Celebrate Religion here
Quote: Nareedif you read the Hebrew prophecies about the Messiah you'll realize none of that came true either before, after or during the time of Jesus. Ergo the Messiah has not come. Ergo Christianity is patently false, according to the Jewish scriptures. BTW, any number of devout, semi-devout, and even non-practicing Jews will testify to the effect that God is one, and that belief in God being three, or there being three gods, or God being some kind of three-in-one entity is just wrong.
I'm not sure which version of the Hebrew Scriptures you are reading but here is just 10 of the hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah Jesus fulfilled.
Here are ten prophecies from the Old Testament, fulfilled in the coming of Jesus:
1. Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.
2. Jesus’ mother will be a virgin. Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.
3. Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2.
4. Jesus will be born in the town Bethlehem. Prophecy: Micah 5:2. Fulfilled: Luke 2:1–7.
5. Jesus will be called out of Egypt. Prophecy: Hosea 11:1. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13–15.
6. Jesus will be a member of the tribe of Judah. Prophecy: Genesis 49:10. Fulfilled: Luke 3:33.
7. Jesus will enter the temple. This is important because the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and was never rebuilt. Prophecy: Malachi 3:1. Fulfilled: Luke 2:25–27.
8. Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6.
9. Jesus’ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow. Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:16.
10. Jesus will live a perfect life, die by crucifixion, resurrect from death, ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God. Prophecies: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10–11; Psalm 68:18; Psalm 110:1. Fulfilled: 1 Peter 2:21–22; Luke 23:33; Acts 2:25–32; Acts 1:9; Hebrews 1:3.
Also you are very correct that God is one - that is what every Christian also believes. To say that the Trinity somehow goes against there being one God is a gross misunderstanding of the Triune nature of God, found both in the New and Old Testaments.
Quote: FrGambleEither that or blinded by the devil.
Well, I don't know if that is actually the case, but there does seem to be something that blinds some non-believers from realizing the truth. Some of these truths are quite obvious, like the existence of God, aka Higher Power, Prime mover, uncaused cause, etc. Then there is the truth about Jesus Christ that does need revelation, prayer, and faith to discover. However, negative comments or immature ones like "Christianity is blatantly false" shows a real blindness to the facts and an unwillingness to actually discover or talk about them.
Using the uncaused causer for an argument is patently absurd since it does not necessarily imply any sort of thinking being. Clearly their is some sort of sugar God an unsweetend sweetener. That argument sounds absolutely ridiculous and so does arguing for the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause.
Quote: FrGambleI'm not sure which version of the Hebrew Scriptures you are reading
None. I don't waste my time with any of it.
But every rabbi I've heard talk on the subject says so.
Quote:1. Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.
I really need to say this: Well, duh! I mean, if you take the Torah seriously (and I repeat I do not), every Jew is descended from Abraham.
Quote: TwirdmanUsing the uncaused causer for an argument is patently absurd since it does not necessarily imply any sort of thinking being. Clearly their is some sort of sugar God an unsweetend sweetener. That argument sounds absolutely ridiculous and so does arguing for the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause.
I appreciate your understanding of the argument and I grant that it is possible that the uncaused cause or unmoved mover is an impersonal force without thought or intellect. Now take a look around you and see how absolutely ridiculous you sound in trying to argue that this uncaused causer is not a thinking being.
Reading the Sacred Hebrew Scriptures is the opposite of a waste of time and the Torah in particular is one of the most important texts in the history of the world and demands to be taken very seriously. I hope your day got better. Peace!
Quote: FrGambleI appreciate your understanding of the argument and I grant that it is possible that the uncaused cause or unmoved mover is an impersonal force without thought or intellect. Now take a look around you and see how absolutely ridiculous you sound in trying to argue that this uncaused causer is not a thinking being.
An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. If you're saying that an impersonal force can't create the universe then you need a lot more then well the world doesn't seem like its created by any impersonal force. What reason do you have for suggesting the uncaused causer is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity which is what is required for it to be used as a proof for the Christian God. How does Aquinas's argument apply any better to the Christian god then it does to Parabrahman, some as of yet unknown god, the Force, or simply an impersonal force. The answer is it doesn't and thus it is a fatally flawed attempt at proving the Christian god.
Quote: FrGambleDear Nareed,
Reading the Sacred Hebrew Scriptures is the opposite of a waste of time
Mind the run-on sentences ;)
Seriously, I read enough of it in school to have had enough. Especially when I met my one true intellectual love in high school: History
Quote:and the Torah in particular is one of the most important texts in the history of the world and demands to be taken very seriously.
I take it as seriously as any other book of myths. All societies, after all, have their myths. Some make books about them, some don't. In either case they tell you how they view themselves, and in some cases how they remember history.
BTW as mythology the whole of the Old Testament is distinctly second rate. Way, way away from the Greek myths. Third rate honors would go to the Mayan mythology, because one can clearly see whoever wrote the Popol Vuh was on drugs a lot of the time (drugs were common in religious practices in pre-Columbian America). Granted some of the imagery is bizarre enough to appear alien, which it interesting in and of itself, but aside from that the book is far from memorable.
Quote:I hope your day got better. Peace!
It kind of did, thanks. I managed a workout session, and even made lunch for the very long week ahead.
Quote: TwirdmanAn argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. If you're saying that an impersonal force can't create the universe then you need a lot more then well the world doesn't seem like its created by any impersonal force. What reason do you have for suggesting the uncaused causer is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity which is what is required for it to be used as a proof for the Christian God. How does Aquinas's argument apply any better to the Christian god then it does to Parabrahman, some as of yet unknown god, the Force, or simply an impersonal force. The answer is it doesn't and thus it is a fatally flawed attempt at proving the Christian god.
The answer is only fatally flawed if it was an attempt to prove the Christian understanding of God, which it was not. I'm just happy you really do grasp the argument and for a Sunday evening I'm tempted to feel content at the consensus that there is a "God" (be it the Trinity or a divine watchmaker or FSM) and call it a night. To go the next step will require some openness to faith, revelation, and the supernatural because it is not as obvious and right under our noses like the existence of "God".
If your open I'd be happy to share some of my reasons for believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who is fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ the incarnate God.
My belief is any religion seeking physical proof is Just doing it wrong. You can't win this game in my opinion and have to just admit there isn't proof and never will be. It doesn't prove you're wrong with this approach, but trying the witness idea does. I'd just say it is scientifically impossible to ever know everything about the universe, and you either accept it or you don't. If you accept the intellectual limitations of man, the door is open for there to be something untouchable outside our universe. God could be there waiting, but you'll have to wait until you depart to find out. An approach would be possibly acceptable by the design of man, to not be responsible for actions we cannot comprehend and you can call this weakness defense Jesus. Jesus doesn't have to ever existed for the Jesus defense to exist. I just don't think trying unprovable proof is a winning argument. Your intentions may be good, but they grasp a self-defeating argument claiming proof which isn't there scientifically.
Quote: onenickelmiracleResponse to the Kravitz argument:
Your intentions may be good, but they grasp a self-defeating argument claiming proof which isn't there scientifically.
I think much depends on our definition of science, proof, and what is meant by scientifically? We sometimes make the mistake in thinking that information gained by hypothesis, observation, experimentation, and verification is the only type of knowledge there is. If science or the scientific method was indeed the only way we gained knowledge than an argument for a certain type of God based on proof would be self-defeating. Thank God there is more to our world and to us than what our limited senses and the observable universe can teach us. Deeper truths are calling out to us than can ever be found by science as we limit it today.
Quote: FrGambleThere is only one Jesus and it is one of the wonderful things that all Christians believe whether you are Catholic, Episcopal, Fundamentalist or a Christian Hippie. Jesus is the incarnate Son of God who came to save humanity by sacrificing His life for the forgiveness of sins and salvation of all.
Talk about a credible witness; here is all of Christianity around the world testifying to same Lord Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life.
FrGamble,
If only that were true. Jesus is the same in name only to those who use their Christianity to exclude and divide, which is the vast majority of sects. Not enough just to name the heathens among non-Christians (which is offensive enough), but to reject others within their own belief system. Look at a thousand bloody years in the UK among Catholics and Protestants. Look at the ugliness spread daily from Fundamentalists condemning traditional Christians, damned to eternal Hell for their non-belief in a narrow and restrictive path to Christ. Look at the Spanish Inquisition and a thousand martyrs to their particular style of worship. You look; I can't any more.
FrGamble help me out here and explain a few thingsQuote: FrGamblethree miracles
I still cant understand why god is so tricky and plays games with us or himself, I guess he likes a challenge.
Why dose god not just stop all the confusion? Why allow so may horrible things to happen? especially in his own churches. Why all the molestation? He can do miracles, Moving Mountains etc etc. But he cant help innocent children and their private parts remain priest free?
I understand high school kids may be little bastards, but why cant he can't he at least shield elementary kids from gunmen? Maybe he did and the other kids deserved to die.Perhaps he may have been to busy killing thousands with natural disasters at the time. Or perhaps he was to busy sending angels to hospital rooms.
People invented gods to explain things they didn't understand in the world, they still do this today. There are so many different gods(thousands) its insane. Everyone who has a belief in their gad thinks his or her god is the real god. What are the chances YOU are right? You say you have faith? So do all the other people. What are the odds you are right vs society has just made up god? If you were to take the word faith out of religion it would crumble, they would have nothing.
PS What dose FrGamble mean? I was under the assumption God was not much for gambling. Spreading the word of god or whatever you are attempting on this thread, with such a seemingly blasphemous name seems a bit hypocritical. Then again I wouldn't expect nothing less form a bible______.
Quote: FrGambleIf science or the scientific method was indeed the only way we gained knowledge than an argument for a certain type of God based on proof would be self-defeating.
But that's how we gain knowledge. Ergo all arguments for any kind of deity are self-defeating.
Now, that brings us to the crux of the matter: the above being so, why and how does religion persist?
In science there are no useless questions. And the best answers are those that give rise to further questions.
Quote:Thank God there is more to our world and to us than what our limited senses and the observable universe can teach us. Deeper truths are calling out to us than can ever be found by science as we limit it today.
That's not just self-defeating but counter-productive. You can make the same argument for astrology, numerology, dianetics, acupuncture and any other thing you want.
BTW, the latest results form CERN are veyr interestnig. It seems the Higss Boson was the last piece missing from the Standard Model. Unfortunately this leaves a very large number of questiosn unanswered, most particularly including the nature of gravity. And no word at all on Dark Matter or Dark Energy, so far. This si very itneresting because it hints at some further realm of nature unkown and largely unsuspected thus far. Or it may hint at the real limits of our understanding or our ability to probe nature.
No connection to the thread, but I thought I'd post it anwyay.
Quote: AxelWolf
PS What dose FrGamble mean? I was under the assumption God was not much for gambling. Spreading the word of god or whatever you are attempting on this thread, with such a seemingly blasphemous name seems a bit hypocritical. Then again I wouldn't expect nothing less form a bible______.
Axel,
Funny you should ask this; I was wondering about it myself the other day. FrGamble played with us in the NFL picks, but I don't think it's hypocritical for a priest to enjoy gaming. I do think there are several things happening here, and I wonder which are a factor for him, if any. If Father is a Jesuit, for example (I went to a Jesuit university), he may be enjoying the intellectual exercise of self-examination and defense of his faith; the priests I knew there were constantly questioning not just the students', but their own beliefs and tenets, in order to strenghten and grow their faith. He may see this gathering of apparently large percentages of agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians (compared to many available groups) as an ideal outreach point to prosthelytize about his faith; Christ and many followers of His (Mother Teresa was a good example of this) went where they perceived a need, not where they were already welcome. And he may just enjoy the eclectic interaction among people whose common interest is gambling, not like-minded faith; he probably finds it a refreshing change from his primary interactions with people as a priest first. At least those were my thoughts, and I wanted to throw them out there before he answers your question, just for my own amusement. Glad you asked; I didn't quite have the nerve.
First of all to correct Axel - the idea of God is not made up to explain what we don't understand. If you were paying attention to some of the posts before the idea of an uncaused cause, unomoved mover, aka "God" is the logical foundation to our universe and how things all were created. You might not believe in a personal or loving God but don't confuse that with the basic idea that nothing can come from nothing and that there had to be some higher immaterial and non-contingent force, maybe an impersonal one, outside of space and time.
Understanding this you can see how this "God" has been know and understood throughout history. Our beliefs about God have evolved or developed over time, from hundreds of different gods and ideas to now the vast majority of believers understanding there is one God with a system of beliefs based on revelation. Who is to say this process won't continue leading eventually to the universal acceptance of Christ in thousands of years? I'm hopeful, but I do not begrudge anyone their sincerely held religious beliefs except for those like violent Musliums, Westboro Christians, and mean Atheists like yourself who do more harm than good for their respective belief systems and our world.
I hope you also realize that faith is not all there is in regard to religion. People don't continue to believe because of some blind faith. Faith is a reasonable act of the will and the mind, which is based on trust and experience. Take away faith and you are left with conviction based on experiences of a loving God who is present even in the midst of great suffering. In Heaven there will be no need for faith. Faith, Hope, and Love - the greatest of these is love. Love is the essence of religion, take that away and indeed religion and all humanity would crumble.
Finally, I do hear you and Babs both with your natural and reasonable emotional response to the fact of evil and suffering in the world. It does cause many to reject God, or at least the idea of a loving God. However, I wonder if we reject God through our tears about the sadness we feel about life, what are we left with? All the sadness and sin and none of the hope. Don't give up. Rejecting God is not an answer to the problem of evil, it is a depressing defeat.
I probably should have done this in a couple of posts so I will stop for now.
Quote: beachbumbabsAxel,
Funny you should ask this; I was wondering about it myself the other day. FrGamble played with us in the NFL picks, but I don't think it's hypocritical for a priest to enjoy gaming. I do think there are several things happening here, and I wonder which are a factor for him, if any. If Father is a Jesuit, for example (I went to a Jesuit university), he may be enjoying the intellectual exercise of self-examination and defense of his faith; the priests I knew there were constantly questioning not just the students', but their own beliefs and tenets, in order to strenghten and grow their faith. He may see this gathering of apparently large percentages of agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians (compared to many available groups) as an ideal outreach point to prosthelytize about his faith; Christ and many followers of His (Mother Teresa was a good example of this) went where they perceived a need, not where they were already welcome. And he may just enjoy the eclectic interaction among people whose common interest is gambling, not like-minded faith; he probably finds it a refreshing change from his primary interactions with people as a priest first. At least those were my thoughts, and I wanted to throw them out there before he answers your question, just for my own amusement. Glad you asked; I didn't quite have the nerve.
+1, except I'm not a Jesuit.
Quote: Nareed
BTW, the latest results form CERN are veyr interestnig. It seems the Higss Boson was the last piece missing from the Standard Model. Unfortunately this leaves a very large number of questiosn unanswered, most particularly including the nature of gravity. And no word at all on Dark Matter or Dark Energy, so far. This si very itneresting because it hints at some further realm of nature unkown and largely unsuspected thus far. Or it may hint at the real limits of our understanding or our ability to probe nature.
I've felt like technology had only been getting faster and new stuff is being found everyday. But I feel like we're about to gain information that's going to totally blow open a long held mystery. A "critical mass of information", if you will. It's a fun time to be alive =)
Anyways, back to Kravitz.
I have a hard time... no, that's not right. I completely disregard any anecdotal evidence from a human on these types of subjects, and that included ones which might be "for my side", like the people who "die" and report nothing but blackness. It's just not reliable. It's not "truth".
See, I've experienced things. I remember as a youth hearing about these same instances, or "crazy people" who heard and seen things that don't really exist, and it was hard to relate. But since that time, I've experienced things myself which lead me to believe there is nothing whatsoever behind these claims.
The human mind is a weird thing. Without certain parts of it, there would be no sight to see, no hearing to hear, no sense to smell. All of these experiences are possible by way of receptors to gather and a brain to process. The thing is, this incredibly complex system that allows those things to happen sometimes goes on the fritz.
LSD is a great one for testing those bounds. LSD works by expanding the pathways these senses take. Instead of a sense going from the receptor to the specific area that translates it, the "translators" become all interconnected. Everything lights up. Your sense of hearing, for example, is allowed to follow the path to, and be interpreted by, your sight translator. As a result, you can "see" music. Your memory can connect to these, too, so just thinking of grandma's apple pie can cause you to actually smell and taste it as if it were "right there". It's a weird thing. The amount of things that I have "seen" would boggle the mind, but although I "saw" them as sure as I'm typing this out today, none of those things were real. None of them existed.
And while those experiences where caused by chemical manipulation, the same effects can be caused by other reasons. I remember an incident whereby I received a nasty concussion. Being kids, I was dragged off the field and left on the sideline, only barely conscious. As I laid there in a haze, somewhere between the barn and the cow pasture, I distinctly remember a snake larger than any that had ever lived skulking in the cornfield. I saw it slowly slithering closer and closer, ignorant of the birds screeching and dive bombing it in protest. I fell unconscious and was shaken awake a few minutes later, and it was still there, even closer. I saw my friends running and chasing each other, oblivious of it, and I, unable to warn them. That snake was there. I saw it. But it never existed.
I guess what I'm saying is we get so used to the brain working mostly flawlessly that we forget how incredibly complex and fragile it really is. And the amount of damage or interruption it takes to make it do some wild and far out things is incredibly miniscule. Just the slightest tweak to it and you can experience heaven or the worse nightmare imaginable. I've no doubt they "see" them. I've no doubt it feels as real as a touch from a loved one. Because to them, it is. I've been there. And it was. But my great grandfather's claims of bugs and beetles crawling up the walls as he passed existed no more than the angels, demons, or any other thing people claim as they pass. It's just a malfunction of a damaged, dying mind.
Quote: FrGambleFirst of all to correct Axel - the idea of God is not made up to explain what we don't understand. If you were paying attention to some of the posts before the idea of an uncaused cause, unomoved mover, aka "God" is the logical foundation to our universe and how things all were created.
The problem persists that you cannot prove any of this.
But, believe it or not, I don't mind at all, not even a little, if you choose to believe this. As far as I'm concerned you can bleive whatever you want, in any way you want. It's when such beliefs are used to oppress, repress and otherwise justify the use of violence against other people that decent people must make a stand and push back.
If you intend to limit my rights, my freedom and my life, you'd better have something a lot better than what you've posted here. And even then you shouidl expect nothing less than massive objections and resistance.
Quote: NareedYou can make the same argument for astrology, numerology, dianetics, acupuncture and any other thing you want.
Religious "proof" is also perfectly adequate for systems of gamblers. You can make elusive claims of proof for your system. Any hard evidence to the contrary is no obstacle to believers. You can claim rare miracles of success that no one else has witnessed and no one can reproduce, except from other sketchy circumstances or players. You can have followers to back you up. You can talk about what's his name back in the old days who made big bucks from the system to give it an historical respectability like ancient wisdom. You can write authoritative books about it. You can sometimes even get people to give you money for "secrets" and perhaps make a living. You can become a teacher imparting wisdom. You can more or less become head of your own church.
The church of baloney. The church of hooey. The church of gambling systems. The church.
Quote: rxwineReligious "proof" is also perfectly adequate for systems of gamblers.
Oh, for sure. That would be included under "any other thing you want."
Though to be fair the basic tenents and beliefs of most religions, and certainly all mainstream ones, are in the public domain. Newer cults, especially the brain-washing cults, are secretive and mysterious.
Quote: FrGambleEither that or blinded by the devil.
I tried to let this pass, but I cant.
Bringing up a new, non-existent entity does little for you. I no more believe in the devil than in God or Tlaloc.
Quote:Some of these truths are quite obvious, like the existence of God, aka Higher Power, Prime mover, uncaused cause, etc.
If that were obvious, it would be easily proven. Along the lines of proving the Earth is a spheroid, say. Something anyone can grasp and explain with a simple demonstration. Not the torrent of words and arguments it has been.
Same holds true for the good in the world. People have a deep well for goodness. Belief and non-belief doesn't change anything other than the justifications held up for the behavior.
Quote: MoscaIf there were no churches and no religions humans would act equally horrible toward each other in equal measure, on both personal and institutional levels. It is not the religion causing the evil, it is the people.
Same holds true for the good in the world. People have a deep well for goodness. Belief and non-belief doesn't change anything other than the justifications held up for the behavior.
Incredibly well said, Mosca, thanks. Was thinking exactly the same thing but couldn't find the phrasing.
Quote: MoscaIf there were no churches and no religions humans would act equally horrible toward each other in equal measure, on both personal and institutional levels. It is not the religion causing the evil, it is the people.
That may be so. But the fact remains many religions have been guilty of carnage ad atrocities on a massive scale. For every Third Punic War there is a Crusader Sack of Jerusalem. For every period of Chrisitian persecution in the Roman Empire, there is a period of the Spanish Inquisition, or the French kings cracking down on the Hugenots.
So when someone says "But without religion what would we do about morality?" I really feel I should laugh at the absurdity of the question.
Quote: BuzzardSurely you do no doubt the existence of the DEVIL. It was SATAN who made all those thousands of priests molest children. It is the same DEVIL who is making Catholic bishops move funds and assets to protect them from lawsuits of those same children.
And yet it's also the same devil who torments the dammned souls in Hell, right? If there were consistency in the belief, Satan should welcome the dammned with open arms and congratulate them on a job well done.
BTW, I wish we could claim the name "Lucifer" to it's meaning. It means "light-bringer." Arthur C. Clarke tried in "2010: Oddysey Two" by naming the Jupiter-cum-star "Lucifer," but it didn't catch on even mong SF fans.
Quote: NareedBut the fact remains many religions have been guilty of carnage ad atrocities on a massive scale.
Religion inspires stupid people to action. Happily, the stupid people here in Nevada are relatively non-religious, so they're happy to while their time away harmlessly chain-smoking at the low-denomination keno machines.
Quote: rxwineReligious "proof" is also perfectly adequate for systems of gamblers. You can make elusive claims of proof for your system. Any hard evidence to the contrary is no obstacle to believers. You can claim rare miracles of success that no one else has witnessed and no one can reproduce, except from other sketchy circumstances or players. You can have followers to back you up. You can talk about what's his name back in the old days who made big bucks from the system to give it an historical respectability like ancient wisdom. You can write authoritative books about it. You can sometimes even get people to give you money for "secrets" and perhaps make a living. You can become a teacher imparting wisdom. You can more or less become head of your own church.
The church of baloney. The church of hooey. The church of gambling systems. The church.
I need to clarify that miracles are not proof. They lack the staying power so to speak to sustain any real type of faith. This is why Jesus consistently refused to do miracles for show, to entertain Herod, or to come down from the cross.
You also make the mistake of stereotyping believers into people who secretly don't understand or don't even like religion but stay just because of history or some obscure hope for a rare miracle or mysterious secrets. That people are deceived or wowed by something that because its old sounds respectable or wise, but is really baloney. It sounds like you think nobody gets anything out of their relationship with God and their faith in religion. What you ignore is that people are not fools; they believe in God because their lives have been changed. Their marriage has been saved, their addictions overcome, their grief tempered, they have become kinder, more loving, men and women of service, and have found life worth living because of their relationship with Jesus Christ and being part of a faith community.
Quote: NareedThat may be so. But the fact remains many religions have been guilty of carnage ad atrocities on a massive scale. For every Third Punic War there is a Crusader Sack of Jerusalem. For every period of Chrisitian persecution in the Roman Empire, there is a period of the Spanish Inquisition, or the French kings cracking down on the Hugenots.
I am shocked that Nareed apparently went to the EvenBob school of history.
One needs only look to modern history, of our 20th century, to see the carnage that atheistic governments and people have put upon the world. In that one bloodiest century in history the non-religious folk have been guilty of such evil that all the so called religious carnage and atrocities put together would not equal it.
When I hear people say the Old Testament or the medieval Church was violent I ask them to compare that to a recent secular history book and reexamine the absurdity of their statement.
Quote: MoscaIf there were no churches and no religions humans would act equally horrible toward each other in equal measure, on both personal and institutional levels. It is not the religion causing the evil, it is the people.
Same holds true for the good in the world. People have a deep well for goodness. Belief and non-belief doesn't change anything other than the justifications held up for the behavior.
I agree with Babs that Mosca always seems to save the day with a very good post. However, I do not think he went far enough on this one. I would say this:
If there were no churches and no religions humans would act more horribly toward each other in ways difficult for us to imagine, on both personal and institutional levels. It is not the religion causing the evil, it is the people.
People do indeed have a deep well for goodness, a glorious potential that would boggle the mind if we realized it. Non-belief doesn't necessarily change this or stop people from doing good for goodness sake, but belief encourages and demands from people to draw from this well of goodness.
I am not blaming you, nor your institution. Your faith is real, and I will not insult it. But it doesn't make sense to me when I apply it from behind my eyes, and it never will. Our arguing is pointless. Neither will ever sway the other. It is a waste of energy. We would be better off joining forces to make a better world.
Quote: FrGambleI need to clarify that miracles are not proof. They lack the staying power so to speak to sustain any real type of faith. This is why Jesus consistently refused to do miracles for show, to entertain Herod, or to come down from the cross.
On a site that requires evidence for claims, Jesus would get a good smackdown for such excuses if he couldn't produce.
Quote:You also make the mistake of stereotyping believers into people who secretly don't understand or don't even like religion but stay just because of history or some obscure hope for a rare miracle or mysterious secrets. That people are deceived or wowed by something that because its old sounds respectable or wise, but is really baloney. It sounds like you think nobody gets anything out of their relationship with God and their faith in religion. What you ignore is that people are not fools; they believe in God because their lives have been changed. Their marriage has been saved, their addictions overcome, their grief tempered, they have become kinder, more loving, men and women of service, and have found life worth living because of their relationship with Jesus Christ and being part of a faith community.
Yes. People get something out of religion. No doubt.
Quote: FrGambleOne needs only look to modern history, of our 20th century, to see the carnage that atheistic governments and people have put upon the world.
If you're talking about Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Red China, you had better try again. if it wasn't faith and an altruistic philosophy that sustained those regimes, then I'd like to know what it was.
Besides, you cannot wash blood away by using someone else's spilled blood.
"If there is a root of evil that became a terrifying force that almost brought the world to destruction in the first half of the twentieth century, it is the anti-religious ideologies of Germany and Russia, North Vietnam and North Korea. It takes almost willful blindness to invert this historical fact, and to suppose that the religions that were persecuted and crushed by these brutal forces are the real sources of evil in the world."
Quote: FrGambleThought I would share this quote from Keith Ward:
Calling something "anti-religious" does not make it so.
Look at the ideologies in question (disgusting, I know; I've looked) and tell me whether they're not largely based on faith and whether the do not demand they sacrifice of the individual to the state, or the race, or the sate and the race (altruism).
Though I'm not surprised you went for an argument based on authority.
BTW, I've mentioned this before, but now it bears repeating: what of the vehement Christian anti-semitism, promoted or sanctioned by the Church for centuries? What role did that play in the Holocaust?
Fortunately, I was directed to examine my conscience and to consider that maybe I was not alone ine this world.
I realized that I was not smart enough to have all the answers nor was I so so low that I was not worth saving.
I returned to the faith of my childhood, the Catholic Church, and my life began to turn around for the better. Somewhere along the way, i lost the compulsion for some of my self destructive behavior. I attribute this to help that I received from God, as I understand Him, and from other people who were good enough to share their faith experiences with me.
I understand this is not proof of God to many people but I do want to thank Father Gamble for all his contibutions here.
My post is to let Father Gamble know that I appreciate his contributions here.
Quote: EvenBobTanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.
"Come on, girl" said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"
"I left the girl by the side of the road." said Tanzan. "Why are you still carrying her?"
Quote: treetopbuddyQuote: EvenBobTanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.
"Come on, girl" said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"
"I left the girl by the side of the road." said Tanzan. "Why are you still carrying her?"
Quote: FrGamble"If there is a root of evil that became a terrifying force that almost brought the world to destruction in the first half of the twentieth century, it is the anti-religious ideologies of Germany and Russia, North Vietnam and North Korea. It takes almost willful blindness to invert this historical fact, and to suppose that the religions that were persecuted and crushed by these brutal forces are the real sources of evil in the world."
Three words: "GOTT MIT UNS."
By any definition under which Nazi Germany was anti-religious, you belong to the second-most prolific band of atheists there is, from burning the Serapeum to the Eighty Years' War. (The morality or extenuating circumstances of these acts is not the point, only that both were attempts to quiet religious sentiment.) Sure, the Nazis were some lousy Christians, but aren't most Christians in one way or another?
The veneration of the Kim dynasty, too, is difficult to see as anything but religious. The others you might have a case for them being anti-religious in general, but the implication that that's what made them the monstrous regimes they indeed were is belied by the first. While it's absurd to say that the religious folk crushed under their heels were the real evil, it's even more absurd to see these regimes' hatred for your particular brand of religion as underlying their brutality.
Quote:A snake-handling TV preacher died on Saturday of a snake bite.
Pastor Jamie Coots, the star of “Snake Salvation,” was bitten on the right hand at his Kentucky church, Middlesborough police said.
The Pentecostal holy man refused to go to the hospital or accept any medical treatment, police said.
Coots, whose show appeared on National Geographic’s television channel, believed snake handling was a commandment from God and a viper’s bite was God’s will.
“When I first started church I said if I ever went to a hospital or a doctor over a snake bite I would quit church,” Coots said in one episode.
He had previously survived a bite that cost him most of the middle finger on his right hand. Instead seeking medical attention for the gruesome injury, he let it rot to black, exposing a quarter inch of bone before it broke off.
He kept the stub of the finger in a glass jar for his wife.
“To me it’s as much of a commandment from God when he said, ‘they shall take up serpents’ as it was when he ‘thou shall not commit adultery,” Coots said on the show of snake handling.
Coots was just as resolute on Saturday, according to police.
Cops and medical crews were called about 8:30 p.m. to a church for reports of a snakebite victim, but Coots had already left, police said.
They later found Coots at home and tried to talk him into medical treatment, but he wouldn’t accept it. The crews finally left about 9:10 p.m.
They returned about an hour later with the Bell County deputy coroner and found Coots dead.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pastor-jamie-coots-snake-handling-tv-preacher-dies-viper-bite-article-1.1616382#ixzz2tX2ejoNK
Hey! That's not funny! When his offspring dies from a snakebite then it'll be hilarious but until then, it's jus .. Okay, it's still hilarious!Quote: rxwineKilled by lack of faith or what? Or God decided to take him home? Or he made a bad bet?
A religious guy is stuck on his rooftop during a flood. A rescue boat comes and the guy waves it off, saying "God will save me." A helicopter comes. "No, God will save me."
The guy drowns. He arrives at the entrance to heaven and asks God, "Why didn't you save me?" God responds: "I sent a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want me to do?"
