Jump to content

Defence Of Catholic Teaching


Clydeside_Sheep

Recommended Posts

That's incorrect, or possibly an attempt circumvent the contradiction via semantics, either way that's not a satisfactory answer.

 

We are absolutely "Born into sin", according to Catholicism, as a result of Adam's sin.

 

The only people NOT "Born into sin" were Adam, Eve, and allegedly Mary, mother of the Christ.

 

Therefore we still have the contradiction that "The sins of the father" are inherited.

 

 

Original Sin is understood in Catholicism as refering to the flawed nature of humanity, a state which is the direct consequence of Adam's Original Sin (The Story of Adam and Eve is ultimately about Humanity turning away from God). It is a sin of nature, not of will.

 

Thomas Aquinas explained the term "sin" is used only by analogy, it does not refer to a personal sin or guilt. The analogy is used because its consquence is the same as a personal sin. The consequence of humanity turning away from God is an absence of God's grace. And so "Born in Sin" means 'born without the grace of God'.

 

Its the consequences we inherit, not the guilt. Just like the common phrase "to inherit a situation". You didnt cause the situation personally, but you've got it alright, like it or not.

 

Analogy:

 

Image you came home pissed and burned the house down trying to make chips (but fortunately everyone escapes).

Your family would inherit the consequences of your action and have to live with it.

They are not personally responsible, but nevertheless their situation is exactly as it would have been, had they had burned the house down themselves - all thanks to you.

 

See?

 

We inherit the consqeuences, not personal guilt, and the term "sin" is used analogously given the effects are the same anyway.

 

I dont know what else to say to you fella.

Link to comment

Ah, the 'Analogy when it's required' concept.

 

Thomas Aquinas explained the term "sin" is used only by analogy, it does not refer to a personal sin or guilt.

 

I imagine Thomas Aquinas had a bit of a chinwag with God regarding this, rather than him making something up in order to explain away yet another contradiction between the word of god and the contradictory word of the church.

 

So, when the Bible says 'sin' it doesn't really mean sin... this time... but is merely analogous dialogue meaning something not contradictory.'

 

Well, there's no way around that, I guess.

 

This is a case of 'The Bible is the literal word of God, except when it's inconvenient or contradictory, at which point it becomes analogy'.

 

There's really nothing else you can say, chum.

 

The salad bar method does allow the theist to live with contradiction.

 

You should have simply invoked that at the beginning and saved time.

Link to comment

Hi Kelt,

 

You are arguing with yourself.

 

You are attempting to dictate to Catholics what their religion is, and then criticising it based on your own misunderstanding.

Ah, the 'Analogy when it's required' concept.

What do you mean "Ah"? - I told this this nearly a week ago (look back and see) and you didnt react to it then, why now?

 

The "objection when its required" concept? ;)

I imagine Thomas Aquinas had a bit of a chinwag with God regarding this, rather than him making something up in order to explain away yet another contradiction between the word of god and the contradictory word of the church.

 

So, when the Bible says 'sin' it doesn't really mean sin... this time... but is merely analogous dialogue meaning something not contradictory.'

Theres no contradiction. Ive explained this to you very thoroughly.

 

Of course it is your right to find this explanation unsatisfying, but you cant tell me I am saying something different to what I mean lol.

This is a case of 'The Bible is the literal word of God, except when it's inconvenient or contradictory, at which point it becomes analogy'

Catholics believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but not that it is the literal word of God.

You are confusing us with Protestants.

 

There all manner of things in the Bible (Old testament in particular) - stories, allegory, facts etc -it requires some discernment, not a glib acceptance of all.

 

It would be absurd to regard every last line in the Bible as being the authorative word of God. I mean, does he really care if poeple eat Shellfish? I really wouldnt have though so.

 

Note also, that - in Catholicism - our understanding is based only in part on the Bible. Sure, its important, but it alone is not the be-all-and-end-all. We also understand our faith using Tradition (of Early Christians) and Authority (of the Church, which involves the use of reason).

 

Protestants have neither Tradition nor Authority, which is why they say (in error) "Scripture alone" as to how to understand Christianity. But that is ridiculous - for a start, it doesnt even say that in the Scriptures they read lol - and only leads people into silly situations.

The salad bar method does allow the theist to live with contradiction.

No salad bar here, thats where you now find those Protestants who have retreated from their previous "Scripture alone" arguments and who now instead wish to pick and choose, rather than accept everything.

 

But Its much better to form a proper understanding in the first place.

 

You wouldnt be the first internet user to feel s/he has seized on some glaring error in the funamentals of Mainstream Christianity and I am sure you will not be the last.

 

But I can assure you, we've got this down pretty solidly!

Link to comment

You never did reply to my Noahs ark post.

 

It's a bit silly isn't it? Putting all those animals into one boat....the logistics would be a nightmare. it's like an extended version of the chicken, feed and fox game!

 

Not to mention the fact he's killing off 99.99% of the population of everything and of course brings with it the problem of breeding these animals again...interbreeding?!?

 

Oh and the fig tree n Jesus?

 

Wiping out the dinosaurs - harsh.

 

All this is before you start to look at walking on water, turning water into wine and a burning bush!! Isn't this just an early metaphor for Thrush?

 

It all sounds plays out like a fantasy story written by people who didn't know any better about the world and could only explain science by using "God", because they didn't understand. Now we do understand and the God theory isn't required.

 

How come there hasn't been any sightings of God since cameras were invented? Is it maybe because it was all a lie invented by attention seeking, money seeking perhaps, people back in the olden days when they knew more poor fools would believe it. Or some crazy old bat dying of Scurvy in her bed suddenly thinks she see's "god" when in actual fact it's just an illusion caused by her craziness.

 

And then you have to look at other religions. You must think that other religions are nonsense? in the same way that atheists think Christianity is nonsense?

Link to comment

God does not exist within time. The passing of time is something we mortals experience, not God.

Prove it.

 

Yes, the theory is very convincing. But its quite compelling that the physical evidence does not tie-up with what the theory predicts, eh? After all, that is the greatest criticism Darwin raised against his own work.

It's not just convincing, you just need to look at current animals to see that they have evolved from one form or another. Snakes, for example, used to have legs. They have evolved to not use them anymore for one reason or another. Penguins have wings, why? because they have evolved from a bird that used to fly.

 

Evidence of this is everywhere.

Something you can't say about the existence of a bearded man in the sky.

Link to comment

If there was no thing as organised religion and we were all handed a book today that stated the following;

 

Some cunt made a cock and a cunt and stuck them in a garden naked and telt them nae ti touch nowt only for the cunt to decide she kens better and from that point on we're all bad fucks

Some other twat built a boat because the cunt that made the cunt and the cock had enough of watching them fuck so wiped them all out bar pairs of animals, the bloke that built the boat and his family. Ahin now comes fae that but miraculously we're nae a inbred mongs

couple of gadgies had a fight, the wee one smashed the big yins heed in with a boulder, the end.

Couple of brothers fight, would you Adam and Eve it?

Some bloke has a fancy colourful coat, nae cunt likes him. Show off cunt that he is.

Another gadge had some mines somewhere, he was affa rich and a bit of a twat by all accounts

ome other gadgy was born to a virgin (aye, right, you honestly think virgins just wonder around the desert getting knocked up by burning bushes), meant to be the son of the cunt thats already fucked ahin up twice, by the by, yon cunt only shows himsel in dreams and sometimes sets fire to bushes and yaps to bearded blokes while sending them instructions on stones.

There's these mannies and wifies with wings, they come doon sometimes instead of yon gadge setting fire to bushes.

 

Oh and da kill nae cunt, da shag yer nieghbours missus, da tak their shite, dinna beat the Jones's its nae worth it, and da fuck yer sister nae mare.

 

After a that we'll now tell you what to do, how to live, we'll demand devotion to an invisible man that we've made up for shits and giggles

Wimmen folk are all cunts, they get nowt. Nae the words of the boy that sets fire to bushes though, we've decided that een for ourselves like ken.

Fuck the gays, aye, nae literally. Well unless you're a cunt then you can make em nae gay nae mare

If you're nae with us yer deid, forever deid, nae messing. Well nae forever deid, theres a new red man in toon, he'll fuck you up with fire and brimstone.

Well, you were, now we're a bit mellower, we'll just call you a cunt and disown you.

 

Dont do what we say and that thing we made up and telt you about earlier, yer soul thing, its going to burn in a place called hell that doesnt actually exist in the first books we wrote about a this shite but since you lot didinae listen fit choice do we have. Theres now a hell, you're all going to die and then stay there burning like fuck forever like. Naebdy likes being burnt, div they!

 

Now, giz yer hard earned so we can buy loads of shiny things, bonny candle holders, cover ahin in gold, frankincense and murrrrrrr while telling you how bad you are. Its nae your fault yer bad though, yer born that way. Poor cunt eh, bad poor cunt eh, giz yer money though and you'll be a good cunt, a poorer good cunt but we'll tell you that you'll get into this imaginary place when yer deid and ahin will be dandy.

 

Mind if you dinna though you'll burn.

 

We'd all laugh, tell whoever gave us the book to go fuck themselves and we'd probably see it on the big screen as some 7 series kiddy film with men with long beards and train stations.

 

So, I dont see the point in trying to debate any of the points you've made because as far as I'm concerned you be as well be living your life to the tune of Harry Potter. I'm sure just as many moral lessons could be gained from those books as the old and new.

Link to comment

Hi Kelt,

 

You are arguing with yourself.

 

You are attempting to dictate to Catholics what their religion is, and then criticising it based on your own misunderstanding.

What do you mean "Ah"? - I told this this nearly a week ago (look back and see) and you didnt react to it then, why now?

 

The "objection when its required" concept? ;)

Theres no contradiction. Ive explained this to you very thoroughly.

 

Of course it is your right to find this explanation unsatisfying, but you cant tell me I am saying something different to what I mean lol.

Catholics believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but not that it is the literal word of God.

You are confusing us with Protestants.

 

There all manner of things in the Bible (Old testament in particular) - stories, allegory, facts etc -it requires some discernment, not a glib acceptance of all.

 

It would be absurd to regard every last line in the Bible as being the authorative word of God. I mean, does he really care if poeple eat Shellfish? I really wouldnt have though so.

 

Note also, that - in Catholicism - our understanding is based only in part on the Bible. Sure, its important, but it alone is not the be-all-and-end-all. We also understand our faith using Tradition (of Early Christians) and Authority (of the Church, which involves the use of reason).

 

Protestants have neither Tradition nor Authority, which is why they say (in error) "Scripture alone" as to how to understand Christianity. But that is ridiculous - for a start, it doesnt even say that in the Scriptures they read lol - and only leads people into silly situations.No salad bar here, thats where you now find those Protestants who have retreated from their previous "Scripture alone" arguments and who now instead wish to pick and choose, rather than accept everything.

 

But Its much better to form a proper understanding in the first place.

 

You wouldnt be the first internet user to feel s/he has seized on some glaring error in the funamentals of Mainstream Christianity and I am sure you will not be the last.

 

But I can assure you, we've got this down pretty solidly!

 

I'll keep this short.

 

You've explained nothing at all. All you've done is retreat into analogy as an excuse for contradiction.

 

This is not an explanation, it's a dodge.

 

That you accept this dodge is critical to your faith, but it carries no value outside of those already adhering to Catholic doctrine.

 

As for having it nailed down solidly, no, you do not.

 

You absolutely are a 'Salad Bar' religion, picking and choosing what is literal and what is analogous.

 

This is nothing unusual, though. In my experience all theist doctrine falls back on analogy when faced with contradicition or 'values' that no longer work in the modern world.

Link to comment

CS, when it came to the plagues do you think God was right to kill all the first borns? Also if he did it again would he pass your house by? (i.e. would you know the wee Israelites mark?)

 

Hi Dervish

 

When discussing the Old Testament (the Jewish Torah) we have to discuss it as to how these events were (are) understood by the Jews. To understand what the text is trying to say, we have to look through their eyes to understand their story. For them, these plagues were divine intervention on their behalf.

 

As it happens, some reckon they can explain these incidents via examining historical weather patterns:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html

 

(Im skeptical as it mentions global warming lol)

 

But note that He does not stop being God the Saviour, simply because His will can manifest in nature in tangible ways we which can study and understand. After all, He created the weather, like everything else.

 

We should note, of course, the Old Testament contains all of allegory, stories, facts, barbarism, Jewish purity laws and customs and all manner of other things.

 

For (mainstream) Christians, the main value of the Old Testament is that it proclaims - and helps us to better understand - the life of Jesus Christ. I think its fair to say there is a lot of other bits and pieces in there which are not particularly relevant to Mainstream Christians.

 

Anyway the book is not regarded by Mainstream Christians as a perfect and factual historical record, nor an unquestionable supreme authority on morality - both of these errors are Protestantism.

Link to comment

 

I'll keep this short.

 

You've explained nothing at all. All you've done is retreat into analogy as an excuse for contradiction.

 

This is not an explanation, it's a dodge.

 

That you accept this dodge is critical to your faith, but it carries no value outside of those already adhering to Catholic doctrine.

 

As for having it nailed down solidly, no, you do not.

 

You absolutely are a 'Salad Bar' religion, picking and choosing what is literal and what is analogous.

 

This is nothing unusual, though. In my experience all theist doctrine falls back on analogy when faced with contradicition or 'values' that no longer work in the modern world.

 

Hi kelt,

 

Its clear that you need to be able to regard this as a contradiction, for some reason.

 

By all means continue to think that, if you wish. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "analogy" given you now obsess over it.

 

I have explained to you what Christians understand by "original sin" and why what you think is a contradiction isnt.

I have explained that "sin" = "absence of Gods grace" = "the state of being which Christians understand we are born in". These terms all mean the same thing.

I have explained that the word "sin" can refer to a state of being, as well as to a personal negative action.

 

I have explained that the term "sin" is used to refer to the state which we are born in, (without Gods grace) which is the consequence of the sins (actions) of our first parents.

I have explained that the term "sin" isn't used to suggest that we bear personal guilt or responsibility for the sins (ie the negative actions) of our ancestors.

I have explained that the term "sin" is used, because the state of our birth is exactly the same as if it was us, and not our ancestors, who originally turned away from God through negative actions.

 

There is no contradiction here, honestly - rather, the word "sin" is more multi-faceted in Christian theology than you realise or are willing to accept.

 

And I reject that the concept doesn't work in the modern world, for ultimately the concept is to teach us that we are not perfect beings - and we know that's true: we are not perfect, none of us are.

 

So let us agree to disagree, (but know that you are wrong lol) ;)

 

Also, I am amazed that you criticise us for "picking and choosing" what is literal and what is allegorical. I wouldn't say "pick and choose", but rather "discern via reason". I already said above that, while mainstream Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired, they do not accept it as being wholly literal or beyond question. There is nothing wrong with allegories or analogies - we use them ourselves all the time, often they are useful, so its no big surprise to me that some are present.

 

It is not wise to lift an ancient book and declare its entire contents infallible, without thinking about it a bit. That's where Islamic extremism comes from. That's why protestantism is a failure. Hell, it isnt wise to glibly accept anything, on any matter.

 

The alternative to discernment gets us into the territory of (according to the Old Testament) killing people for their failings (adulterers), or for who they are (homosexual people). That would be barbarism - and that isn't what Christianity is about, even despite the many examples of warfare etc which can be historically cited against Christians.

 

Furthermore, we must discern for what Christ brought us (a new covenant) effectively supercedes the old covenant (ie the harsh morality evident in the Old testament / Torah).

 

Cheers!

:)

Link to comment

I might be wrong here, but having normal intercourse, least for a male , it is quite hard to catch aids?

 

HI Barassie

 

What you state above is exactly correct. It is very difficult for a man to catch hiv via sexual intercourse.

 

One of the reasons homosexual men are so hugely over-represented in the infection figures is because of anal 'sex'. The anus isnt a sex organ and - unlike the vagina - its features show that it is not meant to be vigorously penetrated by a penis (or other object).

 

Vaginas (great things) are strong and pliable, to withstand the rigors of both sex and childbirth. So, they can take a bit of a pounding, and they even self-lubricate (ingenious!) to facilitate safe and pleasurable penetration.

 

In contrast, the anus is very delicate and is not self-lubricating. Its lining is easily cut or torn if penetrated, and it is this exposure of the bloodstream which makes anal sex such an efficient transmitter of HIV etc. Also, with anal 'sex', there is the matter that sexual fluids are (can be) being introduced to absorbent parts of the body (intestines etc) where they are not meant to be. And of course, all of this is taking place in an area of the body which is full of shit - a further health risk.

 

Stick with women and their vaginas, thats my advice ;)

Link to comment

 

Hi kelt,

 

Its clear that you need to be able to regard this as a contradiction, for some reason.

 

By all means continue to think that, if you wish. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "analogy" given you now obsess over it.

 

I have explained to you what Christians understand by "original sin" and why what you think is a contradiction isnt.

I have explained that "sin" = "absence of Gods grace" = "the state of being which Christians understand we are born in". These terms all mean the same thing.

I have explained that the word "sin" can refer to a state of being, as well as to a personal negative action.

 

I have explained that the term "sin" is used to refer to the state which we are born in, (without Gods grace) which is the consequence of the sins (actions) of our first parents.

I have explained that the term "sin" isn't used to suggest that we bear personal guilt or responsibility for the sins (ie the negative actions) of our ancestors.

I have explained that the term "sin" is used, because the state of our birth is exactly the same as if it was us, and not our ancestors, who originally turned away from God through negative actions.

 

There is no contradiction here, honestly - rather, the word "sin" is more multi-faceted in Christian theology than you realise or are willing to accept.

 

And I reject that the concept doesn't work in the modern world, for ultimately the concept is to teach us that we are not perfect beings - and we know that's true: we are not perfect, none of us are.

 

So let us agree to disagree, (but know that you are wrong lol) ;)

 

Also, I am amazed that you criticise us for "picking and choosing" what is literal and what is allegorical. I wouldn't say "pick and choose", but rather "discern via reason". I already said above that, while mainstream Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired, they do not accept it as being wholly literal or beyond question. There is nothing wrong with allegories or analogies - we use them ourselves all the time, often they are useful, so its no big surprise to me that some are present.

 

It is not wise to lift an ancient book and declare its entire contents infallible, without thinking about it a bit. That's where Islamic extremism comes from. That's why protestantism is a failure. Hell, it isnt wise to glibly accept anything, on any matter.

 

The alternative to discernment gets us into the territory of (according to the Old Testament) killing people for their failings (adulterers), or for who they are (homosexual people). That would be barbarism - and that isn't what Christianity is about, even despite the many examples of warfare etc which can be historically cited against Christians.

 

Furthermore, we must discern for what Christ brought us (a new covenant) effectively supercedes the old covenant (ie the harsh morality evident in the Old testament / Torah).

 

Cheers!

:)

 

 

That a lot of teleological contortion to excuse a basic contradiction.

 

I certainly don't 'obsess' over analogy, I'm merely pointing out that ALL religions use it as a device by which to excuse inherent contradiction, or to excuse inhumane philosophy, or to excuse any number of archaic, no longer relevant dictats.

 

That you use analogy, or alter the meaning of words in order to explain contradictory dialogue, is not unique in theology... every religion does it, and Catholicism is nothing special in that respect.

 

I don't 'need' for there to be contradiction, I merely point it out... and all the theistic acrobatics and redefining of simple words, I'm afraid, doesn't mask those contradictions.

 

Although I will give you points for trying VERY hard indeed, despite ultimately doing nothing more than highlighting standard procedure when it comes to pretending the contradictions aren't there.

Link to comment

So the first half of the bible is wrong, aside from the specific parts about Jesus which are correct?

 

For mainstream Christians, yes, you could say some of the first part (old testament) is 'wrong' or 'outmoded'.

 

For example, its not right to kill people for having an affair. Its not right to ban people from wearing clothes of mixed fibres. Its not right to prohibit shellfish.

 

There is a lot of worth in it however, as I was saying it predicts the life of Jesus Christ, who represented the arrival of someone the Jews had long been waiting for. Though, the Jews has been expecting some great general or warrior to come to deal with their enemies and their problems, they were not expecting Christ and His preaching of love and forgiveness.

 

And so, knowing the circumstances behind his arrival - and what went before him - allows us to better understand and appreciate why He said and did the things He did.

 

The life of Christ itself is recorded in the New Testament; this differs from the Old Testament in that Christians do regard this as a historical record.

 

There is no doubt as to the Historicity of the man Jesus Christ, though - of course - this fact alone is not proof of the extraordinary claims made about Him. Scholars even agree on some historical events of his life, such as his baptism and crucifixion.

 

As for the extraordinary claims about Him - His identity, His miracles etc - this is faith. But it is a reasoned faith - I would never expect someone to read the New Testament and then say "Cool, thats it, I now believe" - that would never happen.

 

We find God through all of philosophy, reflection, prayer and indeed reason. From this perspective then, the fanciful claims made about Jesus Christ are not so jarring to our senses - because with God, anything is possible. We can then see that for example, for God, rising from the dead is no more remarkable than (eg) creating the Universe and everything in it.

 

Goodnight for now, will deal with Kelt later lol

:)

Link to comment

The New Testament is kind of like a sequel to the Old Testament. The prophecies are self fulfilling though. They knew the prophecies of the messiah so it was written specifically to fulfill those prophecies. However there is no secular evidence to suggest that Jesus actually existed. Anything written about him is a long time after he supposedly lived.

Link to comment

Anything written about him is a long time after he supposedly lived.

 

Thats actually a bit of a common misconception these days Jim.

 

If he lived when the calendar we use today claimed he did then the first books of the new testament, scholars now state that the first book was written around 60-65AD which would mean that it is entirely possible that it was written by someone alive at the same time as Christ was meant to be turning water into wine.

 

Initially, it is thought that the stories of Jesus were not written down as early Christians believed completely in the second coming and thought it would be in their lifetime. No point spending years of your life writing copies of books when the gadge is coming straight back to fuck everyones shit up and build heaven on earth... as the idea of the second coming being imminent faded along with those alive when Christ was meant to live becoming older and dying off the first book of the new testament, Mark, was written sometime between 65-70AD (they reckon). The book of Matthew quickly followed and then the gospel of Luke, they think it happened this way because of the similarities between all three and the way certain things have been altered. These are thought to have been written sometime between 70-100AD. The book of Acts is the sequel to the gospel of Luke as it starts off where Luke finishes so it is only logical that it was written after Luke but they think also before the destruction of Jerusalem which happened around 70AD and that is where all the dates are based from. When it comes to the Revelation of John they now think that it was written around 100AD. Obviously as the books arent dated they only have the history to go by. They are not sure exactly when Jerusalem fell, calendar changes and a distinct lack of TAI and UT1 has meant tracking time until recent history has been pretty hard.

 

They call the origin book, one I dont think has actually been found yet, Q. That book could either be one of the books edited out of the bible by Iranius like the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Mary and the secret book of John or it could be the book of Mark as all the others left in the bible now follow on from that book or it could be one thats either going to turn up in a cave, the Vatican vaults because it states on p46 that any resemblance to people today is just coincidence, Jesus enters stage left or is lost forever.

 

The belief most have today that the bible was written 200 years plus after Jesus comes from the editing that happened before, during and after that time and not from when the books themselves are now believed to have been written.

 

None of that proves or disproves the bible as being based on fact or a complete work of fiction but it does mean that at least some of the details may be factual IF the stories have any factual base at all. Personally I think they are all fiction, made by man to reinforce the beliefs held and to add credence to the prophecies of the old testament in an attempt to convert Jews to Christianity. There would be no point in claiming the child of god had been born, lived and died if the prophecies werent there in the first place and Christianity has a history of 'borrowing' from other religions to make the conversion easier, take Pagan religions to Christianity as another example. Christmas, Easter, the cross, following the star are all stories found in earlier Pagan religions.

 

All of this proves nothing at all but it did fill in a good 15 minutes of my afternoon, which is nice :)

Link to comment

We should note, of course, the Old Testament contains all of allegory, stories, facts, barbarism, Jewish purity laws and customs and all manner of other things.

 

For (mainstream) Christians, the main value of the Old Testament is that it proclaims - and helps us to better understand - the life of Jesus Christ. I think its fair to say there is a lot of other bits and pieces in there which are not particularly relevant to Mainstream Christians.

So basically, what you are saying is Christianity picks and chooses the bits they want, and ignores the bits that they don't like?

:clangers2:

 

It's also fact that they pick and choose which bits they believe as "metaphorical" and which they choose as "fact".

Link to comment

Clydeside_sheep, all you need to provide us with some proof that God exists, for example a utility bill with his name and address and photographic ID, and we'll all go along happily with it.

 

Who's to say there wasn't a 3 legged Sea Lion called Geraldine who tricked those poor buggers thousands of years ago into thinking there was a bearded man in the sky with a son who performed magic tricks.

Link to comment

Chances not great. Geraldine as a name grew in popularity as late as the 18th century and lost momentum before the first couple of the decades of the 20th.

 

Had the sea lion been called something else, even Geraldina which was the antecedent, there may have been a greater chance but even then, Gerald, the male forename from whence the female equivalent had derived, is only a thousand years old, at most. The name has been carbon dated to 1135 ish AD but a pesky fossilised Gerald BC has thrown the sparrowhawks in amongst the vietnamese pot bellies.

Link to comment

 

 

Goodnight for now, will deal with Kelt later lol

:)

 

I would suggest that unless you can refrain from selective analogy (We only believe the bits we choose to believe), outrageous and baseless claims (With god all is possible, ergo all the impossible nonsense we talk about is possible), or crude fallacy (we've been over this), then you might save us both a great deal of time and effort by just not bothering 'dealing with' me.

Link to comment

 

For mainstream Christians, yes, you could say some of the first part (old testament) is 'wrong' or 'outmoded'.

 

We find God through all of philosophy, reflection, prayer and indeed reason. From this perspective then, the fanciful claims made about Jesus Christ are not so jarring to our senses - because with God, anything is possible. We can then see that for example, for God, rising from the dead is no more remarkable than (eg) creating the Universe and everything in it.

 

 

 

I have to say CS I disagree on pretty much every level, with the root coming from belief in God and the flexibility of interpretation regions display while simultaneously requiring the belief in something I find so unbelievable . However, I can't tell you where the universe came from any more than you can tell me where God came from (never mind which religion is closest to being "right"). So thanks for taking the time to respond in a reasonable way and with not an inconsiderable amount of effort. One thing that might be a more fruitful area for such opposing ideas (faith and non-faith). Might be the effect positive or negative of religion and the impact on human development?

Link to comment

To give an analogy my argument is saying dont drink drive to avoid crashes.

 

Your argument is saying drink drive, but wear a crash helmet, as they reduce deaths in crashes by 80%.

What is better, no crashes or some crashes?

 

The whole way you look at the issue is flawed and starting from the wrong point.

The thread origin is in response to the notion that Catholic teaching is responsible for HIV being spread.

What do you think spreads HIV? Is it people sleeping around, even with condoms, or it is people keeping sexual affairs to within marriage alone?

 

Its clear to see that it is the secular attitude to sex that its a mere toy, with no consequences -which spreads HIV.

 

Hold on a minute though - to extend your analogy, thats like saying, car manufacturers should stop trying to make cars safer, people should just not drive at all. Anything which makes anything safer, should be championed.

 

People drive, live with it, so lets try and make it as safe as possible regardless of your own personal views, however fucked up they are.

People have casual sex, live with it, lets make it as safe as possible.

 

I am an Architect. If i'm commissioned to design a church, you wont see me saying, well I don't believe in God, so there shouldn't be churches, so i'm going to refuse to design it. The biggest problem with religious belief is its inability to see beyond itself. You do realise it is actually possible to disagree with someone's beliefs but still seek to find resolution to their problems? Like everyone is trying to do with you in this thread come to think of it.

 

You also mentioned in an earlier post that Religious school should exist because there is a demand for them. Well there's quite clearly a fucking massive demand for casual sex out there, so you can't use popularity as a valid argument.

Link to comment

 

Thats actually a bit of a common misconception these days Jim.

 

If he lived when the calendar we use today claimed he did then the first books of the new testament, scholars now state that the first book was written around 60-65AD which would mean that it is entirely possible that it was written by someone alive at the same time as Christ was meant to be turning water into wine.

 

Initially, it is thought that the stories of Jesus were not written down as early Christians believed completely in the second coming and thought it would be in their lifetime. No point spending years of your life writing copies of books when the gadge is coming straight back to fuck everyones shit up and build heaven on earth... as the idea of the second coming being imminent faded along with those alive when Christ was meant to live becoming older and dying off the first book of the new testament, Mark, was written sometime between 65-70AD (they reckon). The book of Matthew quickly followed and then the gospel of Luke, they think it happened this way because of the similarities between all three and the way certain things have been altered. These are thought to have been written sometime between 70-100AD. The book of Acts is the sequel to the gospel of Luke as it starts off where Luke finishes so it is only logical that it was written after Luke but they think also before the destruction of Jerusalem which happened around 70AD and that is where all the dates are based from. When it comes to the Revelation of John they now think that it was written around 100AD. Obviously as the books arent dated they only have the history to go by. They are not sure exactly when Jerusalem fell, calendar changes and a distinct lack of TAI and UT1 has meant tracking time until recent history has been pretty hard.

 

They call the origin book, one I dont think has actually been found yet, Q. That book could either be one of the books edited out of the bible by Iranius like the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Mary and the secret book of John or it could be the book of Mark as all the others left in the bible now follow on from that book or it could be one thats either going to turn up in a cave, the Vatican vaults because it states on p46 that any resemblance to people today is just coincidence, Jesus enters stage left or is lost forever.

 

The belief most have today that the bible was written 200 years plus after Jesus comes from the editing that happened before, during and after that time and not from when the books themselves are now believed to have been written.

 

None of that proves or disproves the bible as being based on fact or a complete work of fiction but it does mean that at least some of the details may be factual IF the stories have any factual base at all. Personally I think they are all fiction, made by man to reinforce the beliefs held and to add credence to the prophecies of the old testament in an attempt to convert Jews to Christianity. There would be no point in claiming the child of god had been born, lived and died if the prophecies werent there in the first place and Christianity has a history of 'borrowing' from other religions to make the conversion easier, take Pagan religions to Christianity as another example. Christmas, Easter, the cross, following the star are all stories found in earlier Pagan religions.

 

All of this proves nothing at all but it did fill in a good 15 minutes of my afternoon, which is nice :)

 

 

The bible is not a historical document. It may include historical events but it is not historical.

Link to comment

 

 

The bible is not a historical document. It may include historical events but it is not historical.

 

Correct, largejames.

 

One thing that nips my arse is when historic events or geographic locations are waved around as though they're proof of Biblical 'Truth'.

 

Case in point, the uncovering of a city that is kinda, sorta in the location where Jesus allegedly fed a bunch of people with fish and loaves. Dalmanutha. And a boat was found near the ruins of this town. So that must mean that the story of Jesus feeding the masses is TRUE becaue we've totally found the place where he did it, and it exists!

 

Well, hang on a minute, people use real locations in works of fiction all the time. It's standard practice. Unless those same 'Biblical Scholars' (and there's a fucking oxymoron for you... like calling 5 year old kids The Bumper Christmas Colouring Book Scholars;)... unless those same 'Biblical Scholars' believe that Mad Max is a work of fact, because Australia... the place where Mad Max takes place... exists.

 

A few years back some lad found a skull in reliquary in a ruined church. "Fuck us sideways and lengthways!" declared the 'Believers'™, it must be John the Baptist's heid, because HIS heid was cut aff, and HIS heid might have ended up in a wee box! And what led them to believe this? It said on the box that they were the remains of John the Baptist. During the Dark Ages, when the church was largely in charge, every church and its dog had a reliquary containing 'genuine' bones of the Saints. At least 10 monastaries had reliquaries containing the skull of Jesus... all of them 100% genuine. You could buy a bag of 10 Noah's coccyx for a sheckle in most Medieval markets around Europe. But of course the Skull-In-A-Box, well, there's yer actual John the Baptist. innit? Five for a groat.

 

Any time they find a wooden fucking boat up a hill in Turkey it's yet another discovery of the real Noah's Ark.

 

It's depressing that we're now a good way into the 21st Century... we've got a permanent Space Station, remote rovers on Mars, we're on the verge of a genetic revolution that will make the advent of the computer seem as significant as a new flavour of ice cream... yet people still cling to the supernatural in the face of the advance of knowledge and science.

 

Religion is a series of fallback positions, and when they can't fall back any more they go straight to, "With God all things are possible, even the stupid shit like talking snakes... unless we decide that was an analogy... but if we DON'T decide a talking snake was an analogy then we can just say, hey, With 'God' all things are possible, so talking snakes are clearly possible, bearing this 'Truth' in mind, So there's no argument, I've explained how talking snakes work."

 

"We don't need no fucking rational explanation for a talking snake", said every Christian ever.

Link to comment

 

Hold on a minute though - to extend your analogy, thats like saying, car manufacturers should stop trying to make cars safer, people should just not drive at all. Anything which makes anything safer, should be championed.

 

People drive, live with it, so lets try and make it as safe as possible regardless of your own personal views, however fucked up they are.

People have casual sex, live with it, lets make it as safe as possible.

 

I am an Architect. If i'm commissioned to design a church, you wont see me saying, well I don't believe in God, so there shouldn't be churches, so i'm going to refuse to design it. The biggest problem with religious belief is its inability to see beyond itself. You do realise it is actually possible to disagree with someone's beliefs but still seek to find resolution to their problems? Like everyone is trying to do with you in this thread come to think of it.

 

You also mentioned in an earlier post that Religious school should exist because there is a demand for them. Well there's quite clearly a fucking massive demand for casual sex out there, so you can't use popularity as a valid argument.

 

You'd maybe do this though...

 

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/10/30/church-architect-designs-penis-church/

Link to comment

Both examples are exactly the same, in that they do not seek to avoid risky behaviour, but only to try to mitigate the negative effects of it

 

You miss my point entirely. You'd be as well saying the cause of death is life, so the best protection from death is not to be born in the first place.

 

It works for the vast majority of priests, its unfortunate that a small number of homosexual priests (including our own Cardinal O'Brien)have caused hurt and scandal via being unable to control their urges towards younger males.

 

But then, that would have been the the case regardless of their occupation. Its the disordered urges which are the problem, not the persons occupation.

 

I havent claimed the abuse was OK, because the people were older - I am pointing out that these cases were not cases of child abuse, but rather cases of homosexual rape, given the victims were not children but sexually mature males.

 

 

Thank you for proving my point about your homophobia. Not all the victims were male.

 

There have also been cases of priests having multiple affairs with married women. Are these also "disordered urges"?

 

Accuracy is important - if you are going to solve a problem, you really need to properly know what the problem is, dont you?

 

I find it remarkable that your interpret my attempts to better inform people as an attempt to justify or play-down abuse.

 

Are you not more interested to know why the media chose to lie to the public, via falsely distorting the picture so much?

 

Accuracy is important, so it's unfortunate it's not one of your strong points. The media often chose to distort the truth, but so do you

 

I personally am unsure about Evolution but its not something I think about much - its not a topic which particularly interests me, or one upon which my outlook depends on.

 

I do find it interesting that the theory is widely accepted whilst not backed by physical evidence, ie the fossil record.

 

There is a large body of evidence in both the fossil record and genetics. That's far more evidence than there is for the existence of any deity

 

Are you claiming that women are not able to control their fertility naturally, with the same effectiveness as artifical contraception?

 

If so, you are either a liar or badly informed!

 

My information is quite correct. Women cannot control their fertility. Natural birth control relies on chosing the correct time of the menstrual cycle to endulge in carnal pleasures. This does not equate to being "able to control their fertility naturally"

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...