Atheists: Prove that beauty exists

[josie_L]

Huh?? I never said such a thing (that’s preposterous). You really really misconstrued my words if you pulled that out of anything I said.

You know I was thinking of editing out the part that stated justification, but in the end aren’t you basically saying that non-believers are condemned, whereas I do not believe this, as per the scripture I quoted.

I know they do … doesn’t mean it makes sense from a scriptural perspective (the bible is clear – you don’t believe in Jesus, you were predestined for hell).

No, it states that gentiles can be justified through their actions, if they have not been enlightened by grace to know the truth.

sure … if you rip out a few chapters from the New Testament (and add in a few of your own) this might make perfect sense.

Francis, you think too highly of your own interpretation, I’ll stick to the 2000 year old biblical interpretation of the CC as we are the ones who compiled the Bible.

so forget about justification by faith … man is justified by works? Sorry Paul I guess you’ve been vetoed by the Vatican!

I do believe we are saved by grace through faith, however, salvation comes in stages, to remain saved or continue to be saved, my faith must be working in love (perseverance, fighting the good fight, even the concept of hope entails that we must continue to be saved, until that hoped for moment when we attain eternal life). James said it best that we are justified by faith and works.

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (acts of love or works) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36

Francis, what part of your Catholic faith did you believe in?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I do believe we are saved by grace through faith, however, salvation comes in stages, to remain saved or continue to be saved, my faith must be working in love (perseverance, fighting the good fight, even the concept of hope entails that we must continue to be saved, until that hoped for moment when we attain eternal life). James said it best that we are justified by faith and works.

OK … frankly the only viable theory I’ve ever studied that can be consistent with scripture and posits something like what your trying to say was one advanced by Martin Luther. He would say something like it’s possible upon the resurrection of mankind nonbelievers are given an opportunity at allegiance to Christ. At that point of course we can assume faith is a non-issue (since Jesus would have appeared).

Martin Luther was perhaps the ultimate when it came to strict construction (we could use more Supreme Court justices like him). He would never make dogmatic assumptions if scriptural support was lacking (I sometimes think he was more disciplined than anyone in this regard – but Calvin was pretty good as well).

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (acts of love or works) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36

Francis, what part of your Catholic faith did you believe in?

the part where my mom said let’s go to church and if I protested she whacked me upside the head

I guess in retrospect I’m really not sure what part I ever believed. I think it was easier being Catholic the less I knew about theology & Christian history (and the more I restricted my literary sources to Catholic ones). However, the more knowledge I gained the more difficult it became to remain Catholic (and finally to remain Christian at all).

 

[josie_L]

OK … frankly the only viable theory I’ve ever studied that can be consistent with scripture and posits something like what your trying to say was one advanced by Martin Luther. He would say something like it’s possible upon the resurrection of mankind nonbelievers are given an opportunity at allegiance to Christ. At that point of course we can assume faith is a non-issue (since Jesus would have appeared).

Martin Luther was perhaps the ultimate when it came to strict construction (we could use more Supreme Court justices like him). He would never make dogmatic assumptions if scriptural support was lacking (I sometimes think he was more disciplined than anyone in this regard – but Calvin was pretty good as well).

No, Francis, I got all this from Catholic doctrine/teachings. I’ve also realized another thing(whether consciously or not) you believe in in the concept of Sola Scriptura (I know that this sounds odd considering you’re an Atheist but you keep refering to Scripture at the exclusion of Tradition to back up your arguments with me)

the part where my mom said let’s go to church and if I protested she whacked me upside the head

I laughed so hard when I read this; must be an Italian thing, although my parents never forced me to Church, it was the “whacked me upside the head” that I relate too!!

I guess in retrospect I’m really not sure what part I ever believed. I think it was easier being Catholic the less I knew about theology & Christian history (and the more I restricted my literary sources to Catholic ones). However, the more knowledge I gained the more difficult it became to remain Catholic (and finally to remain Christian at all).

I’m sad to hear this because for me it was the reverse, learning about history and theology solidified my faith as a Catholic.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m sad to hear this because for me it was the reverse, learning about history and theology solidified my faith as a Catholic.

Well it’s true. In fact in our discussions on the papacy I reentered my former brain for a moment (when I was a believer); and all the objections I had to my church of birth were rekindled. It seems to me if we really press to understand the narrative provided by Jesus in Matt. 16 & apply it to the church today – the CC is acting more like the Pharisees and less like Peter.

Peter was inclusive while the CC is acting exclusively. There was never a promise of infallibility, indeed all the NT passages and OT passages that prefigure them show us that no man or church (save Christ and God) can ever be infallible. By saying protestants are not in perfect communion with the body of Christ the CC is juxtaposing itself into the role of the Pharisee (who also had this exclusive outlook). Indeed arguably the CC does this because it perceives it as in their organizational self-interest. In other words if they one day opened to non-Catholic churches & went as far to offer them inclusion in the apostolic framework, the obvious fear is they would lose huge numbers of Catholics to protestant denominations (therefore, it can be reasonably said that they’re acting in their worldly self-interest to preserve their own power by acting in this exclusionary way, which is exactly what the Pharisees did).

Certainly there is not a church I can think of that is infallible (not by a long shot). However, this infallibility is enhanced by disunity. When I say disunity I don’t mean protestants should run out and find their nearest CC and sign up. What I mean is it’s incumbent on the CC to open up in the way discussed above.

Not only did I often question my faith when I was Catholic, but even now I often question my lack of faith. Certainly there is the problem of thinking that nature created itself – for which I have no easy answer for. Inversely there is the fact that all the god’s depicted by the various world religions refuse to reveal themselves to modern man. I’ve heard some Catholic posters say he does – through the church. As if that’s an adequate rebuttal to my objection (quite frankly it’s ludicrous, since it’s obvious what I mean). When I say god doesn’t show himself today I mean in the way he allegedly showed himself to the ancients (as depicted in scripture). We can hardly say there’s been any documented cases of people being raised from death (particularly after being dead for several days). There’s no more prophets or apostles who have called on the power of god to split an ocean, turn rivers into blood, destroy cities, cause floods, etc. The reasonable side of me understands religion is ancient mythology built on mans lack of understanding of our own physical universe and biology. However, I still find the bible to be a fascinating book & I still can’t conclusively say there is no grand architect of the universe.

I understand the bible anticipates my objections well. Jesus talked about his wicked generation always looking for a sign. Paul warned believers about listening to the intelligentsia (who he predicted will often refute religion, particularly his own religion, which is of course a pretty elementary prediction).

However, something Jesus said always remains in the back of my mind. At John 10:34 (quoting from Psalm 82:6) Jesus said we are gods. At Luke 17:21 Jesus said the kingdom of god is within you. These two verses always made me wonder, did Jesus mean we are to build the kingdom ourselves?

The reason this is in the front of my mind is I was participating in another forum and came across a development. Scientists have developed an artificial womb (though at this point it only works on mice). They think within ten years or so (which may be over-ambitious if the thing ever works at all) this technology will be applicable to humans. In other words child-bearing will become obsolete (this would probably be great news for pro-life activists, since from a legal perspective a woman’s right to privacy, the basis of the holdings in Roe and Casey, will no longer be a valid issue). However, notwithstanding the impact on abortion – there’s another fundamental question that comes to mind.

At Genesis 3:16 God said to Eve:

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
i in pain you shall bring forth children.

Imagine if technology reverses this? If we can reverse the sentence of god in one case – then what’s to say we can’t do it in all cases. However, does this mean man will be necessarily at odds with god? If we take a forward looking view of Jesus’ words at John 10:34 and Luke 17:21 we might think this was god’s plan all along (and hence rather than thinking we’re at odds with him – we might understand that we’re in harmony with his wishes).

Just some interesting but I concede sort of bizarre thoughts

 

[josie_L]

Well it’s true. In fact in our discussions on the papacy I reentered my former brain for a moment (when I was a believer); and all the objections I had to my church of birth were rekindled. It seems to me if we really press to understand the narrative provided by Jesus in Matt. 16 & apply it to the church today – the CC is acting more like the Pharisees and less like Peter.

Peter was inclusive while the CC is acting exclusively. There was never a promise of infallibility, indeed all the NT passages and OT passages that prefigure them show us that no man or church (save Christ and God) can ever be infallible. By saying protestants are not in perfect communion with the body of Christ the CC is juxtaposing itself into the role of the Pharisee (who also had this exclusive outlook). Indeed arguably the CC does this because it perceives it as in their organizational self-interest. In other words if they one day opened to non-Catholic churches & went as far to offer them inclusion in the apostolic framework, the obvious fear is they would lose huge numbers of Catholics to protestant denominations (therefore, it can be reasonably said that they’re acting in their worldly self-interest to preserve their own power by acting in this exclusionary way, which is exactly what the Pharisees did).

How was Peter inclusive, when like the CC he was preaching an undiluted Truth received by Jesus himself? Think for a second, if Jesus was who He claimed to be, the Second person of the Holy Trinity who died for our sins and resurrected, then would He not exhort his followers, i.e., the apostles, to hold to the Truth handed down to them? Aren’t there enough warnings about false teachers scripturally to make us aware of the fact that they had a precise understanding of what was and wasn’t Truth? And I know they had the Truth for Jesus himself said that they would be led into all Truth, this was His promise, as per John 16:12-15. And not only that, but that He would be with them until the end of times. Now, how could Jesus be with them til the end (the second coming), didn’t He expect the apostles to die at one point in time? Unless, of course, Jesus meant He would be with His Church, who because of or through apostolic succession was bound to the first apostles. Another thing, the Bible is quite clear in stating that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (Tim. 3:15). And look what I found while reading Ephesians:

“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which is accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” 3:10-11

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.” 3:20-21

“There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all . . .” 4:4-6

And if the CC was so concerned with self-interest, it would have long ago attempted to liberalize its doctrines (like many mainstream Protestant denominations have), by choosing to accept contraceptives, remarriage (after divorce), abortion, gay marriage . . . etc., in order to garner more adherents, but it hasn’t, and as a result as lost a lot of (Western) Catholics. It is not an exclusive attitude that the CC has with regard to Protestants as they are viewed as separated brethren, which is more than I can say about some Protestant sects who do not wish to have anything to do with the CC (and there are many out there believe you me). We do appreciate ecumenism but not at the expense of the Truth.

Also, God reveals himself continually to those who obey, look at the Saints. There are enough examples of 20th century saints (think of all the religious and lay people who died for their faith) who have had supernatural qualities about them, I’m sure you have heard of St. Pio, or St. Maximilliam Kolbe, or St. Faustina, or St. Andre (of Montreal), the list is endless, why not read about them? Truth be told these are my heroes.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which is accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” 3:10-11

well yes it is the church (not Peter) who becomes the “steward” of Christ. However, “the church” is the collective of all believers, for instance:

1. A local church (e.g., the church of God at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1:2, or Ephesus, Rev. 2:1).
2. The visible church, spread out in different locales (e.g., churches in Judea or Galatia, Gal. 1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14; 1 Cor. 16:1).
3. The one universal church, invisible to man but known to God (Eph. 1:22; 5:25).

This commission is granted by Christ beginning with Peter, then to the other apostles (who walked with Christ during his lifetime), then to Paul, and finally through the revelations to John while exiled on Patmos (e.g. Book of Revelation), which enumerated a priesthood of all believers.

Throughout the NT church is defined quite explicitly. At any rate you’re not going to agree with me & I’m not going to agree with you (this I can assure you). Therefore, this discussion will just become exceedingly circular.

And if the CC was so concerned with self-interest, it would have long ago attempted to liberalize its doctrines (like many mainstream Protestant denominations have), by choosing to accept contraceptives, remarriage (after divorce), abortion, gay marriage . . . etc., in order to garner more adherents, but it hasn’t, and as a result as lost a lot of (Western) Catholics. It is not an exclusive attitude that the CC has with regard to Protestants as they are viewed as separated brethren, which is more than I can say about some Protestant sects who do not wish to have anything to do with the CC (and there are many out there believe you me). We do appreciate ecumenism but not at the expense of the Truth.

That’s not exactly true. There’s a core of believers that the CC caters to very carefully (because these folks, the conservative I dare say “real” Catholics, who probably number around 300 million or so … are the heart of the church & the church cannot ever afford to alienate that group much less provide them a valid avenue to leave the church & still afford them communion with the apostolic framework … which is generally a critical element of their faith). This group tends to be even more conservative than the Vatican. These are the folks who generally hold almost radical allegiance to Catholicism (many of them would love the church to return to the Latin mass, take a more harsh stance on homosexuality and against non-Catholics than they already do, they are extremely pro-life … indeed they’re the folks handcuffing themselves outside of abortion clinics … anyway I’m sure you get the picture).

Also, God reveals himself continually to those who obey, look at the Saints. There are enough examples of 20th century saints (think of all the religious and lay people who died for their faith) who have had supernatural qualities about them, I’m sure you have heard of St. Pio, or St. Maximilliam Kolbe, or St. Faustina, or St. Andre (of Montreal), the list is endless, why not read about them? Truth be told these are my heroes.

I don’t believe any of them had any supernatural qualities …

 

[josie_L]

well yes it is the church (not Peter) who becomes the “steward” of Christ. However, “the church” is the collective of all believers, for instance:

1. A local church (e.g., the church of God at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1:2, or Ephesus, Rev. 2:1).
2. The visible church, spread out in different locales (e.g., churches in Judea or Galatia, Gal. 1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14; 1 Cor. 16:1).
3. The one universal church, invisible to man but known to God (Eph. 1:22; 5:25).

This commission is granted by Christ beginning with Peter, then to the other apostles (who walked with Christ during his lifetime), then to Paul, and finally through the revelations to John while exiled on Patmos (e.g. Book of Revelation), which enumerated a priesthood of all believers.

Throughout the NT church is defined quite explicitly. At any rate you’re not going to agree with me & I’m not going to agree with you (this I can assure you). Therefore, this discussion will just become exceedingly circular.

Well, you’re not gonna have the last word. Peter was the only one to receive the keys and no one else, although the other apostles did have authority, Peter was given a singular authority, even in John 21:15-19 (“feed my sheep, Peter. . .”) we see this (I have already mentioned apostolic succession, so I won’t mention it again). Secondly, even though the Church is seen as the body of believers, it is not everyone within that Church that has authority, otherwise, Matthew 18:17 (If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church . . ) would not make any sense. Thirdly, isn’t the context in which the word “church” is being used (in the scripture I quoted) implying a universal and visible church, that is of "one body, one faith, one baptism. . . ", that is, united as one under the guidance and authority of the apostles, of which Peter is the chief apostle.

That’s not exactly true. There’s a core of believers that the CC caters to very carefully (because these folks, the conservative I dare say “real” Catholics, who probably number around 300 million or so … are the heart of the church & the church cannot ever afford to alienate that group much less provide them a valid avenue to leave the church & still afford them communion with the apostolic framework … which is generally a critical element of their faith). This group tends to be even more conservative than the Vatican. These are the folks who generally hold almost radical allegiance to Catholicism (many of them would love the church to return to the Latin mass, take a more harsh stance on homosexuality and against non-Catholics than they already do, they are extremely pro-life … indeed they’re the folks handcuffing themselves outside of abortion clinics … anyway I’m sure you get the picture).

This doesn’t make any sense the CC could attain tons of devoted followers if it were to liberalize its doctrine (aren’t you all for that), imagine how happy the rest of the world would be too!!! Oh, the big bad Church would be lauded and loved. I can’t understand why the CC is being so stubborn? As for those “extremely” pro-lifers, well, if you call handcuffing themselves outside of abortion clinics extreme, what would you call a doctor cutting up an unborn baby to bits to be . . . anyway I’m sure you get the picture.

I don’t believe any of them had any supernatural qualities …

I wish you would believe . . . .

 

[josie_L]

However, something Jesus said always remains in the back of my mind. At John 10:34 (quoting from Psalm 82:6) Jesus said we are gods. At Luke 17:21 Jesus said the kingdom of god is within you. These two verses always made me wonder, did Jesus mean we are to build the kingdom ourselves?

The reason this is in the front of my mind is I was participating in another forum and came across a development. Scientists have developed an artificial womb (though at this point it only works on mice). They think within ten years or so (which may be over-ambitious if the thing ever works at all) this technology will be applicable to humans. In other words child-bearing will become obsolete (this would probably be great news for pro-life activists, since from a legal perspective a woman’s right to privacy, the basis of the holdings in Roe and Casey, will no longer be a valid issue). However, notwithstanding the impact on abortion – there’s another fundamental question that comes to mind.

At Genesis 3:16 God said to Eve:

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.

Imagine if technology reverses this? If we can reverse the sentence of god in one case – then what’s to say we can’t do it in all cases. However, does this mean man will be necessarily at odds with god? If we take a forward looking view of Jesus’ words at John 10:34 and Luke 17:21 we might think this was god’s plan all along (and hence rather than thinking we’re at odds with him – we might understand that we’re in harmony with his wishes).

Just some interesting but I concede sort of bizarre thoughts

I believe Jesus was refering to the Holy Spirit that we would receive, and as such we would become temples harbouring God, that is, sharing in his divine nature; so I guess in that sense “we are gods” (but notice the lowercase “g” used for us and the uppercase “G” used for God in the scripture you posted: John 10:34).

I think to some extent, yes we are to build the kingdom (cooperate with the spirit of Grace) and that is why I believe it’s essential for all Christians to express their faith working in love.

No, Francis such a thing is anathema to God, it is not natural whatsoever, in fact, I find the idea of creating a womb repulsive (makes me feel redundant). And quite frankly, I don’t have any problems with the possibility of having to suffer pain for the sake of bringing a child into this world (and I’m starting to think people are becoming obsessed with taking the easy way out to avoid pain of any kind. I think this is such a waste of intellectual talent and research money. Hope it never happens. And most pro-lifers, by the way, would be appalled at the idea that humans are becoming unnecessary in the creation of humans (remember God said to us “be fruitful and multiple”).

P.S. What forum were you participating on where you read this?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, Francis such a thing is anathema to God, it is not natural whatsoever, in fact, I find the idea of creating a womb repulsive (makes me feel redundant). And quite frankly, I don’t have any problems with the possibility of having to suffer pain for the sake of bringing a child into this world (and I’m starting to think people are becoming obsessed with taking the easy way out to avoid pain of any kind. I think this is such a waste of intellectual talent and research money. Hope it never happens. And most pro-lifers, by the way, would be appalled at the idea that humans are becoming unnecessary in the creation of humans (remember God said to us “be fruitful and multiple”).

P.S. What forum were you participating on where you read this?

Well, from what I gather artificial wombs will likely be available in around ten years (although I tend to think scientists are often overly optimistic … but we’ll see I guess). So whether or not religious folks protest (and I suspect they will) it – as usual – won’t matter much at the end of the day (science always wins eventually).

So science will lift the sentence of god imposed on women – pain in child bearing. Pretty amazing stuff … what I was doing (really) was tossing religion a bone (though it might not seem like it at first glance).

This is a technological development that already works on animals (and unlike treatments for illnesses, which often don’t transfer to humans, this is the sort of thing that almost certainly will transfer). Since religion won’t prevent this development they’ll have to find a way to say it doesn’t invalidate the idea of a god. This is what my idea here offers.

Frankly, from my perspective it would be a wonderful invention. First, ABORTION BECOMES OBSOLETE. Secondly, the chief cause of birth defects, poor prenatal care, is completely mitigated. Thirdly of course is the fact that women won’t have to suffer for nine months, get all those ugly stretch marks, worry about the hard work of losing their pregnancy weight, etc. In other words women will be beating down doors for access to this technology (and it will no doubt eventually become covered by most medical insurance plans as child birth expenses are today).

Moreover, another thing to consider is it will allow women to have children at an advanced age. Now if we allow ourselves to think pain in child bearing was only a temporary sentence – that like all other sentences (including even mortality) were imposed until humanity reached a sufficiently high stage of development, religion can operate under a new paradigm (one that is more friendly to science rather than finding itself in constant futile resistance against it). Or else the consequence will be that religion becomes exceedingly marginalized and irrelevant (and eventually, like all the mythological systems in history, withers away).

I’m not sure where I stand on the whole question. I know science will be science … and it won’t be denied by the musings of religion. However, at the same time there is the altruistic virtue of Christianity that I find beneficial to mankind (and IMO it could be much more beneficial if mankind broadens its outlook). I don’t think we need religion to be charitable, forgiving, loving, kind, tolerant, etc. However, I do think it helps sustain these values (although arguably religion need to evolve a bit in the tolerance area – but its system provides an adequate framework for tolerance – and since it already exists it’s easier to use as a platform). Obviously in order for religion to sustain itself it must remain consistent with our tangible and objective physical reality. In other words everything from its interpretation of scripture to how it perceives god will have to evolve (or else we will reach a point where religion, as its couched today, can be objectively proven false).

Let’s face it religion has been evolving throughout history anyway. There was a day where the CC believed the earth stood at the center of the universe and is immovable. Today the CC views evolution as perfectly consistent with divine revelation. So objectively speaking, regardless of whether you or others admit it or not, the CC has taken enormous steps forward and has markedly evolved into something very different than it was in past centuries. I suspect it will continue to do the same (because it’s leaders are first and foremost interested in self-preservation).

 

[josie_L]

Well, from what I gather artificial wombs will likely be available in around ten years (although I tend to think scientists are often overly optimistic … but we’ll see I guess). So whether or not religious folks protest (and I suspect they will) it – as usual – won’t matter much at the end of the day (science always wins eventually).

So science will lift the sentence of god imposed on women – pain in child bearing. Pretty amazing stuff … what I was doing (really) was tossing religion a bone (though it might not seem like it at first glance).

Do you think women would forsake the pleasure of carrying their child because of pain? Do you not wish to see your wife pregant? As a father and a husband would this not please you? I don’t understand your mentality.

Frankly, from my perspective it would be a wonderful invention. First, ABORTION BECOMES OBSOLETE. Secondly, the chief cause of birth defects, poor prenatal care, is completely mitigated. Thirdly of course is the fact that women won’t have to suffer for nine months, get all those ugly stretch marks, worry about the hard work of losing their pregnancy weight, etc. In other words women will be beating down doors for access to this technology (and it will no doubt eventually become covered by most medical insurance plans as child birth expenses are today).

Firstly, how would abortion become obsolete, will people stop having sex? Secondly, how vain could women be (or are you the vain one?) that they should desire this on a basis as superficial as not wanting “ugly stretch marks”, don’t you find this mentality inherently wrong and selfish? Sheesh, I’m starting to think you don’t hang around nice people.

Moreover, another thing to consider is it will allow women to have children at an advanced age. Now if we allow ourselves to think pain in child bearing was only a temporary sentence – that like all other sentences (including even mortality) were imposed until humanity reached a sufficiently high stage of development, religion can operate under a new paradigm (one that is more friendly to science rather than finding itself in constant futile resistance against it). Or else the consequence will be that religion becomes exceedingly marginalized and irrelevant (and eventually, like all the mythological systems in history, withers away).

The CC wants science to advance but not the expense of morality and ethics. This invention will dehumanize us to the point of redundancy, and it is in direct opposition to God’s natural laws. Even if one looks at this from an evolutionary perspective, it makes no sense, a woman biologically as a womb for the purpose of carrying a child, and now scientists want to circumvent this evolutionary objective???

I’m not sure where I stand on the whole question. I know science will be science … and it won’t be denied by the musings of religion. However, at the same time there is the altruistic virtue of Christianity that I find beneficial to mankind (and IMO it could be much more beneficial if mankind broadens its outlook). I don’t think we need religion to be charitable, forgiving, loving, kind, tolerant, etc. However, I do think it helps sustain these values (although arguably religion need to evolve a bit in the tolerance area – but its system provides an adequate framework for tolerance – and since it already exists it’s easier to use as a platform). Obviously in order for religion to sustain itself it must remain consistent with our tangible and objective physical reality. In other words everything from its interpretation of scripture to how it perceives god will have to evolve (or else we will reach a point where religion, as its couched today, can be objectively proven false).

What does “science will be science” mean? Would you support bad science (or don’t you think that such a thing exists), Francis? Have we not seen what science unencumbered by ethics can do to us and our enviroment?

Let’s face it religion has been evolving throughout history anyway. There was a day where the CC believed the earth stood at the center of the universe and is immovable. Today the CC views evolution as perfectly consistent with divine revelation. So objectively speaking, regardless of whether you or others admit it or not, the CC has taken enormous steps forward and has markedly evolved into something very different than it was in past centuries. I suspect it will continue to do the same (because it’s leaders are first and foremost interested in self-preservation).

There was a day when everyone (not just the CC) believed that the world was at the center of the Universe, so what, that is not their fault (science was just beginning to get underway). But it is to those first scientists that we owe much to (almost all were Catholics and quite a few were priests) because of their foresight and knowledge (with limited tools I might add) we now have the understanding that we do of science. I have the utmost respect for these pioneers.

P.S. By the way, it took me more than 3 hours to write this post, do you want to know why, well, I’ll tell you anyways, my freagin computer went haywire on me, I think I was ready to stomp the living sh*t out of it, in complete fury, with all the magnitude of my 5 feet 6 inches tall frame. I had to write out this post three times!!! You better appreciate it.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

There was a day when everyone (not just the CC) believed that the world was at the center of the Universe, so what, that is not their fault (science was just beginning to get underway). But it is to those first scientists that we owe much to (almost all were Catholics and quite a few were priests) because of their foresight and knowledge (with limited tools I might add) we now have the understanding that we do of science. I have the utmost respect for these pioneers.

P.S. By the way, it took me more than 3 hours to write this post, do you want to know why, well, I’ll tell you anyways, my freagin computer went haywire on me, I think I was ready to stomp the living sh*t out of it, in complete fury, with all the magnitude of my 5 feet 6 inches tall frame. I had to write out this post three times!!! You better appreciate it.

well yes it took so long because you do stuff like wrap your replies in a quote box (making it hard for me to respond point by point)? Moreover, you’ve never responded to my post regarding papal infallibility (and the typological nexus between Matt. 16 & Isaiah 22)? Am I to assume you agree with me? As for the stuff regarding the artificial womb invention. You beg the question is there pleasure in carrying a child? I’ve known many pregnant women & none have told me pregnancy was any fun. Then you ask how vain can women be? I’m beginning to think you live a very sheltered life up their in Canada?

Of course women are vain – where have you been? Probably 20% of our economy is built on female vanity for goodness sake. In addition how is the idea of an artificial womb bad from an ethical standpoint? I just don’t get it & I suspect you’re giving me a knee jerk reaction (not a well thought out response – to spite all the time you spent making it). As far as the “evolutionary perspective” concept you presented – that’s silly. We no longer use our appendixes either … so I really don’t see your point. Moreover, female reproductive organs would still be a necessary part of the process (to produce embryos).

Obviously I understand the deeply religious always freak out when they’re confronted with monumental scientific advances – I think there was probably religious hysteria concerning aspirin and vitamin c as well (which is why we say leave science to scientists).

 

[josie_L]

well yes it took so long because you do stuff like wrap your replies in a quote box (making it hard for me to respond point by point)? Moreover, you’ve never responded to my post regarding papal infallibility (and the typological nexus between Matt. 16 & Isaiah 22)? Am I to assume you agree with me? :nope: As for the stuff regarding the artificial womb invention. You beg the question is there pleasure in carrying a child? :yup: I’ve known many pregnant women & none have told me pregnancy was any fun. Then you ask how vain can women be? **I’m beginning to think you live a very sheltered life up their in Canada? **

Yes, in fact I do, I also live in an igloo. Unfortunately it melts in the summer. It’s good for the environment though.

Of course women are vain – where have you been? Probably 20% of our economy is built on female vanity for goodness sake. In addition how is the idea of an artificial womb bad from an ethical standpoint? I just don’t get it & I suspect you’re giving me a knee jerk reaction (not a well thought out response – to spite all the time you spent making it). As far as the “evolutionary perspective” concept you presented – that’s silly. We no longer use our appendixes either … so I really don’t see your point. Moreover, female reproductive organs would still be a necessary part of the process (to produce embryos).

Obviously I understand the deeply religious always freak out when they’re confronted with monumental scientific advances – I think there was probably religious hysteria concerning aspirin and vitamin c as well (which is why we say leave science to scientists).

Ummm, would you be refering to the post in the presbyterian thread? I’ve been avoiding it because quite frankly Francis, my brain is starting to feel a little fried (actually more like deep fried). I don’t like lawyers, they’re mean, you’'re meannnnnn!!! GO AWAY, “BAD” MAN!!! Will I be subpoenaed if I don’t answer it?

As for woman being vain, well, I will concede the fact that women desire to look good, but to what extent, Francis, do you think most women would think in such an extremely vain manner? And if the answer to that question, is still yes, then why do most women who can’t carry a child full term experience such pain at not having that opportunity? I know tons of pregnant woman too, and although there can be discomfort and some pain, it doesn’t negate the fact that I see joy and happiness permeating their being.

Ok, onto the “knee jerk” reaction, not so, buddy, not so, I just have a very well-formed conscience, just think of me as jiminy cricket (he acted as Pinocchio’s conscience), and you could be Pinocchio, don’t you want to be a real boy, Francis?

A womb is not the same as an appendix (the appendix is not essential to anything in particular). I will not have my womb made obsolete by a bunch science-crazed wahoos.

P.S. You have not responded in the manner I wished Francis, you avoided all the pertinent questions.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

the “pain” you’re referring to is simply attributed to not having a biological child – it has nothing to do with child birth per se (except currently child birth is the only method of having a biological child). Men also feel compelled to have their own biological children?

Anyways … look I didn’t invent the thing and if the technology becomes viable man will learn to adapt to it like we always do (and I can see this subject is hitting a nerve with you – so no use going on I guess).

But when you said you will not have your womb made obsolete … that was funny I admit. No one will force anyone to use any particular technology. I’m sure there will be plenty of women like you – who this technology shocks their conscience. However, within a generation or two after its introduction I doubt anyone will complain about it?

Heck mankind will no longer need sex to procreate (I would think given the CC’s queasiness with sex they might quickly grow fond of such technology). We already have invitro fertilization. Pretty soon we can merely take the fertilized embryo and stick it in an artificial womb & whalla!!! Man imagine the potential?

 

[josie_L]

the “pain” you’re referring to is simply attributed to not having a biological child – it has nothing to do with child birth per se (except currently child birth is the only method of having a biological child). Men also feel compelled to have their own biological children?

Anyways … look I didn’t invent the thing and if the technology becomes viable man will learn to adapt to it like we always do (and I can see this subject is hitting a nerve with you – so no use going on I guess).

I don’t want kind of women you hang around with Francis, but they don’t seem to have the same values as the ones that I know (including myself). And we do not have to adapt to anything, we are not machines being told by scientists and/or governments that we must do this or that? I don’t see the necessity of this invention whatsoever.

P.S. I’m not angry so much as appalled by such an invention, don’t scientists have better things to do? And what do you think about this personally, for yourself that is? Don’t you want to see your wife pregnant?

 

[josie_L]

But when you said you will not have your womb made obsolete … that was funny I admit. No one will force anyone to use any particular technology. I’m sure there will be plenty of women like you – who this technology shocks their conscience. However, within a generation or two after its introduction I doubt anyone will complain about it?

Heck mankind will no longer need sex to procreate (I would think given the CC’s queasiness with sex they might quickly grow fond of such technology). We already have invitro fertilization. Pretty soon we can merely take the fertilized embryo and stick it in an artificial womb & whalla!!! Man imagine the potential?

So then sex for you, is just recreational fun? There is nothing more meaningful to it then that? I can’t understand how you get the notion that the CC is queasy about sex, have you read “the theology of the Body” or anything pertaining to how the CC explains sexual relations between a man and a woman? I would suggest you read this material to update yourself on what the CC truly states.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

So then sex for you, is just recreational fun? There is nothing more meaningful to it then that? I can’t understand how you get the notion that the CC is queasy about sex, have you read “the theology of the Body” or anything pertaining to how the CC explains sexual relations between a man and a woman? I would suggest you read this material to update yourself on what the CC truly states.

Yes I don’t attach religious significance to sex I admit (I suppose given the fact that I don’t believe in religion – so much should be obvious). Sure it can be enhanced by love – but it’s still fun without love. Sorry but it’s true.

The religious mantra is that sex is this delicate thing & there’s a whole host of psychological consequences if we deviate from the program prescribed by religion. That’s such nonsense – and if there are any psychological consequences it’s only because people have been programmed by religion; and they believe there’s a fictitious god who will harshly judge their innermost secret thoughts.

What people call faith is merely intellectual assent and the resulting emotional hysteria. The power of god is an imagined concept – it’s a manifestation of the human mind. I remember being religious, so I have a good point of reference. I can remember when I actually believed this all powerful god destroyed cities, could move mountains, created the entire universe, is so powerful he’s everywhere at all times, etc. etc. It is truly an emotionally powerful thing to believe – but now I know all that emotion was merely a manifestation of convincing myself such incredible things are true. In other words it’s sort of self-promulgating (from a psychological perspective). Intellectual assent creates an emotional reaction, then that emotional reaction further justifies and sustains our intellectual assent, so on and so forth.

Even now I have an emotional reaction when I have an epiphany of common sense, sort of like the emotional reactions I attributed to imaginary beings when I was religious.

 

[josie_L]

Yes I don’t attach religious significance to sex I admit (I suppose given the fact that I don’t believe in religion – so much should be obvious). Sure it can be enhanced by love – but it’s still fun without love. Sorry but it’s true.

The religious mantra is that sex is this delicate thing & there’s a whole host of psychological consequences if we deviate from the program prescribed by religion. That’s such nonsense – and if there are any psychological consequences it’s only because people have been programmed by religion; and they believe there’s a fictitious god who will harshly judge their innermost secret thoughts.

What people call faith is merely intellectual assent and the resulting emotional hysteria. The power of god is an imagined concept – it’s a manifestation of the human mind. I remember being religious, so I have a good point of reference. I can remember when I actually believed this all powerful god destroyed cities, could move mountains, created the entire universe, is so powerful he’s everywhere at all times, etc. etc. It is truly an emotionally powerful thing to believe – but now I know all that emotion was merely a manifestation of convincing myself such incredible things are true. In other words it’s sort of self-promulgating (from a psychological perspective). Intellectual assent creates an emotional reaction, then that emotional reaction further justifies and sustains our intellectual assent, so on and so forth.

Even now I have an emotional reaction when I have an epiphany of common sense, sort of like the emotional reactions I attributed to imaginary beings when I was religious.

I never said anything about religious significance per se.

Ok, Francis what’s this program prescribed by religion, more to the point, to Catholicism?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I never said anything about religious significance per se.

Ok, Francis what’s this program prescribed by religion, more to the point, to Catholicism?

Isn’t it obvious?

1. no sex before marriage
2. homosexuality is aberrant behavior (though I’m not gay – this is the typical religious mantra)
3. within certain religious groups responsible family planning using contraception is prohibited
4. certain kinds of sexual acts are prohibited (hopefully I don’t need to elaborate)

The list goes on and on.

 

[josie_L]

Isn’t it obvious?

1. no sex before marriage
2. homosexuality is aberrant behavior (though I’m not gay – this is the typical religious mantra)
3. within certain religious groups responsible family planning using contraception is prohibited
4. certain kinds of sexual acts are prohibited (hopefully I don’t need to elaborate)

The list goes on and on.

And what reasons could the Church possibly have regarding its stance towards these issues, could it have anything to do with, oh I don’t know, rampant promiscuity, divorce, a lack of respect for life (abortion, stem cell research, invitro fertilization, cloning, artificial wombs, aritificial this and artificial that, don’t you just love the artificial, maybe we should call it the “superficial” it sounds more apropos) , porn (which is beginning to affect many marriages), out of wedlock children (many of whom will go on to join gangs), STDs and the Aids epidemic . . . the list goes on and on.

This is what you wrote Francis:

**Heck mankind will no longer need sex to procreate **(I would think given the CC’s queasiness with sex they might quickly grow fond of such technology). We already have invitro fertilization. Pretty soon we can merely take the fertilized embryo and stick it in an artificial womb & whalla!!! Man imagine the potential?

So what is the purpose of marriage?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

And what reasons could the Church possibly have regarding its stance towards these issues, could it have anything to do with, oh I don’t know, rampant promiscuity, divorce, a lack of respect for life (abortion, stem cell research, invitro fertilization, cloning, artificial wombs, aritificial this and artificial that, don’t you just love the artificial, maybe we should call it the “superficial” it sounds more apropos) , porn (which is beginning to affect many marriages), out of wedlock children (many of whom will go on to join gangs), STDs and the Aids epidemic . . . the list goes on and on.

STD’s and the like result from irresponsible sexual behavior (and I don’t want to get into a safe sex debate – it’s too funny when Catholics start citing condom failure rates & all the rest … but fail to understand it happens because there are actually people so dumb they can’t even properly use a condom).

**Heck mankind will no longer need sex to procreate **(I would think given the CC’s queasiness with sex they might quickly grow fond of such technology). We already have invitro fertilization. Pretty soon we can merely take the fertilized embryo and stick it in an artificial womb & whalla!!! Man imagine the potential?

So what is the purpose of marriage?

Marriage is an ancient rite that long pre-dates Christianity or Judaism. It’s a mutual agreement, a contract, between two people usually to facilitate procreation (but it certainly doesn’t have to be). Besides I’m not a big tradition guy – and I think marriage is probably an antiquated concept anyway.

I see nothing about marriage (at least from the perspective of the state) that can’t be accomplished with a simple contract (and divorce should be governed by the principals of contract law). I understand this won’t happen anytime soon (and we’ll see gay marriage long before we get rid of state licensed marriage – which I think is good since if the state is going to license the practice it should at least not discriminate for arbitrary reasons like sexual preference).