2 Kings 2:23-24 - From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
But I thank God we are living in New Testament times, where the emphasis for obedience to God is love and not fear. The Old Testament emphasis was fear. People feared to commit adultery because of the harsh punishment. The New Testament emphasis is love. People don't want to commit adultery, because of love for wife and for God.
I suggest you do some reading about rabbinic hyperbolic style of preaching, so that sentences like "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" and "camel going through eye of the needle" make more sense to you.
@SaintForChrist so which bits did Christ mean, and which were just "Rabbinic Hyperbole"? If I use the phrase "it is as much use as a chocolate teapot" then I mean that the item under discussion is no good at all. If I say that it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle, then I mean that it's impossible, for I khow full well that needles cannot be threaded with camels.
... "I am the way, the rabbinic hyperbole and the light"
...Truth is more effectively disseminated using literalism in preference to hyperbole. Just imagine, if you can, a Professor of Science or Mathematics teaching his subject by employing a stream of hyperbole?
You said, "Truth is more effectively disseminated using literalism in preference to hyperbole."
Do you have any empirical evidence for this?
You propose a very restricted field like Mathematics and try to use that to suggest that the logic of literlism applies to fields like theology. In that case, I guess you would explain (as Einstein said) music as a variation of wave pressure, because, after all, that is what literally happens!
Which bit is hyperbole and which is not? I think I had answered a similar question from you before, when you asked which bit is to be taken literally and which is not!
The answer is simple - look to the church! See how the church interprets that passage and has always interpreted that passage.
Yes, Jesus did tell us to obey the scriptures, but at the same time he gave us the church to correctly interpret the scriptures and apply them to our time.
"As a matter of fact supposing that the heart may have been taken from a cadaver, I maintain that only a hand experienced in anatomic dissection would have been able to obtain from a hollow internal organ such a uniform cut (as can still be glimpsed in the flesh)."
I will take the trained scientist's word, won't you?
Medieval Europe might have had such skills. Who knows? But the lives of the saints are enough to suggest to me that if miracles were all hoax, then the way they lived makes no sense at all. It's one thing being deluded. It's quite another knowing you are faking something and still living out the kind of life the saints lived.
Again, you haven't considered the quote that I provided about 7000 miracles being claimed. The process of affirming a miracle takes very long and the average person doesn't have the patience or the time to wait that long for the process. He/she will accept his miracle and go home happily giving praise to God.
I would have joined your so-called real world if I hadn't seen miracles myself and the ones witnessed by my parents.
@SaintForChrist ...and Islam probably has a similar number; Hinduism isn't short of miracles in their fantasies either. Why should their fantasies be false and yours true? Please try and think for yourself instead of blindly swallowing the Catholic cool aid?
@SaintForChrist People see what they want to see. The human brain can't possibly process all the visual array data that the eyes detect, and it fills in vast chunks. It happens all the time, and any psychologist will tell you that. Illusionists and conjurers depend on it for their living.
@SaintForChrist What we see isn't real, it's what our brains interpret for us. Even colour and tone are mental constructs that the brain has built to help us make sense or the universe we inhabit. We know everyone doesn't have the same perception of colour as 8% of males are colourblind to some degree. Put a bunch of people in a church for a night and tell them it's haunted and I guarantee at lest one of them will see a ghost; it's human nature.
@SaintForChrist what I'm trying to say is that everything you see is an illusion. The object you may be looking at could be physically real, but how it appears to you is illusory; the colour and tone is a product of your visual cortex. You don't see an object as it really is.
You brain is telling you that Catholic doctrine is real, but a Muslim's brain is telling him that Islamic doctrine is real. Ditto the Protestant, Hindu, Bhuddist, Taoist etc etc.
You said, "You brain is telling you that Catholic doctrine is real, but a Muslim's brain is telling him that Islamic doctrine is real. Ditto the Protestant, Hindu, Bhuddist, Taoist etc etc."
In the same way, your brain could be telling you that the atheistic worldview is real! You don't seem to have examined that possibility my friend! :O
@SaintForChrist Except my view is just that, not something I was indoctrinated into as a child.
Religions come, and religions go. Today's versions of Christianity bear little resemblance to that practiced 2000 years ago. Who is to say where it will be 10,000 years from now; most likely gone the way of the ancient Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman and Norse gods? Atheism will never die, because there will always be people who will think for themselves and act upon what they can see.
Religions come and religions go remains to be proven about Christianity. You seem to suggest that only those who are indoctrinated as children remain religious. But that is absolutely false. You don't take into consideration those who were atheists from the beginning and then became theists. Stop living under the illusion that atheism is the only rational conclusion.
@SaintForChrist Atheism is the default state of humans. We are all born atheists. Those who are indoctrinated do not always remain religious...some wake up from their dream.
Atheism is not the default state of human beings. An atheist is not simply one without knowledge of something. A-THEIST is someone who rejects the THEIST position. In order to reject something, you first need to know it.
@SaintForChrist last I heard, children have to be 'taught' about 'god' in pretty much the same way that they have to be taught mathematics. The only difference is that for 'god' they have to rely on faith for their belief, while Mathematics can be shown to be demonstrably true. Of course, all the Muslim children are taught something completely different, and Hindu children something different still. Bhuddism teaches yet another version of events. Which are we to believe?
@SaintForChrist If you think that then my posts have been too much for your poor indoctrinated brain to understand. I thought I made it quite clear that my atheistic beliefs are based on reason and a total lack of any empirical evidence to the contrary. I'm surprised you haven't trotted out the teleological argument yet, but I suppose that nowadays The RC Church accept Darwinian Evolution over creationism.
You said that "my atheistic beliefs are based on reason and a total lack of any empirical evidence to the contrary".
There seems to be an inherent assumption in your statement. The assumption is that evidence should be empirical. But where has this assumption ever been proven? Is history empirical? No! But is it evidence? Yes!
@SaintForChrist ...I make no claims for religious dogma. I simply don't believe, and in 54 years in this Universe I've yet to see any phenomena that cannot be explained using the laws on nature as understood by Newton, Hooke, Kepler, Pauli, Einstein, Heisenberg, Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking et al.
Calling something a miracle is an intellectual and moral cop-out. What The Church is saying is "We don't want to understand this, but we'll go through the motions of making out we do"
You said, " I've yet to see any phenomena that cannot be explained...."
Then tell me my friend, why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe HAVE to be there? Do you have an answer? I watched a Hawking video and even he said he wonders about it.
@SaintForChrist Please don't try the cosmological argument on me. You know damn well it doesn't prove the existence of god, and only gives rise to the question "How did god get there then?", as a creator must necessarily be more complex than his/her creation.
It is Hawking's job to wonder about it and to provide credible explanations based on Science, not magic.
@SaintForChrist I make no claims to the universe prior to the big bang, but I'm prepared to admit that there are some theories about it, based on science and not faith.
Where did God come from? This means you don't know the very definition of God. God is the non-contingent cause of everything that exists. Asking therefore "where did God come from" is a logical fallacy. So tell me if there was nothing prior to the big bang, how did something come from nothing?
@SaintForChrist What a cop out? So 'god' is just somewhere to hide our ignorance? I don't pretend to know the prime cause of the universe, though observation (expansion, red-shift, background microwave radiation) seems to suggest that it originated from a single super massive singularity some 15 billion years ago. Before then, we can only speculate, but I'd much rather the speculation is based on scientific knowledge than faith, i.e. belief without proof.
@SaintForChrist this is the best you can come up with in a year? A couple of straw man arguments? The definition of god is nothing; non-existance, except in the minds of the deluded. Besides, The Bible tells us that we were created in God's image, then it's safe to assume that your god should man-like in appearance.
@SaintForChrist Come on, let's see God pull of a big miracle; not just straightening out Uncle Jack. The churches will soon be packed to the rafters again
"Come on, let's see God pull of a big miracle; not just straightening out Uncle Jack. The churches will soon be packed to the rafters again"
Yes, I am praying for that. When it happens I will let you know. Just don't die till then, otherwise it will be too late and you will soon find yourself standing open mouthed before the judgment seat of God! :o
That was quoted from mult-sclerosis dot o r g site. The process of validation of miracles is so long that the average person doesn't have the time to go through such a long process.
@SaintForChrist I understand what drives people to religion. Death is scary, so scary to some people that they will accept any fairytale rather than accept reality.
I am yet to come across a person who told me he was driven to religion because of fear of death. I also understand what drives people to atheism - the desire to avoid moral responsibility. The desire to do evil things and not be caught or not be held responsible. The desire to be free from any objective moral standard and the desire to have one's own way no matter what. As an atheist, you don't even have an objective standard of morailty. You can't even argue that there is one.
@SaintForChrist I have a good friend with MS, she has had several bouts of remission; at least three in the 25 years that I've known her, plus one spell of remission before I knew her. It's a well-understood feature of the condition, but the long-term trend is generally downwards.
"It is intriguing that the Catholic Church puts up with such a small number of divine interventions, given that about 7,000 pilgrims have sought officially to claim that a miracle has happened to them since the medical committee has existed. Instead, the Church is relying on scientists first to validate the claim that an event cannot be accounted for by natural phenomena before religion proceeds to sanction a cure as a divine event."
@SaintForChrist That's because 6927 of the "miracles" are too spurious even for the Catholic Church to swallow whole. A scientist employed by the catholic church is hardly objective. For a start, his world view is coloured by church doctrine and theology. He will investigate a claim with the belief that miracles are possible.
@SaintForChrist So you're telling me that a scientist who also happens to be a devout Catholic ISN'T going to be biased in his investigation? A man (or woman) who may already accept church doctrine in its entirety?
Why should he be? After all, if he is a devout Catholic, he knows the importance of truth he knows how great a sin it is to tell a lie and to deceive. From what you're saying there can never then be any unbiased scientist. After all, it could then be argued, that an athiestic scientist is biased to see everything as random chance.
You said, "Perhaps he lacked the formal training in deductive reasoning and predicate logic to formulate alternative answers?"
Isn't this the classical assumption that all scientists tend to make? The assumption is that everything CAN be explained by deductive reasoning and predicate logic. But that in itself has never been proved.
You said, "Wouldn't Jack Sullivan be a better Catholic by praying for the deliverance of these children, rather than his own? Perhaps that kind of miracle is too much for your god?"
No miracle is too much for God. But what he requires is faith. And indeed miracles do happen amongst the poorest of the poor, but there r no video cameras doing recordings there! Their testimony is enough to convince many. Even if a video recording were taken, would it convince anyone who disbelieves? I guess not.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
The classic example given by Jesus is that of the rich man and Lazarus (a poor beggar). The poor beggar ends up in heaven. Isn't a lifetime of suffering worth an eternity of happiness?
@SaintForChrist If a lifetime of poverty is all you have then the promise of eternity in paradise is a heady, alluring promise. It's also the kind of promise that leads poor Muslims to strap bombs to themselves so they can get their 72 virgins (or 53, according to some).
A lifetime of poverty is not "ALL" we have. We also have a great number of charity organizations working to support these people. Christianity welcomes both the rich and the poor. Money can't buy love. I have seen the lives of rich people here in the US. They are rich, yet so many commit suicide. They have no peace of mind. Constand divorces, break ups and a shity life in their relationships with people. The poor might be poor, but they have peace and love in their hearts.
You said, "So Jesus was lying when he made the "eye of the needle" speech then?" No. He only said that it is hard for the rich to enter and then proceeded to use his usual hyperbolic style of preaching. The reason it is hard is because the rich love money and the love of money is the root of all evil. So the way a rich man can enter the kingdom is by giving up his love for money and by loving God instead.
@SaintForChrist Camel through a needle's eye? I think that means impossible to any sane person, unless you know of a camel small enough and flexible enough?
Also, you seem to limit God to your own understanding of what God should do. You cite the example of millions of children dying because of a lack of medical care. And you say God doesn't seem to care. But I ask, is life on earth all that there is? Perhaps God is allowing them to die early precisely because he wants them to be in heaven early. At the heart of Jesus' message were these very kind of paradoxical statements -
Coming to God is the highest aim of any Christian. So what if he cannot go forth and multiply, he has come to God (after his death) and no one is going to ask him why he didn't do something if he never got the opportunity to do it.
You should see the medically documented miracles of Lourdes, for instance. Most of the miracles happen where people have faith and that is usually amongst the meek in spirit. But obviously, you will never accept their testimony because they are not "scientifcally trained" like you. So you devalue a human's experience based upon his education.
@SaintForChrist There have been about 63 confirmed "miracles" at Lourdes. Considering how many thousands have visited the place in the last few hundred years, I'd have to say that proves nothing....mere chance.
Take a large group of sick people and some of them will get better without medical intervention. Any fool knows that.
Lolz. I knew I could expect that from you. Mere "chance" huh. What is chance? Chance is not a cause of something. Why don't atheists get healed by "chance" like this? Yes, thousands of people go there, but not thousands are all sick people. I am surprised that a "trained scientist" like you can dismiss such an occurence as "mere chance". What is your take on the miracle at Lanciano?
@SaintForChrist Have you any idea how many people visit Lourdes every year in hope of a "miracle"? I've no idea just how many people visit Lourdes annually, but the town has hotel capacity for 5 million visitors. Yet there has only been 63 confirmed "miraculous" cures in more than 150 years? For what it's worth, over 40,000 pilgrims visited in Feb 2008, the 150th anniversary of the "apparition". If 63 were cured in that month alone, I wouldn't be impressed. Grow up and join the real world.
You said, "Have you any idea how many people visit Lourdes every year in hope of a "miracle"?"
No, I don't. But neither do you. Most people who go there are not sick. The average person is not sick but healthy. People visit the site as a pilgrimage, for praying and for spiritual blessings. Yes, there are only 63 confirmed miraculous cures, but that's what they are - miraculous cures. The doctors don't say like you that they happened by "mere chance."
@SaintForChrist Athiests do get healed by chance all the time. Cancer sufferers go into remission. I had a chest infection a couple of weeks ago, and guess what? It got better on its own, as did the chicken pox and measles I had as a kid, and I didn't have to prostrate myself to your imaginary god.
Lol. Chest infection? Your body has its own fighting mechanism and it is bound to work. That doesn't take a miracle. Did your chicken pox and measles disappear in a flash? Cancer remission also doesn't happen overnight.
"HAHAHAHA" is not a trained scientist's answer that I was expecting to a genuine question. I am beginning to doubt your training now. Again you are trying your escape trick, but no, I want your opinion on the Miracle at Lanciano. And please do some reading from catholic dot c o m on transubstantiation. It pays to know what you talk about before you laugh at it. Trained scientists are supposed to do that.
@SaintForChrist I laugh at it because the notion that blessing wine will turn it into blood. Guess what? I've taken communion, and it was wine when it went into my mouth. You invite ridicule.
You said, "I laugh at it because the notion that blessing wine will turn it into blood."
So you are one of those Catholics who were not taught their faith well. I don't blame you. You don't understand the doctrine of transubstantiation at all. Transubstantiation does not mean that the actual wine becomes blood, but rather the "substance" (look up how that word was used when transubstantiation was defined) is no longer wine, but only appears to be wine. Same with the bread.
@SaintForChrist I've read the bible and realised what a pile it is. What kind of religious person wants to eat their demigod in some bizarre cannibalistic ritual?
The Miracle at Lanciano happened when a priest doubted that the "substance" actually changed as he prayed the words of consecration. To his surprise, not only did the "substance" change, but the very bread itself changed into flesh and the wine into blood and this miracle dispelled all his doubts. You still have to give me an explanation for this miracle. Do you think this also happened by "mere chance"?
@SaintForChrist My explanation is that it didn't happen at all. That the stuff on display is human tissue is beyond doubt. That it changed from bread and wine to heart and blood tissue isn't.
Try praying over some bread and wine and see if you can change it? My bet is you can't. Wine does not spontaneously change to blood, and bread does not spontaneously change to meat. Now grow up and leave your fairy stories behind you.
This is what the "trained scientist" said about it -
"Though it is alien to my task strictly speaking, I feel I should insert the following reflection into the study just completed: the clarification, which comes through in these studies, of the nature of the flesh gives little support to the hypothesis of a `fraud' perpetrated centuries ago."
@SaintForChrist The ancient Greeks believed in the Olympian Gods. In the Odyssey, Homer ever gave directions to the underworld. Do you really think that that Homer was correct? Let's face it, Homer is of a similar age to the bible, and is far more self-consistent than the Bible ever was. Was Homer describing reality? Not a chance, pal. Why should anyone accept The Bible/Torah, but not The Q'ran and any other of the thousands of religious philosophies that have plagued mankind through the ages?
Why should someone accept Bible/Torah and not Quran?? Simple! Examine the evidence for the crucifixion of Christ. Quran denies the crucifixion itself and says that Christ went directly to heaven. This is a non-historical claim. Even extra-biblical writings such as those of Josephus prove it. That in itself does not prove that we should accept the Bible, but it does prove that the Quran is not right. There are other reasons to accept the Bible/Torah.
Well, the Gods of the greeks haven't saved them from destruction! But Christians have survived 2000 years now, often under severe persecution (52 Christians were killed in Iraq this week). Perhaps you can lead an atheistic regime and try to destroy Christianity and see what happens!
@SaintForChrist Let's face it, medieval Europe was awash with religious relics. Churches went to extraordinary lengths to obtain them, even outright forgery (Turin shroud). Relics meant pilgrims meant money, and we all know how the Catholic Church likes money. If all the pieces of the "one true cross" were brought together and reassembled, the cross would be the size of a fully grown oak tree.
The Shroud of Turin (unlike the M at Lanciano) was never officially approved by the Catholic Church (even wikipedia states that). Lol, the Catholic Church likes money huh? You're talking as though priests are living in 5 star hotel facilities! Don't you see the large number of schools, institutions and hospitals run by the Catholic Church? I bet you were also educated in one. So you spit back upon those who provided for you.
@SaintForChrist I think you'll find that the senior church members ARE living in 5-star luxury, while half the "Catholic World" doesn't have a pot to piss in.
I was educated in a taxpayer-funded school, and I'm grateful for it. My father received a catholic education though, courtesy of the Christian Brothers in Ireland. Fortunately, he was able to see through the bullshit also.
@SaintForChrist I don't know, but plenty of people lie for all sorts of reasons. Francis of Assisi was a priest, not a scientist. Perhaps he lacked the formal training in deductive reasoning and predicate logic to formulate alternative answers? To be honest, I don't even know if Francis made these claims himself, or rather they were made on his behalf. I suspect the latter.
You said, "To be honest, I don't even know if Francis made these claims himself, or rather they were made on his behalf. I suspect the latter."
Francis told his friars about his experiences, but most importantly, his friars were all there with him to witness his life. You should see the writings of once such Friar, Thomas of Celano. Why should you automatically dismiss a miracle as a nonsensical claim? Seems like a bias to me.
Your point about "logic being unassailable" would be true if the church had proposed a symbolic interpretation to Genesis after the modern scientific advances. But as I have shown, the church interpreted Genesis symbolically right from the beginning. Symbolism is a common theme in the Bible.
Ambrose explained "Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself"
A "day" in the original author's vocabulary, could refer to a period of time.
He refers to a morning and an evening as "one day" and at the same time he says that the sun was created on the 4th day. This means that in his vocabulary, the terms "morning", "evening", "day" have a different meaning than what we understand some thousands of years later today. A more plausible understanding could be the one that was provided by Ambrose of Milan, a 4th century Catholic bishop.
Since you spoke of fundamentalism, I was reminded of Bill Maher's documentary called Religulous. You should perhaps see the section where Bill Maher talks to Fr. George Coyne on this issue. Also, you should perhaps see Richard Dawkin's interview with Fr. George Coyne. It will help you to understand how the Catholic church views scripture and truth in general. We believe that God is the author of all truth and therefore it must be respected, whether it comes from science or from the Bible.
@SaintForChrist For what it's worth, I know how the Catholic Church views scripture and truth. It suppresses it, historically with violence and oppression, though nowadays by more peaceful means. When that doesn't work, or the logic facing it is unassailable, it backs down and falls back on analogy, simile and symbolism. Not too long ago as human history is reckoned, I'd have had to face the inquisition for believing what I believe. Nowdays, the church has to rely on indoctrination.
I think you have read about the Catholic church from the wrong sources. Who knows the history of the church better than the church itself? I think you should read about the Catholic church from Catholic sources also, to get a balanced view. For instance, the inquisition that you talked about. As an atheist, you would not face the inquisition. Inquisition was meant to expose pseudo-Catholics, who posing to be Catholics secretly brought in false, heretical ideas of theology.
@SaintForChrist What utter hogwash? I suggest you read up on European history. It wasn't just lapsed Catholics that had to fear the inquisitors; it was anyone that espoused anything contrary to church doctrine. The church didn't just expose them; it put them to death. Start your research with The Hugenots and The St Bartholomew's Day massacre.
@SaintForChrist If anyone needs to read up on the history of the catholic church, it is you. It's a history steeped in lies, oppression, extortion and murder (including genocide). No wonder Hitler felt comfortable as a catholic
I have done sufficient reading of the history of the Catholic church. My point about inquisition remains true. Inquisition was a way of combating heresy (please look up how the Catholic church defines heresy). Heresy can be committed only by a Catholic. You wrongly relate inquisition to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. That was not inquisition.
I've observed a clever trait in your posts so far. You don't engage the questions. You take the escape route and ask other questions. So you expect me to answer all the time, but when I ask you something, you change the topic. Let me outline your trail of escapism -
1. Jack Sullivan miracle - you generalized this and said (without proof) that all miracles are "invented".
2. I answered by asking you to read about Polycarp, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius, etc.
@SaintForChrist You can't provide proof of a negative. You made the assertion on miracles, yet you have provided nothing but "biblical evidence", which is no evidence at all. I see no credible evidence of miracles occurring in this world, so it is a reasonable deduction to say they are either the inventions of the deluded or of those with a vested interest in them.
You said, "I see no credible evidence of miracles occurring in this world, so it is a reasonable deduction to say they are either the inventions of the deluded or of those with a vested interest in them."
Again, for the scientifically inclined, there are still the medically documented miracles at Lourdes and especially the scientifically verified Miracle of Lanciano. If this is not credible evidence for you, then I don't know what could be.
@SaintForChrist An objective historian better knows the history. Like any other organisation, the catholic church will only tell you the history they want you to know. Fair enough, the inquisitors only had jurisdiction over baptised Catholics; however, this meant just about everyone in medieval Europe. The very act of renouncing one's Catholicism was considered an act of heresy, and punishable by death...often accompanied by torture.
@SaintForChrist I am a trained scientist. There is nothing I can see in this universe that doesn't obey well-defined natural laws. Science and Engineering have built the modern world by understanding and applying these natural laws to real-world problems. I see no divine intervention happening anywhere, despite all the wars, famines, droughts, disease and pestilence abroad in this world. Yet we are to believe that a guy gets better because he prayed to a dead priest, despite medical treatment?
@SaintForChrist ...a dead priest asks God to fix one man's back, yet this same god stands idly by and watches millions of children die annually because they have no clean water, food or medicine? Does this seem like the actions of a caring supreme being to you? Wouldn't Jack Sullivan be a better Catholic by praying for the deliverance of these children, rather than his own? Perhaps that kind of miracle is too much for your god?
You said, "...a dead priest asks God to fix one man's back, yet this same god stands idly by and watches millions of children die annually because they have no clean water, food or medicine? Does this seem like the actions of a caring supreme being to you?"
How do you know God stands idly? You obviously haven't bothered to examine the claims of people to have been miraculously healed by God.
You rightly pointed out "To them, the word of the bible must be taken literally or it is worthless."
Yes, TO THEM, not to us! We interpret it in a way that is in harmony with what the author who said it intended to convey. I think that gives the Bible more respect than interpreting it in a way that the author didn't imagine! Fundamentalism is a disease to Christianity. The early Christians were not fundamentalists, as is evident from the quotes that I have provided.
This is a very important principle of Biblical interpretation which the church has always taught- "What did the author intend to say". Take an example from today. If I say, "It was raining cats and dogs outside", you probably understand what I mean - it was raining very heavily. But imagine someone discovering this statement 5000 years later. Without knowing what I intended to convey, he (a fundamentalist) would think that I said that literally cats and dogs were falling from the sky!
The author of Genesis didn't know the scientific fact that the earth rotates about itself every 24 hours! He didn't need to. A day and a night is caused because of the light of the sun that falls upon the earth. If the author meant a day to mean "shining of the light of the sun upon the earth and then night", how then could he reconcile that with his own statement that the sun was created on the 4th day? Does it make any sense? No! It means he didn't mean "day" the way we understand it today.
Just to clarify my earlier statement about child abuse. I intended to say that of all the child abuse victims in US, 68% were abused by family members.
"..the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses" - Augustine (Around 410 AD).
"... just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself" - Ambrose of Milan (393 AD)
You said "this is starting to sound like apologetics; trying to explain away what clearly is untrue."
I am not sure what you are referring to by this. Apologetics is not trying to explain AWAY what is untrue, but explaining HOW something could be true.
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things FIGURATIVELY indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and NOT LITERALLY" - Origin (225 AD)
(I just realized I got the "days" thing wrong about Revelation in the post below. In Revelation, it is "years" which is probably to be interpreted as "ages" or even "infinite time".)
I gave you a link last time and here are some quotes -
And moreover, who would be willing to endure serious persecution for the sake of a falsehood? Perhaps you should read about the persecution that the early Christians had to go through at the hands of the non-Christian Jews and the Romans. The Great Fire of Rome (64 AD) is a great example.
Youtube doesn't allow the posting of links, so I posted only the part after the h t t p and w w w. If they don't work, just copy paste them on google and you will find the pages.
This we hold to be true. What could be wrong with believing that unless you completely avoid the existence of the supernatural?
5. Geocentric universe.
We don't hold to this. The Big Bang theory itself was given by a Catholic priest! Maybe your reference is to Galileo, but the issue about Galileo was more complicated than what people know of it.
The Catholic church's opinion is that Adam and Eve are real, in the sense that they were the first human beings who had a living SOUL. Apes don't have souls. Catholics are free to believe in evolution, as long as they hold the above fact. The recent Pope John Paul 2 said, "Today new knowledge leads us to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis."
You are free to hold that. I am just showing how the Catholic church has no problem with the theory of evolution or the Big Bang.
By soul I mean "the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated." The idea of a "mind" versus that of just a "brain". The idea of being self aware in the sense of conscience.
You can find some of the early Christian citations about Genesis and creation on this page. They believed that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day", as the Bible says. No one believed in a literal 6 day earth creation.
@SaintForChrist Then why does the bible say 6 days and on the 7th he rested? Sounds awfully like a retreat in the face of reason and evidence-based science?
In the Bible, the word "days" has multiple meanings. It can mean years or even ages or centuries. This is evident, for eg. in the prophecies of Daniel (where it probably means years) or the book of revelation (where it probably means ages).
You could say that we "retreated" if our church had taught a literalist interpretation of 6 days prior to the scientific discoveries. But that's not true. Our church never gave a literalist interpretation to the Genesis account.
@SaintForChrist there can indeed be a gulf in meanings in the term "days"; e.g. 'in a few days', or 'in those days'. However, in the singular, there is but one meaning, the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis. I think I admire the fundamentalist more; at least they nail themselves to their mast and don't waste their breath trying to explain away biblical inaccuracies. To them, the word of the bible must be taken literally or it is worthless. But then that createsmore problems.
You said "However, in the singular, there is but one meaning, the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis."
Now tell me, did the author of Genesis intend one day to mean "the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis"? You are taking a text from several thousand years ago and using modern scientific interpretative lenses to interpret it! This is clearly the error fundamentalists make!
He could not have meant a day to be "the time the sun takes to travel once about the earth". Note his statements in Genesis. He says,
"there was evening and there was morning, one day"
"there was evening and there was morning, a second day."
"there was evening and there was morning, a third day."
All these mornings and evenings happened before the sun itself was created - on the 4th day!! How could there be a morning or evening without the sun?
You said, " However, when the author of genesis did his work, there was a sun."
That is true. But he was referring to the period when there was no sun. And he says that there was morning and evening (without the sun being there in the first place!). So we see that he is not referring to what we refer to by "day".
You said "Then why didn't the author of genesis begin with "in the first millennium"?"
That's like asking a poet, why didn't you begin your poem this way! The author wrote with his vocabulary. If the word means something else in our vocabulary, or if we have other words in our vocabulary, that's not his concern. We must try to understand his vocabulary rather than imposing our own vocabulary on him!
That one (below) is from Wikipedia. The church has always traiditionally affirmed that it was written by John. If it had not, then it would not be in the Bible! This is also the reason why spurious works purporting to be written by the apostles were not accepted by the Catholic church, because tradition didn't affirm that. If the book was traditionally used in a liturgical service, it was considered to be scripture, otherwise not.
Come on Jack? Why choose Cardinal Newman? Why not pray to Jesus or God direct? Because the Catholic Church needs a steady supply of 'miracles' and new saints to keep the deluded interested. Priests don't call their congregation "their flock" for nothing. Baaaaaaahh!
As Catholics, we also pray to God directly. But there is nothing wrong in asking a particular saint in Heaven (like Cardinal Newman) to pray for us, especially if we are inspired by that saint. If you think that the Catholic church needs miracles to keep the "deluded" interested, then you haven't examined the lives of the saints! One who deludes doesn't spend his entire life in poverty, serving the lepers, like for eg. St. Francis of Assisi did. You need to read about these men!
@SaintForChrist Newman hasn't been made a saint...yet. Men like St Francis spent their lives in poverty because that all they had then. Wealth was the privilege of the very select few.Monks were poor, but they were generally well-fed, unlike 99% of medieval Europe.
Once, it was easy to accept creation; however, the process of scientific discovery uncovers more of our universe on a daily basis, and it is plainly clear that the bible is wrong about so much that it is hard to take seriously.
That's right. I am sure you know that someone doesn't become a saint after he has been declared so by the Catholic church! The church says that anyone who is in heaven is, by definition, a saint (from the Latin "sanctus", which means holy). What the church does by proclaiming saints is just ascertain that they are indeed in heaven. Even before the church says so, we are free to believe some people are in heaven and ask for their prayers.
"Men like St Francis spent their lives in poverty because that all they had then."
That's not true about St. Francis. He was the son of a rich cloth merchant.
@ "the bible is wrong about so much that it is hard to take seriously."
It seems wrong because people read it with the wrong interpretative lenses. For eg. You wouldn't read a peom with an interpretative lens of science. For eg. a statement like "Your heart unites to mine" makes no scientific sense.
I have to admit that your theory of Mithraic origins of Christianity comes across to me as just a wild imagination. Also, it doesn't make sense when you take into account the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus. Those were written far before even Zoroastrianism. The very first prophecy about Jesus comes right in the first book of the Bible, in Genesis chapter 3 verse 15.
You made a point about feeding the hungry. But that is possible by natural means as I explained earlier. When God has given us the natural means, we should use them. We can collect donations and feed the hungry. A miracle is not necessary for that.
Miracles are not to be used as a tool for amazement. You might have heard the scripture, "Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test." If we demand a miracle when we can do something by natural means, we are testing God.
If the New Testament was written many decades after Christ, then it would be stupid to mention Jesus prophecy and also not mention that it was fulfilled in the destruction of the temple. That would have given more creedence to the message about Jesus Christ.
@SaintForChrist Sorry, the gospel of John has unknown authorship, supposedly based on John's testimony. John was one of the disciples, but that doesn't mean is testimony survived intact until it was committed to paper.
Here's a secular commentary on the gospel of John- "The Gospel's authorship is anonymous. However, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved', identified by Early Church tradition with John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. It is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that most commentators routinely treat the four books together."
You say that Jack Sullivan sees a miracle because he wants to. But you also see it as luck because you want to. What is "luck"? Luck is not a material quantity. Luck is not a cause of something. Luck is just a way you refer to improbable incidences. But when something is highly improbable, like someone's leg being healed right after a prayer, it can't just be dismissed as luck.
And yes, I think you need to test the sincerity of holy men before accusing them of inventing stuff.
@SaintForChrist Luck is fortune; whatever happens. It may be good; it may be bad; it may be totally neutral in its effect. Jack had good fortune. The surgery worked. He walks today because of the neurosurgeon's skill and knowledge. To lay all the credit at the door of a dead priest is disingenuous to the surgeons. Sorry mate, but Catholicism is hocus-pocus. It relies on magic for its very existence. Without regular 'miracles' the faithful will lose interest.
This is dishonest on your part. The doctors had no explanation for his sudden recovery. I believe his word. You don't believe, so you seek these illogical explanations. This makes me laugh at the atheist claim - "We don't believe God because there is no evidence!" Now I see! When we show evidence, you dismiss it as luck!! Haha! Very convenient. You don't believe our testimony because you don't want to believe, that's all.
@SaintForChrist Do me a favour. Do a quick comparative study on the central themes of Christianity and Mithraism. You'll see where Christianity came from.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hyperbole or Truth?
2 Kings 2:23-24 - From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
Hyperbole or Truth?
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - true. Why? The church never said it is hyperbole.
2 Kins 2:23-24 - true. Why? Same reason.
But I thank God we are living in New Testament times, where the emphasis for obedience to God is love and not fear. The Old Testament emphasis was fear. People feared to commit adultery because of the harsh punishment. The New Testament emphasis is love. People don't want to commit adultery, because of love for wife and for God.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist "Obey the scriptures" - Jesus Christ
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, great, marking my comments as spam! Very nice!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
I suggest you do some reading about rabbinic hyperbolic style of preaching, so that sentences like "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" and "camel going through eye of the needle" make more sense to you.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist so which bits did Christ mean, and which were just "Rabbinic Hyperbole"? If I use the phrase "it is as much use as a chocolate teapot" then I mean that the item under discussion is no good at all. If I say that it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle, then I mean that it's impossible, for I khow full well that needles cannot be threaded with camels.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
... "I am the way, the rabbinic hyperbole and the light"
...Truth is more effectively disseminated using literalism in preference to hyperbole. Just imagine, if you can, a Professor of Science or Mathematics teaching his subject by employing a stream of hyperbole?
Nope. You'll have to do better than that.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "Truth is more effectively disseminated using literalism in preference to hyperbole."
Do you have any empirical evidence for this?
You propose a very restricted field like Mathematics and try to use that to suggest that the logic of literlism applies to fields like theology. In that case, I guess you would explain (as Einstein said) music as a variation of wave pressure, because, after all, that is what literally happens!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Which bit is hyperbole and which is not? I think I had answered a similar question from you before, when you asked which bit is to be taken literally and which is not!
The answer is simple - look to the church! See how the church interprets that passage and has always interpreted that passage.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist back to "interpretation". Everything is interpretation. Is there nothing literal in The Bible?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Yes, Jesus did tell us to obey the scriptures, but at the same time he gave us the church to correctly interpret the scriptures and apply them to our time.
SaintForChrist 2 months ago
"As a matter of fact supposing that the heart may have been taken from a cadaver, I maintain that only a hand experienced in anatomic dissection would have been able to obtain from a hollow internal organ such a uniform cut (as can still be glimpsed in the flesh)."
I will take the trained scientist's word, won't you?
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Are you really saying medieval Europe lacked the skills to make sharp tools? This isn't Neolithic Europe we're talking about here.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Medieval Europe might have had such skills. Who knows? But the lives of the saints are enough to suggest to me that if miracles were all hoax, then the way they lived makes no sense at all. It's one thing being deluded. It's quite another knowing you are faking something and still living out the kind of life the saints lived.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Again, you haven't considered the quote that I provided about 7000 miracles being claimed. The process of affirming a miracle takes very long and the average person doesn't have the patience or the time to wait that long for the process. He/she will accept his miracle and go home happily giving praise to God.
I would have joined your so-called real world if I hadn't seen miracles myself and the ones witnessed by my parents.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist ...and Islam probably has a similar number; Hinduism isn't short of miracles in their fantasies either. Why should their fantasies be false and yours true? Please try and think for yourself instead of blindly swallowing the Catholic cool aid?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist People see what they want to see. The human brain can't possibly process all the visual array data that the eyes detect, and it fills in vast chunks. It happens all the time, and any psychologist will tell you that. Illusionists and conjurers depend on it for their living.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist What we see isn't real, it's what our brains interpret for us. Even colour and tone are mental constructs that the brain has built to help us make sense or the universe we inhabit. We know everyone doesn't have the same perception of colour as 8% of males are colourblind to some degree. Put a bunch of people in a church for a night and tell them it's haunted and I guarantee at lest one of them will see a ghost; it's human nature.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist what I'm trying to say is that everything you see is an illusion. The object you may be looking at could be physically real, but how it appears to you is illusory; the colour and tone is a product of your visual cortex. You don't see an object as it really is.
You brain is telling you that Catholic doctrine is real, but a Muslim's brain is telling him that Islamic doctrine is real. Ditto the Protestant, Hindu, Bhuddist, Taoist etc etc.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "You brain is telling you that Catholic doctrine is real, but a Muslim's brain is telling him that Islamic doctrine is real. Ditto the Protestant, Hindu, Bhuddist, Taoist etc etc."
In the same way, your brain could be telling you that the atheistic worldview is real! You don't seem to have examined that possibility my friend! :O
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Except my view is just that, not something I was indoctrinated into as a child.
Religions come, and religions go. Today's versions of Christianity bear little resemblance to that practiced 2000 years ago. Who is to say where it will be 10,000 years from now; most likely gone the way of the ancient Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman and Norse gods? Atheism will never die, because there will always be people who will think for themselves and act upon what they can see.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Religions come and religions go remains to be proven about Christianity. You seem to suggest that only those who are indoctrinated as children remain religious. But that is absolutely false. You don't take into consideration those who were atheists from the beginning and then became theists. Stop living under the illusion that atheism is the only rational conclusion.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Atheism is the default state of humans. We are all born atheists. Those who are indoctrinated do not always remain religious...some wake up from their dream.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Atheism is not the default state of human beings. An atheist is not simply one without knowledge of something. A-THEIST is someone who rejects the THEIST position. In order to reject something, you first need to know it.
SaintForChrist 2 months ago
@SaintForChrist last I heard, children have to be 'taught' about 'god' in pretty much the same way that they have to be taught mathematics. The only difference is that for 'god' they have to rely on faith for their belief, while Mathematics can be shown to be demonstrably true. Of course, all the Muslim children are taught something completely different, and Hindu children something different still. Bhuddism teaches yet another version of events. Which are we to believe?
DaMuttzNutz 2 months ago
@SaintForChrist If you think that then my posts have been too much for your poor indoctrinated brain to understand. I thought I made it quite clear that my atheistic beliefs are based on reason and a total lack of any empirical evidence to the contrary. I'm surprised you haven't trotted out the teleological argument yet, but I suppose that nowadays The RC Church accept Darwinian Evolution over creationism.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said that "my atheistic beliefs are based on reason and a total lack of any empirical evidence to the contrary".
There seems to be an inherent assumption in your statement. The assumption is that evidence should be empirical. But where has this assumption ever been proven? Is history empirical? No! But is it evidence? Yes!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I'll include mathematical and logical evidence under that umbrella
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Sure, logical evidence proves God - The argument from contingency.
SaintForChrist 2 months ago
@SaintForChrist ...I make no claims for religious dogma. I simply don't believe, and in 54 years in this Universe I've yet to see any phenomena that cannot be explained using the laws on nature as understood by Newton, Hooke, Kepler, Pauli, Einstein, Heisenberg, Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking et al.
Calling something a miracle is an intellectual and moral cop-out. What The Church is saying is "We don't want to understand this, but we'll go through the motions of making out we do"
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, " I've yet to see any phenomena that cannot be explained...."
Then tell me my friend, why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe HAVE to be there? Do you have an answer? I watched a Hawking video and even he said he wonders about it.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Please don't try the cosmological argument on me. You know damn well it doesn't prove the existence of god, and only gives rise to the question "How did god get there then?", as a creator must necessarily be more complex than his/her creation.
It is Hawking's job to wonder about it and to provide credible explanations based on Science, not magic.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Hahaha. Don't try that nonsensical Richard Dawkins trick on me. You fail to answer and evade the question. Why is there something rather than nothing?
How did God get there? It is because God's very nature is to exist. God is BEING itself. This is elementary Catholic theology.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I make no claims to the universe prior to the big bang, but I'm prepared to admit that there are some theories about it, based on science and not faith.
Where did your god come from?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Where did God come from? This means you don't know the very definition of God. God is the non-contingent cause of everything that exists. Asking therefore "where did God come from" is a logical fallacy. So tell me if there was nothing prior to the big bang, how did something come from nothing?
SaintForChrist 2 months ago
@SaintForChrist What a cop out? So 'god' is just somewhere to hide our ignorance? I don't pretend to know the prime cause of the universe, though observation (expansion, red-shift, background microwave radiation) seems to suggest that it originated from a single super massive singularity some 15 billion years ago. Before then, we can only speculate, but I'd much rather the speculation is based on scientific knowledge than faith, i.e. belief without proof.
DaMuttzNutz 2 months ago
@SaintForChrist this is the best you can come up with in a year? A couple of straw man arguments? The definition of god is nothing; non-existance, except in the minds of the deluded. Besides, The Bible tells us that we were created in God's image, then it's safe to assume that your god should man-like in appearance.
DaMuttzNutz 2 months ago
@SaintForChrist Come on, let's see God pull of a big miracle; not just straightening out Uncle Jack. The churches will soon be packed to the rafters again
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
"Come on, let's see God pull of a big miracle; not just straightening out Uncle Jack. The churches will soon be packed to the rafters again"
Yes, I am praying for that. When it happens I will let you know. Just don't die till then, otherwise it will be too late and you will soon find yourself standing open mouthed before the judgment seat of God! :o
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist When I die, I'll be dead. So will you; so neither of us will be standing open-mouthed before "God"
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
That was quoted from mult-sclerosis dot o r g site. The process of validation of miracles is so long that the average person doesn't have the time to go through such a long process.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I understand what drives people to religion. Death is scary, so scary to some people that they will accept any fairytale rather than accept reality.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
I am yet to come across a person who told me he was driven to religion because of fear of death. I also understand what drives people to atheism - the desire to avoid moral responsibility. The desire to do evil things and not be caught or not be held responsible. The desire to be free from any objective moral standard and the desire to have one's own way no matter what. As an atheist, you don't even have an objective standard of morailty. You can't even argue that there is one.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I have a good friend with MS, she has had several bouts of remission; at least three in the 25 years that I've known her, plus one spell of remission before I knew her. It's a well-understood feature of the condition, but the long-term trend is generally downwards.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
When your friend has bouts of remission, does that MS disappear overnight?
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Another piece of info for you
"It is intriguing that the Catholic Church puts up with such a small number of divine interventions, given that about 7,000 pilgrims have sought officially to claim that a miracle has happened to them since the medical committee has existed. Instead, the Church is relying on scientists first to validate the claim that an event cannot be accounted for by natural phenomena before religion proceeds to sanction a cure as a divine event."
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist That's because 6927 of the "miracles" are too spurious even for the Catholic Church to swallow whole. A scientist employed by the catholic church is hardly objective. For a start, his world view is coloured by church doctrine and theology. He will investigate a claim with the belief that miracles are possible.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "A scientist employed by the catholic church is hardly objective."
HAHAHAHA!! :D
BIAS BIAS BIAS! That's all it is!!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist So you're telling me that a scientist who also happens to be a devout Catholic ISN'T going to be biased in his investigation? A man (or woman) who may already accept church doctrine in its entirety?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Why should he be? After all, if he is a devout Catholic, he knows the importance of truth he knows how great a sin it is to tell a lie and to deceive. From what you're saying there can never then be any unbiased scientist. After all, it could then be argued, that an athiestic scientist is biased to see everything as random chance.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Of couse there are unbiased scientists. Those that approach an experiment with no preconceived ideas about it.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said, "Perhaps he lacked the formal training in deductive reasoning and predicate logic to formulate alternative answers?"
Isn't this the classical assumption that all scientists tend to make? The assumption is that everything CAN be explained by deductive reasoning and predicate logic. But that in itself has never been proved.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
You said, "Wouldn't Jack Sullivan be a better Catholic by praying for the deliverance of these children, rather than his own? Perhaps that kind of miracle is too much for your god?"
No miracle is too much for God. But what he requires is faith. And indeed miracles do happen amongst the poorest of the poor, but there r no video cameras doing recordings there! Their testimony is enough to convince many. Even if a video recording were taken, would it convince anyone who disbelieves? I guess not.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Yeah, "faith" being the total absence of evidence
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
The classic example given by Jesus is that of the rich man and Lazarus (a poor beggar). The poor beggar ends up in heaven. Isn't a lifetime of suffering worth an eternity of happiness?
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist If a lifetime of poverty is all you have then the promise of eternity in paradise is a heady, alluring promise. It's also the kind of promise that leads poor Muslims to strap bombs to themselves so they can get their 72 virgins (or 53, according to some).
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
A lifetime of poverty is not "ALL" we have. We also have a great number of charity organizations working to support these people. Christianity welcomes both the rich and the poor. Money can't buy love. I have seen the lives of rich people here in the US. They are rich, yet so many commit suicide. They have no peace of mind. Constand divorces, break ups and a shity life in their relationships with people. The poor might be poor, but they have peace and love in their hearts.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist So Jesus was lying when he made the "eye of the needle" speech then?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "So Jesus was lying when he made the "eye of the needle" speech then?" No. He only said that it is hard for the rich to enter and then proceeded to use his usual hyperbolic style of preaching. The reason it is hard is because the rich love money and the love of money is the root of all evil. So the way a rich man can enter the kingdom is by giving up his love for money and by loving God instead.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Camel through a needle's eye? I think that means impossible to any sane person, unless you know of a camel small enough and flexible enough?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
Also, you seem to limit God to your own understanding of what God should do. You cite the example of millions of children dying because of a lack of medical care. And you say God doesn't seem to care. But I ask, is life on earth all that there is? Perhaps God is allowing them to die early precisely because he wants them to be in heaven early. At the heart of Jesus' message were these very kind of paradoxical statements -
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist ...and there's me thinking god wanted them to go forth and multiply, and he takes them before they're capable?
medical care and food
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Coming to God is the highest aim of any Christian. So what if he cannot go forth and multiply, he has come to God (after his death) and no one is going to ask him why he didn't do something if he never got the opportunity to do it.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Except god is a delusion
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
You should see the medically documented miracles of Lourdes, for instance. Most of the miracles happen where people have faith and that is usually amongst the meek in spirit. But obviously, you will never accept their testimony because they are not "scientifcally trained" like you. So you devalue a human's experience based upon his education.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist There have been about 63 confirmed "miracles" at Lourdes. Considering how many thousands have visited the place in the last few hundred years, I'd have to say that proves nothing....mere chance.
Take a large group of sick people and some of them will get better without medical intervention. Any fool knows that.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Lolz. I knew I could expect that from you. Mere "chance" huh. What is chance? Chance is not a cause of something. Why don't atheists get healed by "chance" like this? Yes, thousands of people go there, but not thousands are all sick people. I am surprised that a "trained scientist" like you can dismiss such an occurence as "mere chance". What is your take on the miracle at Lanciano?
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Have you any idea how many people visit Lourdes every year in hope of a "miracle"? I've no idea just how many people visit Lourdes annually, but the town has hotel capacity for 5 million visitors. Yet there has only been 63 confirmed "miraculous" cures in more than 150 years? For what it's worth, over 40,000 pilgrims visited in Feb 2008, the 150th anniversary of the "apparition". If 63 were cured in that month alone, I wouldn't be impressed. Grow up and join the real world.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "Have you any idea how many people visit Lourdes every year in hope of a "miracle"?"
No, I don't. But neither do you. Most people who go there are not sick. The average person is not sick but healthy. People visit the site as a pilgrimage, for praying and for spiritual blessings. Yes, there are only 63 confirmed miraculous cures, but that's what they are - miraculous cures. The doctors don't say like you that they happened by "mere chance."
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Athiests do get healed by chance all the time. Cancer sufferers go into remission. I had a chest infection a couple of weeks ago, and guess what? It got better on its own, as did the chicken pox and measles I had as a kid, and I didn't have to prostrate myself to your imaginary god.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Lol. Chest infection? Your body has its own fighting mechanism and it is bound to work. That doesn't take a miracle. Did your chicken pox and measles disappear in a flash? Cancer remission also doesn't happen overnight.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist are you talking about transubstantiation? You actually believe it is real and not symbolic? HAHAHAHA
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
"HAHAHAHA" is not a trained scientist's answer that I was expecting to a genuine question. I am beginning to doubt your training now. Again you are trying your escape trick, but no, I want your opinion on the Miracle at Lanciano. And please do some reading from catholic dot c o m on transubstantiation. It pays to know what you talk about before you laugh at it. Trained scientists are supposed to do that.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I laugh at it because the notion that blessing wine will turn it into blood. Guess what? I've taken communion, and it was wine when it went into my mouth. You invite ridicule.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "I laugh at it because the notion that blessing wine will turn it into blood."
So you are one of those Catholics who were not taught their faith well. I don't blame you. You don't understand the doctrine of transubstantiation at all. Transubstantiation does not mean that the actual wine becomes blood, but rather the "substance" (look up how that word was used when transubstantiation was defined) is no longer wine, but only appears to be wine. Same with the bread.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I've read the bible and realised what a pile it is. What kind of religious person wants to eat their demigod in some bizarre cannibalistic ritual?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
The Miracle at Lanciano happened when a priest doubted that the "substance" actually changed as he prayed the words of consecration. To his surprise, not only did the "substance" change, but the very bread itself changed into flesh and the wine into blood and this miracle dispelled all his doubts. You still have to give me an explanation for this miracle. Do you think this also happened by "mere chance"?
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist My explanation is that it didn't happen at all. That the stuff on display is human tissue is beyond doubt. That it changed from bread and wine to heart and blood tissue isn't.
Try praying over some bread and wine and see if you can change it? My bet is you can't. Wine does not spontaneously change to blood, and bread does not spontaneously change to meat. Now grow up and leave your fairy stories behind you.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
This is what the "trained scientist" said about it -
"Though it is alien to my task strictly speaking, I feel I should insert the following reflection into the study just completed: the clarification, which comes through in these studies, of the nature of the flesh gives little support to the hypothesis of a `fraud' perpetrated centuries ago."
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist The ancient Greeks believed in the Olympian Gods. In the Odyssey, Homer ever gave directions to the underworld. Do you really think that that Homer was correct? Let's face it, Homer is of a similar age to the bible, and is far more self-consistent than the Bible ever was. Was Homer describing reality? Not a chance, pal. Why should anyone accept The Bible/Torah, but not The Q'ran and any other of the thousands of religious philosophies that have plagued mankind through the ages?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Why should someone accept Bible/Torah and not Quran?? Simple! Examine the evidence for the crucifixion of Christ. Quran denies the crucifixion itself and says that Christ went directly to heaven. This is a non-historical claim. Even extra-biblical writings such as those of Josephus prove it. That in itself does not prove that we should accept the Bible, but it does prove that the Quran is not right. There are other reasons to accept the Bible/Torah.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Well, the Gods of the greeks haven't saved them from destruction! But Christians have survived 2000 years now, often under severe persecution (52 Christians were killed in Iraq this week). Perhaps you can lead an atheistic regime and try to destroy Christianity and see what happens!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Let's face it, medieval Europe was awash with religious relics. Churches went to extraordinary lengths to obtain them, even outright forgery (Turin shroud). Relics meant pilgrims meant money, and we all know how the Catholic Church likes money. If all the pieces of the "one true cross" were brought together and reassembled, the cross would be the size of a fully grown oak tree.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
The Shroud of Turin (unlike the M at Lanciano) was never officially approved by the Catholic Church (even wikipedia states that). Lol, the Catholic Church likes money huh? You're talking as though priests are living in 5 star hotel facilities! Don't you see the large number of schools, institutions and hospitals run by the Catholic Church? I bet you were also educated in one. So you spit back upon those who provided for you.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I think you'll find that the senior church members ARE living in 5-star luxury, while half the "Catholic World" doesn't have a pot to piss in.
I was educated in a taxpayer-funded school, and I'm grateful for it. My father received a catholic education though, courtesy of the Christian Brothers in Ireland. Fortunately, he was able to see through the bullshit also.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
Let me start with one that you haven't answered -
Why would Francis of Assisi lie about his miracles?
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I don't know, but plenty of people lie for all sorts of reasons. Francis of Assisi was a priest, not a scientist. Perhaps he lacked the formal training in deductive reasoning and predicate logic to formulate alternative answers? To be honest, I don't even know if Francis made these claims himself, or rather they were made on his behalf. I suspect the latter.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "To be honest, I don't even know if Francis made these claims himself, or rather they were made on his behalf. I suspect the latter."
Francis told his friars about his experiences, but most importantly, his friars were all there with him to witness his life. You should see the writings of once such Friar, Thomas of Celano. Why should you automatically dismiss a miracle as a nonsensical claim? Seems like a bias to me.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
9. You brought up the 6-day-creation subject.
10. I explained how the Catholic church understands that.
11. Now you bring up Inquisition.
12. I have learnt my lesson. I won't be swayed by your evasive tactics anymore. If you think I should read history, fine. I think you should.
13. Back to my questions -
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
3. You ignored and changed the subject to the "non-existence of Christ!"
4. I gave evidence for Christ.
5. Then you brought pedophiles into the discussion.
6. Mithraism
7. I answered those and then you discredited Sir William Ramsay because he became a Christian!
8. "Why choose Cardinal Newman"? You got back to square one. That means you didn't bother to read the initial answer that I posted.
9.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
I seriously think you should go to catholic dot com to inquire more about the Catholic church and its teachings.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Your point about "logic being unassailable" would be true if the church had proposed a symbolic interpretation to Genesis after the modern scientific advances. But as I have shown, the church interpreted Genesis symbolically right from the beginning. Symbolism is a common theme in the Bible.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Ambrose explained "Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself"
A "day" in the original author's vocabulary, could refer to a period of time.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
He refers to a morning and an evening as "one day" and at the same time he says that the sun was created on the 4th day. This means that in his vocabulary, the terms "morning", "evening", "day" have a different meaning than what we understand some thousands of years later today. A more plausible understanding could be the one that was provided by Ambrose of Milan, a 4th century Catholic bishop.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Since you spoke of fundamentalism, I was reminded of Bill Maher's documentary called Religulous. You should perhaps see the section where Bill Maher talks to Fr. George Coyne on this issue. Also, you should perhaps see Richard Dawkin's interview with Fr. George Coyne. It will help you to understand how the Catholic church views scripture and truth in general. We believe that God is the author of all truth and therefore it must be respected, whether it comes from science or from the Bible.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist For what it's worth, I know how the Catholic Church views scripture and truth. It suppresses it, historically with violence and oppression, though nowadays by more peaceful means. When that doesn't work, or the logic facing it is unassailable, it backs down and falls back on analogy, simile and symbolism. Not too long ago as human history is reckoned, I'd have had to face the inquisition for believing what I believe. Nowdays, the church has to rely on indoctrination.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
I think you have read about the Catholic church from the wrong sources. Who knows the history of the church better than the church itself? I think you should read about the Catholic church from Catholic sources also, to get a balanced view. For instance, the inquisition that you talked about. As an atheist, you would not face the inquisition. Inquisition was meant to expose pseudo-Catholics, who posing to be Catholics secretly brought in false, heretical ideas of theology.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist What utter hogwash? I suggest you read up on European history. It wasn't just lapsed Catholics that had to fear the inquisitors; it was anyone that espoused anything contrary to church doctrine. The church didn't just expose them; it put them to death. Start your research with The Hugenots and The St Bartholomew's Day massacre.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Gregory XIII even commissioned a papal medal in 'honour' of the occasion.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist If anyone needs to read up on the history of the catholic church, it is you. It's a history steeped in lies, oppression, extortion and murder (including genocide). No wonder Hitler felt comfortable as a catholic
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
I have done sufficient reading of the history of the Catholic church. My point about inquisition remains true. Inquisition was a way of combating heresy (please look up how the Catholic church defines heresy). Heresy can be committed only by a Catholic. You wrongly relate inquisition to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. That was not inquisition.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
I've observed a clever trait in your posts so far. You don't engage the questions. You take the escape route and ask other questions. So you expect me to answer all the time, but when I ask you something, you change the topic. Let me outline your trail of escapism -
1. Jack Sullivan miracle - you generalized this and said (without proof) that all miracles are "invented".
2. I answered by asking you to read about Polycarp, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius, etc.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist You can't provide proof of a negative. You made the assertion on miracles, yet you have provided nothing but "biblical evidence", which is no evidence at all. I see no credible evidence of miracles occurring in this world, so it is a reasonable deduction to say they are either the inventions of the deluded or of those with a vested interest in them.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "I see no credible evidence of miracles occurring in this world, so it is a reasonable deduction to say they are either the inventions of the deluded or of those with a vested interest in them."
Again, for the scientifically inclined, there are still the medically documented miracles at Lourdes and especially the scientifically verified Miracle of Lanciano. If this is not credible evidence for you, then I don't know what could be.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist An objective historian better knows the history. Like any other organisation, the catholic church will only tell you the history they want you to know. Fair enough, the inquisitors only had jurisdiction over baptised Catholics; however, this meant just about everyone in medieval Europe. The very act of renouncing one's Catholicism was considered an act of heresy, and punishable by death...often accompanied by torture.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz I do apologise, renouncing one's religion is of course apostasy
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I am a trained scientist. There is nothing I can see in this universe that doesn't obey well-defined natural laws. Science and Engineering have built the modern world by understanding and applying these natural laws to real-world problems. I see no divine intervention happening anywhere, despite all the wars, famines, droughts, disease and pestilence abroad in this world. Yet we are to believe that a guy gets better because he prayed to a dead priest, despite medical treatment?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist ...a dead priest asks God to fix one man's back, yet this same god stands idly by and watches millions of children die annually because they have no clean water, food or medicine? Does this seem like the actions of a caring supreme being to you? Wouldn't Jack Sullivan be a better Catholic by praying for the deliverance of these children, rather than his own? Perhaps that kind of miracle is too much for your god?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, "...a dead priest asks God to fix one man's back, yet this same god stands idly by and watches millions of children die annually because they have no clean water, food or medicine? Does this seem like the actions of a caring supreme being to you?"
How do you know God stands idly? You obviously haven't bothered to examine the claims of people to have been miraculously healed by God.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
You rightly pointed out "To them, the word of the bible must be taken literally or it is worthless."
Yes, TO THEM, not to us! We interpret it in a way that is in harmony with what the author who said it intended to convey. I think that gives the Bible more respect than interpreting it in a way that the author didn't imagine! Fundamentalism is a disease to Christianity. The early Christians were not fundamentalists, as is evident from the quotes that I have provided.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Comment removed
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
This is a very important principle of Biblical interpretation which the church has always taught- "What did the author intend to say". Take an example from today. If I say, "It was raining cats and dogs outside", you probably understand what I mean - it was raining very heavily. But imagine someone discovering this statement 5000 years later. Without knowing what I intended to convey, he (a fundamentalist) would think that I said that literally cats and dogs were falling from the sky!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
The author of Genesis didn't know the scientific fact that the earth rotates about itself every 24 hours! He didn't need to. A day and a night is caused because of the light of the sun that falls upon the earth. If the author meant a day to mean "shining of the light of the sun upon the earth and then night", how then could he reconcile that with his own statement that the sun was created on the 4th day? Does it make any sense? No! It means he didn't mean "day" the way we understand it today.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Just to clarify my earlier statement about child abuse. I intended to say that of all the child abuse victims in US, 68% were abused by family members.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
"..the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses" - Augustine (Around 410 AD).
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist except it isn't beyond the reach of our senses. We know what makes the sun burn, and we know how day is separated from night.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
"... just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself" - Ambrose of Milan (393 AD)
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist this is starting to sound like apologetics; trying to explain away what clearly is untrue.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
You said "this is starting to sound like apologetics; trying to explain away what clearly is untrue."
I am not sure what you are referring to by this. Apologetics is not trying to explain AWAY what is untrue, but explaining HOW something could be true.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things FIGURATIVELY indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and NOT LITERALLY" - Origin (225 AD)
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
(I just realized I got the "days" thing wrong about Revelation in the post below. In Revelation, it is "years" which is probably to be interpreted as "ages" or even "infinite time".)
I gave you a link last time and here are some quotes -
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
And moreover, who would be willing to endure serious persecution for the sake of a falsehood? Perhaps you should read about the persecution that the early Christians had to go through at the hands of the non-Christian Jews and the Romans. The Great Fire of Rome (64 AD) is a great example.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Regarding the links -
Youtube doesn't allow the posting of links, so I posted only the part after the h t t p and w w w. If they don't work, just copy paste them on google and you will find the pages.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
3 & 4. The loaves and fishes and the red sea.
This we hold to be true. What could be wrong with believing that unless you completely avoid the existence of the supernatural?
5. Geocentric universe.
We don't hold to this. The Big Bang theory itself was given by a Catholic priest! Maybe your reference is to Galileo, but the issue about Galileo was more complicated than what people know of it.
Here's a link -
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
2. Adam and Eve
The Catholic church's opinion is that Adam and Eve are real, in the sense that they were the first human beings who had a living SOUL. Apes don't have souls. Catholics are free to believe in evolution, as long as they hold the above fact. The recent Pope John Paul 2 said, "Today new knowledge leads us to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis."
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I hold that we don't have souls either
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
"I hold that we don't have souls either"
You are free to hold that. I am just showing how the Catholic church has no problem with the theory of evolution or the Big Bang.
By soul I mean "the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated." The idea of a "mind" versus that of just a "brain". The idea of being self aware in the sense of conscience.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist and if by 'soul' you mean understanding and language then you are clearly wrong on that count too.
Try googling "Koko the gorilla"
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp
You can find some of the early Christian citations about Genesis and creation on this page. They believed that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day", as the Bible says. No one believed in a literal 6 day earth creation.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Then why does the bible say 6 days and on the 7th he rested? Sounds awfully like a retreat in the face of reason and evidence-based science?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
In the Bible, the word "days" has multiple meanings. It can mean years or even ages or centuries. This is evident, for eg. in the prophecies of Daniel (where it probably means years) or the book of revelation (where it probably means ages).
You could say that we "retreated" if our church had taught a literalist interpretation of 6 days prior to the scientific discoveries. But that's not true. Our church never gave a literalist interpretation to the Genesis account.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist there can indeed be a gulf in meanings in the term "days"; e.g. 'in a few days', or 'in those days'. However, in the singular, there is but one meaning, the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis. I think I admire the fundamentalist more; at least they nail themselves to their mast and don't waste their breath trying to explain away biblical inaccuracies. To them, the word of the bible must be taken literally or it is worthless. But then that createsmore problems.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You said "However, in the singular, there is but one meaning, the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis."
Now tell me, did the author of Genesis intend one day to mean "the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis"? You are taking a text from several thousand years ago and using modern scientific interpretative lenses to interpret it! This is clearly the error fundamentalists make!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist I suspect he meant the time taken for the sun to travel once about the earth, which amounts to the same time period.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
He could not have meant a day to be "the time the sun takes to travel once about the earth". Note his statements in Genesis. He says,
"there was evening and there was morning, one day"
"there was evening and there was morning, a second day."
"there was evening and there was morning, a third day."
All these mornings and evenings happened before the sun itself was created - on the 4th day!! How could there be a morning or evening without the sun?
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist However, when the author of genesis did his work, there was a sun.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
You said, " However, when the author of genesis did his work, there was a sun."
That is true. But he was referring to the period when there was no sun. And he says that there was morning and evening (without the sun being there in the first place!). So we see that he is not referring to what we refer to by "day".
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Then why didn't the author of genesis begin with "in the first millennium"?
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
You said "Then why didn't the author of genesis begin with "in the first millennium"?"
That's like asking a poet, why didn't you begin your poem this way! The author wrote with his vocabulary. If the word means something else in our vocabulary, or if we have other words in our vocabulary, that's not his concern. We must try to understand his vocabulary rather than imposing our own vocabulary on him!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
That one (below) is from Wikipedia. The church has always traiditionally affirmed that it was written by John. If it had not, then it would not be in the Bible! This is also the reason why spurious works purporting to be written by the apostles were not accepted by the Catholic church, because tradition didn't affirm that. If the book was traditionally used in a liturgical service, it was considered to be scripture, otherwise not.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
Come on Jack? Why choose Cardinal Newman? Why not pray to Jesus or God direct? Because the Catholic Church needs a steady supply of 'miracles' and new saints to keep the deluded interested. Priests don't call their congregation "their flock" for nothing. Baaaaaaahh!
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
As Catholics, we also pray to God directly. But there is nothing wrong in asking a particular saint in Heaven (like Cardinal Newman) to pray for us, especially if we are inspired by that saint. If you think that the Catholic church needs miracles to keep the "deluded" interested, then you haven't examined the lives of the saints! One who deludes doesn't spend his entire life in poverty, serving the lepers, like for eg. St. Francis of Assisi did. You need to read about these men!
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Newman hasn't been made a saint...yet. Men like St Francis spent their lives in poverty because that all they had then. Wealth was the privilege of the very select few.Monks were poor, but they were generally well-fed, unlike 99% of medieval Europe.
Once, it was easy to accept creation; however, the process of scientific discovery uncovers more of our universe on a daily basis, and it is plainly clear that the bible is wrong about so much that it is hard to take seriously.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
"Newman hasn't been made a saint...yet."
That's right. I am sure you know that someone doesn't become a saint after he has been declared so by the Catholic church! The church says that anyone who is in heaven is, by definition, a saint (from the Latin "sanctus", which means holy). What the church does by proclaiming saints is just ascertain that they are indeed in heaven. Even before the church says so, we are free to believe some people are in heaven and ask for their prayers.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
"Men like St Francis spent their lives in poverty because that all they had then."
That's not true about St. Francis. He was the son of a rich cloth merchant.
@ "the bible is wrong about so much that it is hard to take seriously."
It seems wrong because people read it with the wrong interpretative lenses. For eg. You wouldn't read a peom with an interpretative lens of science. For eg. a statement like "Your heart unites to mine" makes no scientific sense.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
I have to admit that your theory of Mithraic origins of Christianity comes across to me as just a wild imagination. Also, it doesn't make sense when you take into account the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus. Those were written far before even Zoroastrianism. The very first prophecy about Jesus comes right in the first book of the Bible, in Genesis chapter 3 verse 15.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
You made a point about feeding the hungry. But that is possible by natural means as I explained earlier. When God has given us the natural means, we should use them. We can collect donations and feed the hungry. A miracle is not necessary for that.
Miracles are not to be used as a tool for amazement. You might have heard the scripture, "Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test." If we demand a miracle when we can do something by natural means, we are testing God.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Yeah! Very convenient excuse. Test! Like that one.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
If the New Testament was written many decades after Christ, then it would be stupid to mention Jesus prophecy and also not mention that it was fulfilled in the destruction of the temple. That would have given more creedence to the message about Jesus Christ.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Look, even the pope will tell you that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke nor John were contemporaries of Christ.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaMuttzNutz
You said "Look, even the pope will tell you that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke nor John were contemporaries of Christ."
I am not aware of any such statement from the pope. Matthew and John were definitely the apostles of Christ.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Sorry, the gospel of John has unknown authorship, supposedly based on John's testimony. John was one of the disciples, but that doesn't mean is testimony survived intact until it was committed to paper.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
Here's a secular commentary on the gospel of John- "The Gospel's authorship is anonymous. However, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved', identified by Early Church tradition with John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. It is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that most commentators routinely treat the four books together."
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
You say that Jack Sullivan sees a miracle because he wants to. But you also see it as luck because you want to. What is "luck"? Luck is not a material quantity. Luck is not a cause of something. Luck is just a way you refer to improbable incidences. But when something is highly improbable, like someone's leg being healed right after a prayer, it can't just be dismissed as luck.
And yes, I think you need to test the sincerity of holy men before accusing them of inventing stuff.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Luck is fortune; whatever happens. It may be good; it may be bad; it may be totally neutral in its effect. Jack had good fortune. The surgery worked. He walks today because of the neurosurgeon's skill and knowledge. To lay all the credit at the door of a dead priest is disingenuous to the surgeons. Sorry mate, but Catholicism is hocus-pocus. It relies on magic for its very existence. Without regular 'miracles' the faithful will lose interest.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
"The surgery worked."
This is dishonest on your part. The doctors had no explanation for his sudden recovery. I believe his word. You don't believe, so you seek these illogical explanations. This makes me laugh at the atheist claim - "We don't believe God because there is no evidence!" Now I see! When we show evidence, you dismiss it as luck!! Haha! Very convenient. You don't believe our testimony because you don't want to believe, that's all.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago
@SaintForChrist Do me a favour. Do a quick comparative study on the central themes of Christianity and Mithraism. You'll see where Christianity came from.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@DaMuttzNutz
I did some reading on Mithraism. I don't see how you connect Christianity with it. Mithraism was a Roman religion, not a Jewish one.
SaintForChrist 1 year ago