Opinion and Religion

[ACamp1900]

Okay I know I am playing with fire here, but I really don't wnat to see a heated religous debate. It's the offseason and I just figured why not ask an honest question and see how many adults are in the room??


So, interesting vid here... First off, I am a Christian, I do in fact feel that Christianity has been assaulted over the past ten years, ... BUT here is one aspect of faith, in regards to the average theologian, that has always bothered me and I believe it goes a long way towards stimulating at least some of the backlash that a lot of Christians feel and complain about today...


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eaObvOYaTSA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eaObvOYaTSA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


In the vid he states the importance of understanding that a belief, ANY belief is an opinion and should not be confused with truth... then he turns around and states his opinion is truth. I see this a lot and it drives me nuts, how do we Christians justify this attitude? I have an in law who bases much of what he does on the Bible and refers to it as "The Truth," he is extremely preachy and obviously has a "let me teach you to help you" 'thing' going on. Yet when you just try to simply bring about an understanding of other peoples views he gets angry. Then i visit a video like this and some of the responses kill me, am I the only person of faith who sees how this comes off??

Anyway, I am just curious how many others out there feel or have felt the same thing. Do Christians, at times, give themselves a bad name with a sometimes hypocritical stance on the idea of truth and other peoples views??

 

[Bubba]

It's not just Christians, it's everybody who gives themselves a bad name at times. The guy in the video talks about whether there is evidence to verify the truth and that contradicts what he is saying in my opinion. Like you said, he states his opinion as truth. Personally, I think it comes down to faith and whether or not you have it.

He obviously does and he wants to share that with everyone. But, I think this is his response to those who don't believe him or don't want to listen to his message. It's similar to when you ask someone "why?" and the response is "just because." He is tired of hearing "just because." Honestly, his argument is no better than the phrase he's complaining about (that's your opinion). He provides no proof of the truth. He's just looking for anyone who will listen to him.

I, too am Christian. But, like most, I've been on a long journey...searching for the truth. IMO, we can't know the truth until our time comes. But we can have faith that what we have believed is right. That is harder than knowing. And, that may be our test in life.

 

[ACamp1900]

It's not just Christians, it's everybody who gives themselves a bad name at times. The guy in the video talks about whether there is evidence to verify the truth and that contradicts what he is saying in my opinion. Like you said, he states his opinion as truth. Personally, I think it comes down to faith and whether or not you have it.

He obviously does and he wants to share that with everyone. But, I think this is his response to those who don't believe him or don't want to listen to his message. It's similar to when you ask someone "why?" and the response is "just because." He is tired of hearing "just because." Honestly, his argument is no better than the phrase he's complaining about (that's your opinion). He provides no proof of the truth. He's just looking for anyone who will listen to him.

I, too am Christian. But, like most, I've been on a long journey...searching for the truth. IMO, we can't know the truth until our time comes. But we can have faith that what we have believed is right. That is harder than knowing. And, that may be our test in life.

very well put, I like to think that the majority thinks that way as well, but the minority just seems to be more passionate or louder... anyway, good stuff

 

[IrishAddiction]

No other historic document has been proven more than the bible, going off a new testament basis, not old. I Read the case for faith, and the case for christ a few years back..... to be fair it was written by a christian, but a christian who turned into a christian after years of trying to disprove the existence of God. There is a God, Jesus is the closest thing we have ever got to God, and i believe he is Gods sacrifice for our sins. Lord knows i need something to take my place, cause there is no way im getting in without Him.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

There is truth within yourself and then there is imposing views as truth on other people. If someone believes their faith to be true within their own belief system, then I applaud them, regardless of what religion they adhere to. I take exception to when someone tries to impose their faith system on me and try to prove that it should be my truth. I can be right within the structure of my own beliefs and I can hold on to a particular faith as my truth, but that might not work for someone else.

I read a great book by a Buddhist monk that discussed the idea that Buddhism and Christianity can actually work hand in hand. Some would take that as blasphemous. I read that book and it was very profound to me, even though I was raised Catholic. Why can't you pull ideas and beliefs from multiple sources? Especially when both sources promote love and acceptance and kindness and joy. In my opinion, if you are doing your best to live your life as a good person and you are trying to be good to others, how can I find fault just because you might not worship in the same way as I do?

For me, my journey is a very personal one. I don't like to have views imposed on my and I, in turn, will not impose my views on others. Be a good person as often as you can. Do your best to lead a "holy" life and bring as much joy to the world around you as you can. We are all brothers and sisters in life and I try to treat people as such. I fail sometimes. In fact, I fail quite often, but I try and I keep trying every day.

 

[ACamp1900]

I too have read Case for Christ.... and know the authors story well, nice read.

 

[Quinntastic]

I have a very...complex view on religion - so I just wanted to weigh in and think I do think that Christian's shoot themselves in the foot sometimes with the view that the Bible is "the Truth" and there is no other option or opinion to be considered.

 

[Jason Pham]

A great deal of Catholicism, indeed Christianity, as well as many other religious beliefs, rely solely on arguably sound philosophical defenses, namely, the existence and nature of a supreme being. Much of the rest relies on theology and revelation which requires faith in addition to inductive reasoning, but the philosophical foundations of some religions, Christianity included, are derived deductively and can be said to be a truth outside of the human experience.

That said, the guy in the video wasted quite a bit of time arguing semantics and then asserted his argument from the same flawed context he had just finished attacking. That's six minutes I could have spent doing something substantive.

 

[Jason Pham]

I have a very...complex view on religion - so I just wanted to weigh in and think I do think that Christian's shoot themselves in the foot sometimes with the view that the Bible is "the Truth" and there is no other option or opinion to be considered.

Some people are simply too insecure about their ability to defend their faiths to consider other opinions, while others are simply averse to debate. Neither of these, however, are intrinsic to Christian belief. That's an important distinction to make.

 

[WabashFalcon]

Me? I'm Catholic. We are still a stone cold dinosaur of a religion rooted in the practice of the Middle Ages. My chuch says that I am to hate gays and detest abortion. Yet, I look at my values, my friends and my family. I have gay friends. They are wonderful people and I support their getting legal rights (I.E. ability to write each other into their will, be present in Emergency Rooms, etc.). As for abortion, I believe in pro choice. This being said, I am a republican.

Catholicism was chaning under JPIII. Now, under the new Benedict, we've hit the breaks. Catholicism needs to reform a bit. Allow birth control. Allow freedom of choice. Allow for a more moderate church than the fanatic sects.

My two cents.

 

[Jason Pham]

Me? I'm Catholic. We are still a stone cold dinosaur of a religion rooted in the practice of the Middle Ages. My chuch says that I am to hate gays and detest abortion. Yet, I look at my values, my friends and my family. I have gay friends. They are wonderful people and I support their getting legal rights (I.E. ability to write each other into their will, be present in Emergency Rooms, etc.). As for abortion, I believe in pro choice. This being said, I am a republican.

Catholicism was chaning under JPIII. Now, under the new Benedict, we've hit the breaks. Catholicism needs to reform a bit. Allow birth control. Allow freedom of choice. Allow for a more moderate church than the fanatic sects.

My two cents.

The Catholic Church does not teach the hatred of homosexuals. Being homosexual, moreover, is not a sin as taught by the church. The sin is the act of sex for purposes other than creating life, which is a point which is greatly debated, but the very act of being a homosexual is not a sin, nor is it, more importantly, something to be hated. Your parish is one which seems a bit rogue, one which has strayed a bit from adhereing to the instructions of Rome.

I don't think, however, the Church will be willing to change it's stance on abortion. That's a wholly other issue.

 

[big daddy]

Me? I'm Catholic. We are still a stone cold dinosaur of a religion rooted in the practice of the Middle Ages. My chuch says that I am to hate gays and detest abortion. Yet, I look at my values, my friends and my family. I have gay friends. They are wonderful people and I support their getting legal rights (I.E. ability to write each other into their will, be present in Emergency Rooms, etc.). As for abortion, I believe in pro choice. This being said, I am a republican.

Catholicism was chaning under JPIII. Now, under the new Benedict, we've hit the breaks. Catholicism needs to reform a bit. Allow birth control. Allow freedom of choice. Allow for a more moderate church than the fanatic sects.

My two cents.

The Holy Catholic Church's practices were not created in the Middle Ages. Way before the Middle Ages there was a rich tradition. The Church began after the resurection of our lord.
It is protected by the Holy Spirt and can not teach error when it comes to faith and morals. It will never change its beliefs on abortion or homosexuality. We are not like other christian faith communities; we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

 

[Quinntastic]

It's hard for me - as someone who values and studies science intensely, to believe in any religion. Yes, I was raised Roman Catholic, but was forced into attending every week from childhood and I think this bred in me a lot of resentment. I haven't attended since I was able to finally stand up for myself to my mother about religion.

With that said, I've done a ton of research in both directions and I just can't deny the cold, hard evidence in front of me that evolution is clearly occuring and has been occuring for millions of years.

 

[WabashFalcon]

The Holy Catholic Church's practices were not created in the Middle Ages. Way before the Middle Ages there was a rich tradition. The Church began after the resurection of our lord.
It is protected by the Holy Spirt and can not teach error when it comes to faith and morals. It will never change its beliefs on abortion or homosexuality. We are not like other christian faith communities; we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

I did not mean that the Catholic Church was created in the Middle Ages. I am saying its doctrine has not changed since then. Apples and Oranges

 

[goldandblue]

Not from a religious point of view but evolution is currently occuring? Explain please.

 

[Jason Pham]

It's hard for me - as someone who values and studies science intensely, to believe in any religion. Yes, I was raised Roman Catholic, but was forced into attending every week from childhood and I think this bred in me a lot of resentment. I haven't attended since I was able to finally stand up for myself to my mother about religion.

With that said, I've done a ton of research in both directions and I just can't deny the cold, hard evidence in front of me that evolution is clearly occuring and has been occuring for millions of years.

Catholicism isn't built entirely around unbridled faith; it has a great deal to do with philosophy. Additionally, a significant amount of effort has been put forth by the Church Fathers throughout history to reconcile science and the theology and philosophy of Catholicism; the degree to which science and the Catholic faith run parallel would be surprising to those who think that they are incompatible.

Also... the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution.

 

[Quinntastic]

Catholicism isn't built entirely around unbridled faith; it has a great deal to do with philosophy. Additionally, a significant amount of effort has been put forth by the Church Fathers throughout history to reconcile science and the theology and philosophy of Catholicism; the degree to which science and the Catholic faith run parallel would be surprising to those who think that they are incompatible.

Also... the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution.

Very respectfully, Jason, but how could the Catholic Church NOT support the theory of evolution? The evidence is all around us - the Church had no choice but to support it.

 

[Jason Pham]

I did not mean that the Catholic Church was created in the Middle Ages. I am saying its doctrine has not changed since then. Apples and Oranges

It's changed quite significantly, even to the dismay of the more conservative Catholics. There is a great array of Catholic students and professors here who represent distinctly different points of views from within the teaching of the Church. What I am trying to point out is that your experiences with a parish which seems more conservative than the mean does not represent the whole of the Church, nor should it mean that there aren't other options for perspectives within the Church.

 

[WabashFalcon]

Good talk guys! I like this stuff on IE!

 

[Jason Pham]

With that said, I've done a ton of research in both directions and I just can't deny the cold, hard evidence in front of me that evolution is clearly occuring and has been occuring for millions of years.

Very respectfully, Jason, but how could the Catholic Church NOT support the theory of evolution? The evidence is all around us - the Church had no choice but to support it.

Which point are you trying to make ? That the Church and evolution are incompatible and therefore that the proof of one diminishes the other as you implied in your previous post ? Or that the Church supports evolution despite not really wanting to, that it was something other than rational inquiry which lead to its support as you implied in your second post ?

If it is the first, it cannot be the second, since one says that they are incompatible, while the other claims that they are, but for the wrong reasons. Let's assume it is the second since the premise, that the Church supports evolution, is true.

First of all, making the argument about the motives of the Church cannot be, unless you authored or had primary access to the authors of the papal encyclicals concerning evolution, anything more than speculation. And since you've admitted to a predisposition of resentment against the Church and since I'll happily admit to predisposition in favor of the Church, we'll put both of our speculations of the motives of the Church aside.

Let's talk instead about how the Church came to support the idea. The Catholic Church remained largely on the sidelines of the debate until the 1950s when the Pope, who did not personally believe in evolution, addressed the issue and said that there was nothing in the Catholic faith which contradicted the theory that one species might evolve from another, even man. This meant that the Church was taking neither side, but more importantly that it was possible to be Catholic and to coherently discuss the theory of evolution. Then, in 1996, John Paul II, declared in a papal encyclical not only that evolution and the teaching of the Church are compatible, but that the Church would support evolution.

The Church, therefore, has no history of outwardly opposing the theory of evolution, in fact, it has remained neutral until recently after growing evidence in support of evolution, when the Church moved towards a more supportive role.

What in all this is irrational to you ? How is this any different from the scientist who withholds judgment on hypothesis until they have gathered sufficient evidence ? Or any different from anyone withholding judgment regarding anything until they've acquired sufficient reason to believe either way ?

EDIT: It seems to me that you are saying that Catholicism and intellectualism are contrary. Which is ironic considering the esteem with which the University of Notre Dame is regarded, there are numerous scholars who research and teach here, strongly rooted in their faith, yet leading in fields of, among other things, sciences including evolution.

 

[goldandblue]

that was a great post. Reps to you Captain Pham!

 

[IrishAddiction]

The theory of evolution, actually doesnt hold much weight at all. It is a theory, but it is hard to say it is a fact. Adaptation on the other hand, is a very proven fact. In the history of mankind there has never been a single recorded case of one species evolving into another.

 

[MDewFiend]

Yes sometimes christians come off as know it all, have to do it my god's way, rear ends...but there are ppl in every reliegon that come off that way. It's just some ppls personality.

I was raised Roman Catholic

Wish I was not ignorant, but since I am, is there a difference between a roman catholic, and other catholics? If so what?

I find all reliegon to be hard to swallow. There is supposed to be this god in the heavens that we must bow down to and obey. Sounds like a not very nice(really wanted to use different wording there, but didnt want to get into name calling) god. I don't live a horrible life. Ppl tell me, and I think I am, a good father to my daughter. I show respect to my parents, and hell I am even nice to strangers every once in a while. But as far as I can tell any of the major reliegons have me going anywhere from Hell to Hades. All because I find it hard to put my faith in a book that was written roughly two thousand years ago. At lest in the old testament God showed his ppl miracles. I get a book. Does not seem fair to me.

I find it hard to believe that any church that believes in the bible can also believe in the theory of evolution. Evolution, as far as my un-educated (at lest in this subject) mind says is that we started at amoebas and ended up at humans. Whereas the bible says God created man. Seems to me its an either or choice not a both.

Remember you can spell reliegon without LIE. And the Quran says not to kill your christan brother. They are not completly wrong, just a lil misguided. And only 155,000 ppl get to go to heaven if your a JW.



jn

 

[Jason Pham]

Yes sometimes christians come off as know it all, have to do it my god's way, rear ends...but there are ppl in every reliegon that come off that way. It's just some ppls personality.


Wish I was not ignorant, but since I am, is there a difference between a roman catholic, and other catholics? If so what?

I find all reliegon to be hard to swallow. There is supposed to be this god in the heavens that we must bow down to and obey. Sounds like a not very nice(really wanted to use different wording there, but didnt want to get into name calling) god. I don't live a horrible life. Ppl tell me, and I think I am, a good father to my daughter. I show respect to my parents, and hell I am even nice to strangers every once in a while. But as far as I can tell any of the major reliegons have me going anywhere from Hell to Hades. All because I find it hard to put my faith in a book that was written roughly two thousand years ago. At lest in the old testament God showed his ppl miracles. I get a book. Does not seem fair to me.

I find it hard to believe that any church that believes in the bible can also believe in the theory of evolution. Evolution, as far as my un-educated (at lest in this subject) mind says is that we started at amoebas and ended up at humans. Whereas the bible says God created man. Seems to me its an either or choice not a both.

Remember you can spell reliegon without LIE. And the Quran says not to kill your christan brother. They are not completly wrong, just a lil misguided. And only 155,000 ppl get to go to heaven if your a JW.



jn

Catholic is an ambiguous term that can be used to describe a number of faiths. The word itself means universal so there are a handful of churches who assert that they believe in the holy catholic church meaning merely that they believe in the universality of their church. More often, though, Catholic is a term used to describe the Roman Catholic Church. So the difference between the two depends entirely on the context.

The theology of religions is certainly difficult to swallow. This is because you can't come to them deductively, that it is something that has to come from both experience and from faith. I argue, however, that the philosophy of religion is difficult to argue against. That a supreme being exists and certain aspects of the nature of this being is possible to deduce entirely through logic. They certainly do not say that Christianity is any more correct than Islam or Buddhism, but they do assert the existence of a supreme being. I'd be happy to spew off a few logic-based argument for your scrutiny if you'd like, but know that philosophically sound arguments do exist.

The rest of it, though, just like you said, requires faith, and I would add experience, to believe.

As far as whether or not having to obey a supreme being makes this being a kind one or not, obedience does not necessitate a relationship of unkindness and, in many cases, it means the very opposite, a relationship of kindness. Consider how you raise your daughter, you can certainly restrain and guide, but you can not directly control the decision she makes in life. I am willing to bet, though, that you believe that if she follows the path of which you approve, her life would be better than if she does otherwise. After all, you are looking out for her best interest. Likewise, by obeying certain rules that believers believe have been laid down by a supreme being, they are doing what they feel is in their best interest. The rules, we believe, are there for the benefit of the individual human and the whole human community just as the laws of our country are there for the benefit of the whole citizenry.

It may seem like they are just a bunch of roadblocks to attaining what one naturally desires but as argued by Plato, who was around before Christianity, there are greater and then there are lesser goods to be desired and satisfying a lower desire in excess may inhibit you from achieving a higher desire. So following the virtues of justice, temperance, prudence, and fortitude might seem like it's a hindrance, but it is truly there to guide us towards achieving greater desires.

As far as evolution and Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in and warns against the literal interpretation of some sections of the Bible including the story of creation. This is to the dismay of some Evangelical denominations of Christianity, but it means that the teaching of Catholicism is entirely compatible with evolution. It is not necessarily one or the other. And, in the case of Catholics, who believe that the theory of evolution is possible, even likely, but that God imbued within the species of man a soul, it is not one of the other.

Reliegion is religion with a red squiggly line beneath it.

 

[MDewFiend]

The theology of religions is certainly difficult to swallow. This is because you can't come to them deductively, that it is something that has to come from both experience and from faith. I argue, however, that the philosophy of religion is difficult to argue against. That a supreme being exists and certain aspects of the nature of this being is possible to deduce entirely through logic. They certainly do not say that Christianity is any more correct than Islam or Buddhism, but they do assert the existence of a supreme being. I'd be happy to spew off a few logic-based argument for your scrutiny if you'd like, but know that philosophically sound arguments do exist.

I do believe in God, though I have quarrels with many religons, and although they would probably be waaaayyyy over my head(as much of what you've argued here has been) please do share, pm if more appropriate.

As far as whether or not having to obey a supreme being makes this being a kind one or not, obedience does not necessitate a relationship of unkindness and, in many cases, it means the very opposite, a relationship of kindness. Consider how you raise your daughter, you can certainly restrain and guide, but you can not directly control the decision she makes in life. I am willing to bet, though, that you believe that if she follows the path of which you approve, her life would be better than if she does otherwise. After all, you are looking out for her best interest. Likewise, by obeying certain rules that believers believe have been laid down by a supreme being, they are doing what they feel is in their best interest. The rules, we believe, are there for the benefit of the individual human and the whole human community just as the laws of our country are there for the benefit of the whole citizenry.

True, but if/when my daughter does stray from the path that I would choose for her, I will not cast her into a pit of fire. I will give her the guidelines for the life I would want for her, as the good book does for us, but if she choose a different path I will not renounce her. I would also agree that the rules governing most religons are for the good of not only the individual following them, but the whole human community also. But I seem to follow most of the rules w/o worring if I have done my supreme being good. I think most of those rules fall under common decency or the golden rule.

As far as evolution and Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in and warns against the literal interpretation of some sections of the Bible including the story of creation. This is to the dismay of some Evangelical denominations of Christianity, but it means that the teaching of Catholicism is entirely compatible with evolution. It is not necessarily one or the other. And, in the case of Catholics, who believe that the theory of evolution is possible, even likely, but that God imbued within the species of man a soul, it is not one of the other.

If u have to start interpretating the bible, which seems to open up a lot of "human error" possibilites, then the whole thing is more of a parable than the direct word of god. It doesnt seem to me that you can know which is which. How does/did the church decide what was literal and what was figurative. I know that there are parables in the bible, but as far as I can remember the stories that were parables were pretty obvious, and I thought everything else was THE WORD.

Reliegion is religion with a red squiggly line beneath it.

yea yea yea, you caught me. Amendment 1: you cant spell beLIEve w/o lie. better? =)


jn

 

[Quinntastic]

John and Jason both make great points.

And as far as my idea that Catholicism and evolution cannot TRULY coexist is because the whole theory of evolution is based on the fact that everything originated at ONE cell. One cell splits into two, which divides again, the process continues until you have an organism of some sort. Which can then reproduce. Somewhere along the way a mutation occurs. If the mutation makes the species more successful in passing on its genetic information to offspring, the mutation lives on and eventually becomes the norm. If it makes the species to be at a disadvantage, the organism can't pass on its DNA and it dies out. I'm sure everyone is pretty well aware of this idea of evolution.

My question to you then, Jason, is where does God fit into this equation? You might reasonably argue that God fits into creating a cell out of elements from the Periodic Table, since it has not yet been established how we made the jump from independent elements that act according to certain properties to the cells that make up humans, birds, alligators, USC ( AKA bacteria, lol), etc. And if that is your argument, then you have an argument. However, where is your proof that God was the being to create the cell out of the elements and not a happenstance offshoot of the right combinations and right conditions of things being in the right place at the right time. You might say that the chances of everything being perfect conditions in a spark and then gone is also a valid point, though I point out that the existence of a God seems just as improbable.

However the bible specifically states the God created man and all the trees and animals, etc etc. How can this be if you believe in this theory of evolution?

P.S. John - a common misconception of evolution is that one being "becomes" another. This is completely untrue. We "branch off" from species, but not come FROM them. If this were true there would be no monkeys in existence if they were our predecessor. Instead one species reproduces and somewhere down the line a mutation occurs. If the mutation helps the species to survive (aka, pass on its DNA to offspring), the mutation eventually (over several generations of passing on this DNA with the mutation in it) becomes the "norm" and the species it branched off from eventually dies out because the new species can do things more efficiently and thus can survive easier than the species it branched out from.

 

[Jason Pham]

I do believe in God, though I have quarrels with many religons, and although they would probably be waaaayyyy over my head(as much of what you've argued here has been) please do share, pm if more appropriate.

I, myself, have quarrels with other religions. Indeed, the Catholic Church, outside of its teaching on morality and faith, has been wrong many times in the past (i.e. Galileo, to whom John Paul II submitted an official apology for its grievances in the past). So, you are certainly not alone in having your reservations. I can not say that I do not have my own, even with some of the teachings of the Church. As far as the philosophical proofs of a supreme being, I'll go over them when I've a bit more time (school and activities are killing me right now), don't let me forget though.

True, but if/when my daughter does stray from the path that I would choose for her, I will not cast her into a pit of fire. I will give her the guidelines for the life I would want for her, as the good book does for us, but if she choose a different path I will not renounce her. I would also agree that the rules governing most religons are for the good of not only the individual following them, but the whole human community also. But I seem to follow most of the rules w/o worring if I have done my supreme being good. I think most of those rules fall under common decency or the golden rule.

This is perhaps where the Catholic faith is largely different from other faiths. From my perspective, and from that of the authors I have read and of the courses I have taken in theology, the belief is not that by doing wrong one submits themselves to punishment by God, but that one has freely chosen to shut God out of their lives which is the greatest of all punishments. God certainly does not want to be shut out from your life, but neither is he going to force himself into you life. If Hell is the greatest punishment, and if the greatest punishment is the total absence of God, and if God is totally benevolent, he could not be the one who banishes you, it had to have been freely chosen by you.

Also, the rules aren't there that we might worship God, per se. The rules weren't set up to benefit a supreme being because, if you think about... if God is an all-powerful being... what exactly can a human do for him ? Certainly nothing He can't do for himself. Which is where the all-good part of the equation of God comes in. The rules aren't set up for Him, but for the good of us. That we might function better as a common human family, that we might learn to love one another, and by doing so, we experience God in our lives whether cognitively or not.

Going back to the analogy with your daughter... the rules you might put up aren't so that you might benefit from that other than that you love your daughter and want to see what's best for her, you put them up so that she might find the right path to happiness as you see it. And if she does stray from it, you certainly are not going to stop loving her, but it is her decision whether or not to accept that love and I am willing to bet she doesn't have to do anything to deserve that love. It's just the same way with God, love, and humans, as far as I know.

If u have to start interpretating the bible, which seems to open up a lot of "human error" possibilites, then the whole thing is more of a parable than the direct word of god. It doesnt seem to me that you can know which is which. How does/did the church decide what was literal and what was figurative. I know that there are parables in the bible, but as far as I can remember the stories that were parables were pretty obvious, and I thought everything else was THE WORD.

It does open up the possibility of human error which is why the Church takes so seriously the issues of conflict between science and scripture. It's a very slow process as you can imagine, it took the Church up until this last decade to say definitively that evolution might actually be more than a hypothesis, but it is an important one to the Church.

This is how John Paul II put it: the Bible is indeed the truth, but so are the discoveries made by science. Truth and truth can not contradict each other so there must be something more to the story than the literal interpretation of the entire Bible. So how does the Church decide ? Because of its conservative nature, the Church will rely on scripture until science or significant philosophical thought necessitates a move away from the literal interpretation. Of course, the Church then also has to then determine why the particular passage in question was written the way it was written and how we might best interpret it. Rome has endless numbers of committees designed specifically to cooperate with scientists and theologians to discover where there might be inconsistencies and discover in what ways we might be able to reconcile the two.

yea yea yea, you caught me. Amendment 1: you cant spell beLIEve w/o lie. better? =)


jn

You can't spell nonbelievers with out lie.

 

[Jason Pham]

My question to you then, Jason, is where does God fit into this equation? You might reasonably argue that God fits into creating a cell out of elements from the Periodic Table, since it has not yet been established how we made the jump from independent elements that act according to certain properties to the cells that make up humans, birds, alligators, USC ( AKA bacteria, lol), etc. And if that is your argument, then you have an argument. However, where is your proof that God was the being to create the cell out of the elements and not a happenstance offshoot of the right combinations and right conditions of things being in the right place at the right time. You might say that the chances of everything being perfect conditions in a spark and then gone is also a valid point, though I point out that the existence of a God seems just as improbable.

The Church asserts that at the point when man was physically capable to carry within it a soul, that God made that happen, and that God provided the initial spark to create the cosmos in such a way that life would be created and sustained.

And yes, the argument that the chance that our entire cosmos seems to have a purposeful design seems to indicate the existence of a creator and is one often used to support the belief in a supreme being, but this is an inductive argument useful only for supporting one's belief. Nevertheless, it does move the burden of proof towards atheistic apologists, because it isn't just as likely that a designer did not exist since the possibilities for life not to exist are so much greater than the possibilities for life to exist.

There are, however, deductive arguments which I'll be happy to share once I've the time to do so.

However the bible specifically states the God created man and all the trees and animals, etc etc. How can this be if you believe in this theory of evolution?

I know you posted this after I had replied to MDew, but I deal with this question in that response.

 

[Jason Pham]

PS, this is all really good discussion. I know I seem a little heated or argumentative, but that's just my nature. You're all still, as far as I know, upstanding people.

 

[Quinntastic]

The Church asserts that at the point when man was physically capable to carry within it a soul, that God made that happen, and that God provided the initial spark to create the cosmos in such a way that life would be created and sustained.

And yes, the argument that the chance that our entire cosmos seems to have a purposeful design seems to indicate the existence of a creator and is one often used to support the belief in a supreme being, but this is an inductive argument useful only for supporting one's belief. Nevertheless, it does move the burden of proof towards atheistic apologists, because it isn't just as likely that a designer did not exist since the possibilities for life not to exist are so much greater than the possibilities for life to exist.

There are, however, deductive arguments which I'll be happy to share once I've the time to do so.



I know you posted this after I had replied to MDew, but I deal with this question in that response.

I'm enthralled to hear what your perception of a "soul" is. How much does it weigh - what does it look like, where it resides in the human body, etc. There is no soul organ. If you are about to say the ability to distinguish from right or wrong - I would point you to sociopaths, I would point you to the fact that our ideas of right and wrong are taught to us from our peers and teachers. It is not something naturally instilled in us in a "soul" of some sort. If you are about to say the ability to reason and understand consequences, I would point you to the cerebral cortex of the brain - where these capabilities ACTUALLY reside.