teach us but to help us serve our fellow man through the powerful tool of science.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't think I understand how you think religious belief makes the universe smaller. I think religious belief opens up our universe to not only teach us but to help us serve our fellow man through the powerful tool of science.

The universe is smaller whenever we invent and propagate mythical solutions to problems that are amenable to discovery and verification.

How can you pick one set of ideas from the huge expanse of historical stuff people have made up and say that it is somehow less silly than all the others, and take it so seriously? And then you religious people argue about whose silly stuff is right and kill each other for it. Do you honestly think I need to believe in one of these critters in order to know that 2 + 2 = 4 or to not steal from my neighbor?

It is clear that evolution led to our current obsession with religions. We really have little choice. Please do me a favor and read this -- quoted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

---

There is general agreement among cognitive scientists that religion is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved early in human history. However, there is disagreement on the exact mechanisms that drove the evolution of the religious mind. The two main schools of thought hold that either religion evolved due to natural selection and has selective advantage, or that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of other mental adaptations.[20] Stephen Jay Gould, for example, believed that religion was an exaptation or a spandrel, in other words that religion evolved as byproduct of psychological mechanisms that evolved for other reasons.[21][22][23]

Such mechanisms may include the ability to infer the presence of organisms that might do harm (agent detection), the ability to come up with causal narratives for natural events (etiology), and the ability to recognize that other people have minds of their own with their own beliefs, desires and intentions (theory of mind). These three adaptations (among others) allow human beings to imagine purposeful agents behind many observations that could not readily be explained otherwise, e.g. thunder, lightning, movement of planets, complexity of life, etc.[24] The emergence of collective religious belief identified the agents as deities that standardized the explanation.

Some scholars have suggested that religion is genetically "hardwired" into the human condition. One controversial hypothesis, the God gene hypothesis, states that some variants of a specific gene, the VMAT2 gene, predispose to spirituality.[25]

Another view is based on the concept of the triune brain: the reptilian brain, the limbic system, and the neocortex, proposed by Paul D. MacLean. Collective religious belief draws upon the emotions of love, fear, and gregariousness and is deeply embedded in the limbic system through sociobiological conditioning and social sanction. Individual religious belief utilizes reason based in the neocortex and often varies from collective religion. The limbic system is much older in evolutionary terms than the neocortex and is, therefore, stronger than it much in the same way as the reptilian is stronger than both the limbic system and the neocortex. Reason is pre-empted by emotional drives. The religious feeling in a congregation is emotionally different from individual spirituality even though the congregation is composed of individuals. Belonging to a collective religion is culturally more important than individual spirituality though the two often go hand in hand. This is one of the reasons why religious debates are likely to be inconclusive.[citation needed]

Yet another view is that the behaviour of people who participate in a religion makes them feel better and this improves their fitness, so that there is a genetic selection in favor of people who are willing to believe in religion. Specifically, rituals, beliefs, and the social contact typical of religious groups may serve to calm the mind (for example by reducing ambiguity and the uncertainty due to complexity) and allow it to function better when under stress.[26] This would allow religion to be used as a powerful survival mechanism, particularly in facilitating the evolution of hierarchies of warriors, which if true, may be why many modern religions tend to promote fertility and kinship.

Still another view is that human religion was a product of an increase in dopaminergic functions in the human brain and a general intellectual expansion beginning around 80 kya. [27][28] Dopamine promotes an emphasis on distant space and time, which is critical for the establishment of religious experience.[29] While the earliest shamanic cave paintings date back around 40 kya, the use of ochre for rock art predates this and there is clear evidence for abstract thinking along the coast of South Africa by 80 kya.

Quote: pew

When people throughout history claimed to be christian and then did terrible things they were not following what the bible says they ought to do. That is a huge distinction from saying Gods word prescribes such actions.

No true scotsman is a fallacy. You can't just simply claim that people who do not subscribe to exactly what you believe and act exactly how you think aren't Christian. The fact of the matter is the bible has the commision of numerous atrocities so who are you do say that should be ignored and only these passages should be accepted.

teliot, I did read your post and I have two questions.

1) Do you think science has any limits to what it can observe, discover, and verify?

2) If religion is a biological outgrowth of our brain architecture or genes then why can you call it silly or be so vehemently opposed to it? Do you ridicule or hate people with red hair too?

Quote: FrGamble

1) Do you think science has any limits to what it can observe, discover, and verify?

Read about Goedel's incompleteness theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

You seem to be hinting at the "ghost in the machine" argument for god. G in the thing we don't know yet. And since we can't know everything, g must be somewhere.

Quote:

2) If religion is a biological outgrowth of our brain architecture or genes then why can you call it silly or be so vehemently opposed to it? Do you ridicule or hate people with red hair too?

Religion isn't silly, it's the stuff that religious people believe that's silly. Religion is harmful and dangerous. I'm opposed to dangerous things. Cancer is a biological outgrowth, like red hair. Some parts of biology are good, others not so good.

I will "science for you" tonight.

Quote: FrGamble

teliot, I did read your post and I have two questions.

1) Do you think science has any limits to what it can observe, discover, and verify?

2) If religion is a biological outgrowth of our brain architecture or genes then why can you call it silly or be so vehemently opposed to it? Do you ridicule or hate people with red hair too?

Just because there is a biological explanation for something does not mean it is good or people cannot and shouldn't condemn it.

Quote: Twirdman

No true scotsman is a fallacy. You can't just simply claim that people who do not subscribe to exactly what you believe and act exactly how you think aren't Christian. The fact of the matter is the bible has the commision of numerous atrocities so who are you do say that should be ignored and only these passages should be accepted.

It's not about what I believe, it's about what God says. Maybe you can't grasp the concept due to a closed mind.