Do you believe in luck?

[johnnyjones]

I don’t believe we are justified in making such a judgment…

You don’t have to make a self justification, the scriptures support that Noah was chosen to make the ark and he and his family were found worthy of being the only ones to survive.

 

[atheistgirl]

You don’t have to make a self justification, the scriptures support that Noah was chosen to make the ark and he and his family were found worthy of being the only ones to survive.

Do you believe in a literal flood?

Sarah x

 

[johnnyjones]

Do you believe in a literal flood?

Sarah x

Oh yeah. Do you have something to present that conflicts with a literal flood?

 

[atheistgirl]

Oh yeah. Do you have something to present that conflicts with a literal flood?

Oh my goodness NO!

Nothing at all.

There’s NO conflicting evidence at all that would cast doubt on a literal world wide flood.

I’ve been here over a year, not been in trouble yet, and I want to keep it that way

Sarah x

 

[johnnyjones]

Oh my goodness NO!

Nothing at all.

There’s NO conflicting evidence at all that would cast doubt on a literal world wide flood.

I’ve been here over a year, not been in trouble yet, and I want to keep it that way

Sarah x

If your not interested in “trouble” I guess sarcasm (winks and sentences written to secretly conflict) doesn’t add to a constructive dialogue. If you want to debate we can just stick to expressing each others views. One may influence the other, or learn.

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t have to make a self justification, the scriptures support that Noah was chosen to make the ark and he and his family were found worthy of being the only ones to survive.

Only fundamentalists interpret the whole of the Old Testament literally…

 

[atheistgirl]

If you want to debate we can just stick to expressing each others views. One may influence the other, or learn.

Here’s a good page, from a Catholic apologist, David Armstrong, where he supplies links to why he rejects the Flood.

socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2004/05/flood-geology-global-flood-and.html

I really liked this bit, from his preamble:

St. Augustine wrote:

If they [the infidel] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Davis Young, an evangelical geologist, wrote:

The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.

Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God’s truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given.

(Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Thousand Oaks, CA: Artisan Sales, 1988, 163)

Sarah x

 

[johnnyjones]

Here’s a good page, from a Catholic apologist, David Armstrong, where he supplies links to why he rejects the Flood.

socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2004/05/flood-geology-global-flood-and.html

I really liked this bit, from his preamble:

Sarah x

The good thing about Catholicism is that it is not mandatory to accept all things in scripture as an allegory. I have been down the road of creation vs. evolution umpteenth times. Any anti-evolution link I post usually gets a sneering response because it is not the view widely held, although at one time many a scientist was a deist. Not much anymore.

 

[johnnyjones]

Only fundamentalists interpret the whole of the Old Testament literally…

Your right that fundamentalists use a literal interpretation of scripture. To say "only’ and “the whole” is where your incorrect as it applies to others. Do you know which parts are literal and which aren’t? If numerous Catholic brethren or an apologist believed in a literal flood, what would happen?

Do you maintain that God has not killed the wicked literally?

 

[Scapegoat]

A number of years ago I came across a great little book that sums things up:
Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence

---

Why does God take this role? For the good of our immortal souls.
No matter how you voted here or what your opinion may be, I strongly encourage all to get a copy of this book or at least read it on line. It is very profound.

• Reg.

I tried telling them about the book Heliotropium but I dont think they listend.

Here is a quote from the book:

HELIOTROPIUM
Conformity of the Human Will to the Divine
By FATHER JEREMIAS DREXELIUS

“The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away . . . blessed be the name of the Lord.”
Job 1: 21

TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.

Book One:

Chapter One: All Punishments Proceed from God

All evils, except sin, are from God. In all sin there are two things to be considered: guilt and punishment. Now God is the Author of the punishment which attaches to sin, but in no way of the guilt. So that, if we take away the guilt, there is no evil belonging to the punishment which is not caused by God, or is not pleasing to Him. The evils then of punishment, like the evils of nature, originate in the Divine Will. We mean by evils of nature, hunger, thirst, disease, grief, and the like, things which very often have no connection with sin. And so God truly [and, effectively and positively] wills all the evils of punishment and nature for reasons of perfect justice, but only permits sin or guilt.

&

Having carefully laid this foundation, we arrive at the following conclusion: Since whatever is done in the world happens through the Permission or Command of God, it is our duty to receive everything as from the Hand of God, so conforming our will to His most holy Will, through all things, and in all things, as to ascribe nothing to accident, chance, or fortune. These are but monstrous conceptions of the ancients, and are not for an instant to be endured among Christians. And it is not only to fortune or chance that nothing is to be ascribed, but neither to the negligence or persevering care of man, as prime causes. Vain and idle are such complaints as, ''This or that happened to me because this or that man hated me, or managed my affairs badly, or did my business carelessly. Things would certainly have turned out differently if he had only been well disposed towards me, and had entered into the business with all his heart, and had not spared his pains." This kind of philosophy is vain and foolish. But true, wise, and holy is this, “The Lord has done it all.” For, as I have already said, good and evil things are from God.

Here is a link to read the entire book online for free. I highly recommend reading it.

catholictradition.org/Classics/heliotropium.htm

HELIOTROPIUM
Conformity of the Human Will to the Divine
By FATHER JEREMIAS DREXELIUS

“The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away . . . blessed be the name of the Lord.”
Job 1: 21

TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.

Book One:

Chapter Two:
In What Way, and For What Reason, the Will of God Permits This and That

1. The better to understand this I must repeat that there are two kinds of evils. The first comprising those things which cause vexation, pain, loss, disgrace, such as poverty, imprisonment, disease, banishment, death, which are not to be called evils so much as bitter medicines administered by the Divine Hand. The second comprising those things which are properly called evils, as sin. The former kind God truly wills, either for the punishment of the wicked [as S. Augustine says], or for the correction of His children. The latter God cannot be said to will, but to permit. For since God truly wills all things which truly exist [for by His Will all things are, and without it nothing exists], sin [which is improperly said to exist] He cannot will, but permits. But since God most clearly foresees all things that will be, He could easily prevent whatever He wills to prevent. Since, however, He does not prevent numberless things, we must conclude that God by His Own most just Will, from Eternity willed, and so decreed, to permit them. God, then, suffers anything to be done, not through being unwilling, but through willing it. Men, indeed, permit many things which they are either unable to prevent, or which they certainly would prefer not to be done. But not so the Supreme Ruler of all things. There is, therefore, in God a Will of permitting, which I have set down as the first point under the head of Permission. And now the question arises, why God should will to permit sin, or what is the cause in God of for his Permission.

 

[BobCatholic]

---

Why does God take this role? For the good of our immortal souls.

Because God cares about the soul more than the body. He cares nothing for the body.
That’s why He hasn’t redeemed it yet, and not adopted us yet as sons or daughters of God.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 8:23[/BIBLEDRB]

Maybe after our death we stand a chance. But only then.

 

[tonyrey]

Only fundamentalists interpret the whole of the Old Testament literally…

Everyone is entitled to their opinion provided it doesn’t conflict with Catholic doctrine. I base my opinions on Christ’s teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children, the just and unjust alike.

Do you maintain that God has not killed the wicked literally?

I firmly believe God is the Creator not the Destroyer. To kill the wicked would derive them of their opportunity to repent and make amends for the unnecessary suffering they have caused.

 

[johnnyjones]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion provided it doesn’t conflict with Catholic doctrine. I base my opinions on Christ’s teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children, the just and unjust alike.

I firmly believe God is the Creator not the Destroyer. To kill the wicked would derive them of their opportunity to repent and make amends for the unnecessary suffering they have caused.

Yes, and there is no conflict. It rains on the just and the unjust, but the unjust do not escape Gods wrath. I base my opinions on the word of God and the teachings of the Church. God is a loving Father, and God is wrathful.

I would assume you take Sodom and Gomorrah to be an allegory. But, to make my point you only have to be shown one example of God bringing on the expiration of people to see that there can be an earthly punishment for sin. Read Acts 5:1 in a Douay bible. Yes, the New Testament. The Church is not opposed to capital punishment. Capital punishment is based on the divine punishments of the old and new testaments.

Ananias and Sapphira expired because God caused it based on their acts. That is why, "great fear came upon the whole church and upon ALL those who HEARD it. I posted a link that may give you additional support.
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, and there is no conflict. It rains on the just and the unjust, but the unjust do not escape Gods wrath. I base my opinions on the word of God and the teachings of the Church. God is a loving Father, and God is wrathful.

I would assume you take Sodom and Gomorrah to be an allegory. But, to make my point you only have to be shown one example of God bringing on the expiration of people to see that there can be an earthly punishment for sin. Read Acts 5:1 in a Douay bible. Yes, the New Testament. The Church is not opposed to capital punishment. Capital punishment is based on the divine punishments of the old and new testaments.

Ananias and Sapphira expired because God caused it based on their acts. That is why, "great fear came upon the whole church and upon ALL those who HEARD it. I posted a link that may give you additional support.
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

It is significant that “the statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain.”

The sole instance you can give from New Testament is not even of capital punishment. The devastating effect of being publicly exposed filled Ananias and Sapphira which such shame and guilt they were overcome by terror and may well have died of natural causes such as a stroke or a heart attack. To believe a loving Father strikes people dead for being dishonest is unrealistic and inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus that God forgives us as we forgive others. The Creator certainly wouldn’t resort to such crude methods of instruction.

To kill the wicked would derive them of their opportunity to repent and make amends for the unnecessary suffering they have caused.

That is my fallible opinion but our ultimate authority is our conscience. I would never consent to be an executioner. The question is whether you would… and kill a person in cold blood…

 

[Holly3278]

No, there is no such thing as luck. It is just superstition.

 

[johnnyjones]

It is significant that “the statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain.”

The sole instance you can give from New Testament is not even of capital punishment. The devastating effect of being publicly exposed filled Ananias and Sapphira which such shame and guilt they were overcome by terror and may well have died of natural causes such as a stroke or a heart attack. To believe a loving Father strikes people dead for being dishonest is unrealistic and inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus that God forgives us as we forgive others. The Creator certainly wouldn’t resort to such crude methods of instruction.

To kill the wicked would derive them of their opportunity to repent and make amends for the unnecessary suffering they have caused.

That is my fallible opinion but our ultimate authority is our conscience. I would never consent to be an executioner. The question is whether you would… and kill a person in cold blood…

Although some have spoken against it, the Catholic church has not called for a ban on capital punishment. The opposite is the case with abortion. Is the church without conscience if the act flies in the face of all reason?

Why is the question “whether you would?” I have not solicited any such question from you. . In Sapphira’s case Peter said, "The feet of the men that buried your husband are at the door, AND THEY WILL CARRY YOU OUT ALSO. So, Peter knows she will die for the same act as her husband and tells her while she is alive. This is an important verse. “Great fear” among the people and the church because they died of natural causes? Peter wouldn’t have told the people not to be fearful, that God didn’t do this they just died on their own?

How much of the OT do you make into allegories? 1 Chron. 21:14 God sends an angel to destroy Jerusalem. God saw the calamity that was occurring and said “enough”!

God sends messages and purgatory is still there.

 

[tonyrey]

Although some have spoken against it, the Catholic church has not called for a ban on capital punishment. The opposite is the case with abortion. Is the church without conscience if the act flies in the face of all reason?

There are strong opposing views within the Church.

Why is the question “whether you would?” I have not solicited any such question from you.

Anyone who supports capital punishment should be prepared to implement it.

In Sapphira’s case Peter said, "The feet of the men that buried your husband are at the door, AND THEY WILL CARRY YOU OUT ALSO. So, Peter knows she will die for the same act as her husband and tells her while she is alive. This is an important verse. “Great fear” among the people and the church because they died of natural causes? Peter wouldn’t have told the people not to be fearful, that God didn’t do this they just died on their own?

Great fear because they knew Peter represented God. His foresight does not imply that their death was not due to natural causes permitted by God.

How much of the OT do you make into allegories? 1 Chron. 21:14 God sends an angel to destroy Jerusalem. God saw the calamity that was occurring and said “enough”!

I base my opinions on the extent to which the Old Testament is consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

God sends messages and purgatory is still there.

I agree but the main issue is whether God is a killer. This should be really discussed on another thread because it is not related to the question of luck at all - quite the reverse!

 

[johnnyjones]

There are strong opposing views within the Church.

Anyone who supports capital punishment should be prepared to implement it.

Great fear because they knew Peter represented God. His foresight does not imply that their death was not due to natural causes permitted by God.

I base my opinions on the extent to which the Old Testament is consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

I agree but the main issue is whether God is a killer. This should be really discussed on another thread because it is not related to the question of luck at all - quite the reverse!

Opposing views, yes, as I said. Strong, I wouldn’t say that. Those who advocate it are very much present.

I am not an agent of the state and have no reason to be ready to implement an execution. In addition, I have not stated I support capital punishment. It was brought up because it is the basis for divine retribution in scripture.

The God of the OT is the God of the NT. Because a new commandment was given by Jesus does not mean the old did not exist. But yes, a new thread would be wise.

 

[tonyrey]

Opposing views, yes, as I said. Strong, I wouldn’t say that. Those who advocate it are very much present.

I am not an agent of the state and have no reason to be ready to implement an execution. In addition, I have not stated I support capital punishment. It was brought up because it is the basis for divine retribution in scripture.

The God of the OT is the God of the NT. Because a new commandment was given by Jesus does not mean the old did not exist. But yes, a new thread would be wise.

I believe the concept of Yahweh was refined by Jesus who perfected the Law.

God bless.

 

[vera_dicere]

I accept the randomness of it all, as mentioned by previous posters. That some people just seem to have “all the luck” when they’re really just in the right place at the right time and the right number shows up. Statisticially plausible.

But I don’t beleive in the concept of luck as if its some kind of divine pat on the back.