Challenge Vanni
- Thread starter Extrafire
- Start date
Vanni,
What is with your obsession that there has to be a "right" religion. Too use an analogy. If we were both to leave Winnipeg and travel to say Florida. Do we have to take the same route??? I could go down #1 East and get to Florida and you would take #75 South and get to Florida. Who took the "right" route??? They both got us to the same destination. We would have different experiences and perspectives on our journey but in the end we would both be in Florida would we not??
It must be frustrating realizing that your assumptions regarding Catholics are incorrect. We aren't a bible-thumping, self-righteous group that believes that Heaven only contains Catholics. Are there certain aspects of our faith that are different then other religions? Absolutely. But as one of my theology teaches once said, "Religions are like ethnic foods. They may all taste different but they are all nutricious and good for us. They give us energy and sustain us."
I would suggest you read some of JPII books like "Crossing the Threshold of Peace". It talks alot of the different questions that you pose here. I think you may be quite enlightened.
Firstly, we aren't lieing to them. We are teaching them about the love of God. Is the story about the Tortoise and the Hare a lie or a story that teaches, same with the Grasshopper and the Ant?
When children are small it is easier for them to understand certain concepts by using stories. I think it is pretty obvious that you don't have any children, this is a basic concept when you have children.
Faith is much more than "stories". As the old saying goes,"If someone has faith, no explanation is required. If someone has no faith, no explanation is possible." The only thing a faithful person can do for the faithless person is help them to understand but there isn't a "switch" to flip that guarantees someone to suddenly have faith.
What is with your obsession that there has to be a "right" religion. Too use an analogy. If we were both to leave Winnipeg and travel to say Florida. Do we have to take the same route??? I could go down #1 East and get to Florida and you would take #75 South and get to Florida. Who took the "right" route??? They both got us to the same destination. We would have different experiences and perspectives on our journey but in the end we would both be in Florida would we not??
It must be frustrating realizing that your assumptions regarding Catholics are incorrect. We aren't a bible-thumping, self-righteous group that believes that Heaven only contains Catholics. Are there certain aspects of our faith that are different then other religions? Absolutely. But as one of my theology teaches once said, "Religions are like ethnic foods. They may all taste different but they are all nutricious and good for us. They give us energy and sustain us."
I would suggest you read some of JPII books like "Crossing the Threshold of Peace". It talks alot of the different questions that you pose here. I think you may be quite enlightened.
Firstly, we aren't lieing to them. We are teaching them about the love of God. Is the story about the Tortoise and the Hare a lie or a story that teaches, same with the Grasshopper and the Ant?
When children are small it is easier for them to understand certain concepts by using stories. I think it is pretty obvious that you don't have any children, this is a basic concept when you have children.
Faith is much more than "stories". As the old saying goes,"If someone has faith, no explanation is required. If someone has no faith, no explanation is possible." The only thing a faithful person can do for the faithless person is help them to understand but there isn't a "switch" to flip that guarantees someone to suddenly have faith.
Re: RE: Challenge Vanni
Is that the criterion? Lots of people have been nailed to crosses.
Jay said:
Is that the criterion? Lots of people have been nailed to crosses.
tibear said:
...and how many infidels, apostates and heretics would we have slaughtered along the way, I wonder...
...and just to keep you from blathering on about how the new improved progressive peacenik Catholic Church has made such impressive stides, here is the official stance on religious toleration.
Notice that it is specifically stated as religious toleration, not religious tolerance...
You can gloss it over all want, tibear, but the fact remains that the intolerance of organized religions in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, have a long way to go, as the seeds of hatred run very deep...
tibear said:
You may not be personally, and for that you are to be commended...but the Church as an institution would never proclaim heaven available to all religions and faiths...so until that time, your statement cannot be true...
tibear said:
Sadly this is true, but it is not beneficial to you and yours as you might think...
The first part of the statement is true because those with faith become intellectually lazy, and choose to reject any critical analysis of their faith or religion...
The second part is true also, because faith is an act of willful denial that stymies ones ability to think freely...those without faith are untrammeled by such intellectual prisons...
Well, let’s see if we can work up a useful summary of religious belief through the ages.
About two millennia ago there was a man living in what is now the Middle East who was credited with performing well-attested miracles: healing the ill and crippled, restoring sight to the blind, casting out demons, raising the dead, stuff like that. He was born of a virgin woman, as prophesied by an angel. He was executed by the local civil authorities, and it was said that he rose from his tomb and appeared to his followers to prove his power over death. He was called “The Son of God” by some. His name: Appollonius of Tyana.
There are tales of a mediator between God and man who helps departed souls to Heaven and will judge the human race at the end of time. He shed the blood of an innocent to wash away the sins of the world. He established a sacred meal ritual where his flesh and blood were symbolically consumed by the initiated. His name: Mithras.
There was a man, miraculously conceived, visited as a baby by wise men who were guided to him by a star. An evil ruler tried to have him killed before he could grow up, but a heavenly messenger warned his parents in time and they took him to a neighbouring district. Millions around the world still follow his teachings. His name: Krishna.
There was one who defeated death and rose from the grave, thus displaying his power over death and proving he was a true god. His name: Osiris.
There was once a redeemer, who came to earth to lift humanity out of sin and ignorance, knowing full well the terrible price he’d have to pay, but out of love and compassion he did it anyway. His name: Prometheus.
There are more tales like that from other cultures, and they raise an obvious question that begs to be asked of Christianity: what reason is there to think your miracle-working risen-from-the-dead redeemer is any different from those others? There have been countless gods throughout human history, each of them with followers no less committed than what we see in contemporary Christianity, but nobody believes in them anymore. The old gods of Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, etc., are extinct by any reasonable measure.
Everybody’s an atheist to some degree, but some of us admit of one less god than most people.
About two millennia ago there was a man living in what is now the Middle East who was credited with performing well-attested miracles: healing the ill and crippled, restoring sight to the blind, casting out demons, raising the dead, stuff like that. He was born of a virgin woman, as prophesied by an angel. He was executed by the local civil authorities, and it was said that he rose from his tomb and appeared to his followers to prove his power over death. He was called “The Son of God” by some. His name: Appollonius of Tyana.
There are tales of a mediator between God and man who helps departed souls to Heaven and will judge the human race at the end of time. He shed the blood of an innocent to wash away the sins of the world. He established a sacred meal ritual where his flesh and blood were symbolically consumed by the initiated. His name: Mithras.
There was a man, miraculously conceived, visited as a baby by wise men who were guided to him by a star. An evil ruler tried to have him killed before he could grow up, but a heavenly messenger warned his parents in time and they took him to a neighbouring district. Millions around the world still follow his teachings. His name: Krishna.
There was one who defeated death and rose from the grave, thus displaying his power over death and proving he was a true god. His name: Osiris.
There was once a redeemer, who came to earth to lift humanity out of sin and ignorance, knowing full well the terrible price he’d have to pay, but out of love and compassion he did it anyway. His name: Prometheus.
There are more tales like that from other cultures, and they raise an obvious question that begs to be asked of Christianity: what reason is there to think your miracle-working risen-from-the-dead redeemer is any different from those others? There have been countless gods throughout human history, each of them with followers no less committed than what we see in contemporary Christianity, but nobody believes in them anymore. The old gods of Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, etc., are extinct by any reasonable measure.
Everybody’s an atheist to some degree, but some of us admit of one less god than most people.
Vanni,
Read JPII book "Crossing the Threshold" and then tell me that the Catholic Church still believes that it is the ONLY way to heaven.
I commend you on progressing past grade 2 education with regard to Catholic theology but you now seem to be stuck in junior high.
You're absolutely right that the Catholic Church has alot of healing to do with the other religions of the world and that is exactly what JPII was doing. Hopefully the next Pope will continue where he left off.
This is rather judgemental of you. Something you seem to accuse the religous groups of doing and chastising them for doing so!
Read JPII book "Crossing the Threshold" and then tell me that the Catholic Church still believes that it is the ONLY way to heaven.
I commend you on progressing past grade 2 education with regard to Catholic theology but you now seem to be stuck in junior high.
You're absolutely right that the Catholic Church has alot of healing to do with the other religions of the world and that is exactly what JPII was doing. Hopefully the next Pope will continue where he left off.
This is rather judgemental of you. Something you seem to accuse the religous groups of doing and chastising them for doing so!
tibear said:
I'm not judging, tibear, only observing, and doing those with faith a service by telling you what I see...as the faithful, by reason of their faith, are not able to see for themselves...
tibear said:
If what is written in the link I provided on the Catholic Church's policy on religious toleration is true, then it will be a very long road indeed...as what I read did not even remotely suggest that Catholics are anywhere near willing to accept people of other religions and faiths as equals...
...what I read was that the Catholic Church looks at them as spriritually inferior, and worthy of contempt, and that it is the secular laws as imposed by governments that keeps them in check...
...what I read is that the Church still, after all these centuries, would love nothing more than to burn the heretics, and that they feel cheated that the government won't let them...
...that's what I'm seeing in the official policy of your precious church...
Yes, it's going to be a long road indeed...
What appears in Genesis is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It says nothing of how it was done. You're correct in that a physical/chemical reation is somewhat different because neither creation nor the big bang are a reaction. That's the whole problem with the naturalist explanation; there is an effect (big bang) but what is the cause? According to science, it must have had a cause, and since there was nothing before that, there could be no naturalistic cause.
Why is the big bang not described in detail? First, it isn't all that important to the message. Second, it's an accounting of an event that needed to be basicly comprehended by everyone, whether 3000 years ago or today. To the people back then, a detailed explanation would have been giberish, and to most people today it would still be the same. I don't fully understand relativity, or quantum physics or string theory, and few people do. What would be the point?
The heavens and the earth are separated by eons, though. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," means nothing. What heavens? What earth? I won't quibble beyond that because there is no point.
She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed allows me just so much rope before she jerks my chain (metaphors too mixed?). After 35 years I'm just too domesticated to assert any great amount of independance.
HE was under a lot of pressure from his contemporaries to remove his fudge factor because it made his equation unworkable, but wouldn't do it because of the implications. AS soon as his original equation was verified, he removed them and said there must be a creator, and was then under pressure to recant that statement. Surprised you haven't heard that, it's quite well known.
Hmmm....I get the impression that anyone who disagrees with your view on this subject would be labeled ignorant.
Interestingly enough, neither can those who do have the detailed expertise required. I've read the attempt of one. He used such scientific terms as "arises, appears, springs forth is unleashed". Almost like saying it happens by magic. I've read some of Dawkins. He goes to such extremes it's almost laughable. Matter of fact, it is laughable.
"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call them machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts"
(Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences)
"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations. (emphasis mine)
(Biochemist Franklin M. Harold)
Have you heard about Millers Challenge to Behe? And how Barry Hall claims to have successfully demonstrated through experimentation that Behe was wrong? I can give you a brief summary if you wish. Behe came out ahead on that one.
If you put it that way, I suppose so. What I meant was you knowing my position is irrellevant because the only thing that matters is my questions and comments, which wouldn't change by your knowing where I'm comming from.
A number of things make my head hurt, primarily imbibing a little too much, which is something I did this evening. She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed frowns on that too, so since I'm already in shit I might as well spend some time on the forum.
Pantheism means that nature and god are one/intertwined, and Einstein did not belive that at all. He admired the cosmos for it's beauty and harmony, and admired the creator for making such a wonderful universe, but did not consider the universe to be part of the creator. He understood that the creator must be transcendant.
Actually they all fall short, but I imagine we'll get into that eventually.
Hey folks, please stick to to the topic. The merits of Catholicism belong on a different thread.
That your explanation fails before it starts. We know the time-line. That your god might have, if he stumbled along at all, been murdered for riding the wrong coloured donkey.
Extrafire said:
From Ronald W. Clark's biography, Einstein, The Life and Times, pages 413-414:
While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith. It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation." Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested. Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?"
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Years later he expanded this in a letter to Solovine, the survivor of the Olympia Academy. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."
pantheism The doctrine that God and the universe are identical.
(Cassells English Dictionary)
I am not familliar with this concept.
Which is the exact same point I made, though not so eloquently
If there was nothing ...How could God be there?
If God is all knowing, all seeing, and all loving ...why would anyone be alllowed to sin?
If he is all loving ...Why would god punish any of us? Why would there be wars? Why would there be disease? Why would anyone suffer?
I know lots of god fearing people that suffer great hardships. These are devout followers...Why would god make them suffer?
These aren't stories presented in the bible...these are basic tenets, that do not have answers and contridict each other.
If God is all knowing, all seeing, and all loving ...why would anyone be alllowed to sin?
If he is all loving ...Why would god punish any of us? Why would there be wars? Why would there be disease? Why would anyone suffer?
I know lots of god fearing people that suffer great hardships. These are devout followers...Why would god make them suffer?
These aren't stories presented in the bible...these are basic tenets, that do not have answers and contridict each other.