L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
That’s a great site Ozanf!
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
You first statement could be true. There may be many moral atheists. However, you second statement is not correct. Why?
What is the first commandment?
What is the greatest commandment?
If someone sins against this first and greatest commandment, they have committed the gravest sin possible. That is why the Church has always taught that sins against the first commandment are more serious than any sin that can result from the perversion of morals.
*“The sin of unbelief is greater than any sin which occurs in the perversion of morals.” (St. Thomas Aquinas) *
So, even if an Atheist lives a moral good life, he still sins against God in the worst way possible by his unbelief.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
All? That, I very much doubt - because many of the errors and so on are caused by the lack of a match between what the Bible says, and what the geography or archaeology or the like allow us to accept. There are many sources of “Biblical error”, and some of the errors are invisible if all one has to go on is a translation.
I would rather like the questions which I raised to receive some attention - because there is no point in insisting on total inerrancy, unless the doctrine one is insisting on, is in perfect agreement with all the details of the Bible - all of them, without exception: because total inerrancy is what people are insisting on. So one solitary exception to this total inerrancy, would destroy the doctrine totally.As I said earlier:
What, after all, is the good of an inerrant “original text” ? What practical use is that to anyone ? None of us has ever seen an inerrant copy of John’s Gospel. Besides, what is the “original text” ? Are we taking about the text of Genesis as it first appeared when first canonised as Scripture ? The very first written form of it, prior to any revisions ? (There is not much point in having an inerrant Genesis 3, say, if Genesis 50 is still in the making.) The very first copy of it which included vowel-signs ? Until these questions can be answered, talk of the original text is talk about a phantom, a null set. What is the good of a doctrine of inerrancy, if there is no something-that-is-inerrant, something of which inerrancy can be a property ?
These are just a few of the problems with total inerrantism.
They cannot be ignored - that would be irresponsible. And it is not enough to repeat a doctrine, because that is no evidence of its truth, nor a proof of its truth. ##
Only if the texts thought to be relevant to the sciences are wrenched out of context - that is, so that the Bible is made to be an authority on matters on which it is not intended to be one. It does not make sense to treat the geographical ideas of 3000 years ago as though they were of eternal and universal validity. Leo XIII himself did not go that far; he warned against such ideas. To make the Israelites into infallible authorities on geography and astronomy, is to compel them to be what they never so much as hinted they were - it is to force a world very different from theirs, into a mould which will not fit it: as though our grandmothers were to be forced into the casual clothing of a teenager today; it would not fit.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
I actually find it disturbing that people need “God” and a fear of hell to get them to do good works. I get personal satisfaction from a good deed, it feels great to help someone out. Why do people need a threat of hell in order to do good things?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
You seem to be struggling to justify your doubts.
I think you have made for yourself a picture (to paraphrase Napoleon.) I never knew anyone who “needed” a fear of hell. All the good Catholics I know would be classified as “Inner-Directed” (as you claim to be.)
You seem to be struggling to justify your doubts.
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
vern humphrey:
I’m not struggling, I’ve already justified them. If you want to debate I’ll be more than glad to.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
Led Zeppelin75:
So what’s the point of saying something like that? Isn’t it an attempt to degrade people of faith, and so justify your own position?
Then why did you need to post something like this?
Led Zeppelin75:
Why do you have to hold that people who believe need a fear of hell? If you know people who are good and admirable, you know they aren’t motivated by fear of hell, but by their internal character – just as you say you are.
So what’s the point of saying something like that? Isn’t it an attempt to degrade people of faith, and so justify your own position?
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
Look, Long ago when humans lived in small tribes, they looked to the world, they seen things such as the weather and said to themselves “Oh my! someone like ourselves but much more powerful must be doing this!” wallah! thats how god(s) were born. We now no what causes the weather. “Demon Possesion” was looked at as a real thing… we now know this is mental illness. The examples are endless. Your god is no different. Why does the earth need a creator? I see no elements of design whatsoever. earth quakes, violent storms, tornadoes, disease, ect, ect. Humans are constantly struggling to overcome the environment. Thanks to our enlarged brain we have managed to do rather well at it however humans have not been around very long, we are new comers to the earth. out of the 4.5 billion years of earth history we are only but a smude on its timeline.
I fail to see any elements of design in earth let alone the universe and I see no reason for there to be a “creator”. As the well known question goes “Who created the creator”. Most christians will answer “he always existed”. Isnt that rather hypocritical? the truth is saying “god did it!” doesnt make sense of anything… it just makes it needlessly complex.
Also it begs the question… created for whom? The universe is most likely infinite, we are one of hundreds of trillions of planets floating around in even more galaxies. How arrogant to think it was created all for us. I mean if this world was created for anything… why not insects? You can find insects everywhere in the world, they outnumber all forms of other life (mammalian, reptiles, fish,birds) and infact even feed off of us! Whos to say we arnt the insects housemaids?
despite what you believe something does come from “nothing”. it is a fact. Subatomic particles appear from “nothing” with absolutely no purpouse whatsoever. It is very possible the universe started in the same way. I suggest people research quantam physics for further info on this but needless to say things do come from nothing all the time… this is a fact. Time did not begin untill this universe formed, indeed we may well be one of many universes out there being spit out rapidly. That is only one of many possibilities, but its likely that this universe has always existed in some form or another.
Now about the question of evil. If god is all knowing… meaning he knows the past, the present, and the future… then how can we be blamd for anyting? and how can we possibly have “free will”? An 80 year old atheist who lived a good and “moral” life but could not believe in a god because there is not sufficient proof, he dies and spends eternity in hell. However before this god even thought about making the man he knew every little thing he would ever do yet he still sends him to hell? How did the man have free will? and how possibly can he be blamed?
It is like giving a gun to a 4 year old and then blaming that 4 year old when someone ends up dead. It is absurd.
It also raises the question… if there is a god, then is time progressive or happening all at once? If time is happening all at once then does that mean I’m already in hell yet just not aware of it? and if time is progressive then how can god possibly know the future? but if he doesnt know the future then how can he possibly be omnipotent?
I fail to see any elements of design in earth let alone the universe and I see no reason for there to be a “creator”. As the well known question goes “Who created the creator”. Most christians will answer “he always existed”. Isnt that rather hypocritical? the truth is saying “god did it!” doesnt make sense of anything… it just makes it needlessly complex.
Also it begs the question… created for whom? The universe is most likely infinite, we are one of hundreds of trillions of planets floating around in even more galaxies. How arrogant to think it was created all for us. I mean if this world was created for anything… why not insects? You can find insects everywhere in the world, they outnumber all forms of other life (mammalian, reptiles, fish,birds) and infact even feed off of us! Whos to say we arnt the insects housemaids?
despite what you believe something does come from “nothing”. it is a fact. Subatomic particles appear from “nothing” with absolutely no purpouse whatsoever. It is very possible the universe started in the same way. I suggest people research quantam physics for further info on this but needless to say things do come from nothing all the time… this is a fact. Time did not begin untill this universe formed, indeed we may well be one of many universes out there being spit out rapidly. That is only one of many possibilities, but its likely that this universe has always existed in some form or another.
Now about the question of evil. If god is all knowing… meaning he knows the past, the present, and the future… then how can we be blamd for anyting? and how can we possibly have “free will”? An 80 year old atheist who lived a good and “moral” life but could not believe in a god because there is not sufficient proof, he dies and spends eternity in hell. However before this god even thought about making the man he knew every little thing he would ever do yet he still sends him to hell? How did the man have free will? and how possibly can he be blamed?
It is like giving a gun to a 4 year old and then blaming that 4 year old when someone ends up dead. It is absurd.
It also raises the question… if there is a god, then is time progressive or happening all at once? If time is happening all at once then does that mean I’m already in hell yet just not aware of it? and if time is progressive then how can god possibly know the future? but if he doesnt know the future then how can he possibly be omnipotent?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
No, that is not what I meant. I am not referring to subjective guilt. Nor to knowledge of moral theology. I am not even referring to morality at all. I am referring to sins against the first commandment, against faith. The sins against faith (intellectual sins) are worse than morally bad acts. That is what I meant.
Maybe I misunderstood your post. I have to admit, I am not sure what you meant by “POV”. My point was that an Atheist, even if he lived a perfectly good moral life, sins more gravely than an imoral person who has the faith, since sins against the first commandment are worse than any other sin.
Now it is true that a person with the faith may be punished more severely in hell for breaking the other commandments. Since he should have known better, he will suffer more. But nevertheless, objectively speaking, an Atheist sins more gravely by breaking the first commandment than others do through moral corruption. That was my only point.
Now, I have decided to give up the message board for the remainder of Lent as a “fast”, so I will not be able to respond to any posts.
I would like to wish everyone fervent lent and a very merry Christmas.
Please keep myself and my family in your prayers as we will be keeping all of you in ours.
Led,
We prayed our Rosary for you today and my daughter lit a candle for you after Mass. Don’t give up yet. Please purchase the book I mentioned called “My daily bread” as I think you could benefit from it. Also, it is very cheap, only about 6 or 7 dollars.
God Bless,
Robert
N
Numbers2222
Guest
Let see; if Christians believe God always existed they are hypocritical but if an atheist believes the universe always existed and that it is infinite that’s being rational.
If a Christian believes that God created everything they are being superstitious. If an atheist believes that the universe starts from nothing, they are being scientific.
A little over a hundred years ago science laughed at the notion that a physician should wash his hands between surgeries. A almost two hundred years ago science believed that fly maggots spontaneously developed from meat. During the 18th century scientists firmly believed in the element “phlogiston”.
So it is the Christian who is arrogant in his belief in God but not the atheist who believes in the scientific “truth” of the day. A truth that will most likely be as absurd to the world two hundred years from now as the two hundred year old “truths” are to us today.
As for proof the existence of God the atheist says, “I see no” when he is really saying I won’t see.
Unfortunately for the atheist not seeing isn’t good enough. He must destroy the God that he will not believe in. Why spend all that energy on nothing?
If a Christian believes that God created everything they are being superstitious. If an atheist believes that the universe starts from nothing, they are being scientific.
A little over a hundred years ago science laughed at the notion that a physician should wash his hands between surgeries. A almost two hundred years ago science believed that fly maggots spontaneously developed from meat. During the 18th century scientists firmly believed in the element “phlogiston”.
So it is the Christian who is arrogant in his belief in God but not the atheist who believes in the scientific “truth” of the day. A truth that will most likely be as absurd to the world two hundred years from now as the two hundred year old “truths” are to us today.
As for proof the existence of God the atheist says, “I see no” when he is really saying I won’t see.
Unfortunately for the atheist not seeing isn’t good enough. He must destroy the God that he will not believe in. Why spend all that energy on nothing?
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
The universe being created (according to atheists; back in time observations]:
atheisme.free.fr/Humour/Dieu_en_images/Dieu_crea_le_monde-petite.JPG
The universe being created by god [no rational evidence to back this one]:
images.google.com/images?q=tbn:OQjQODbit4QJ:joecorreia.com/photos/ART/LIGHT%2520COMPOSITIONS/SELF%2520CREATION%2520JPG%252002.jpg
Christianity has nevertheless always failed to explain creation, science hasn’t. I explained in my last post, read it.
RSiscoe,
It’s glad to see you’re thinking of me, but I doubt I’ll need it. If I can find that book in the book store or local library I’ll take a peek.
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
sorry that last image didn’t show up.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
How do you KNOW, scientifically, that isn’t God at work?
O
Ozanf
Guest
“Gottle of Geer”
Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original manuscripts…
You said:
“None of us has ever seen an inerrant copy of John’s Gospel.”
You can go to:
www.biblequery.org and see some variants
For example…
"These are NOT errors and do NOT affect any doctrine…
and “The Gospel of John has a total of about 15,436 Greek words and a WORD FOR WORD accuracy of 96.9%,”
Likewise…
matthew: %97.1
Mark: %95
luke: %97.3
John: %96.9
Acts: %97.4
Romans: %96.4
Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original manuscripts…
You said:
“None of us has ever seen an inerrant copy of John’s Gospel.”
You can go to:
www.biblequery.org and see some variants
For example…
"These are NOT errors and do NOT affect any doctrine…
and “The Gospel of John has a total of about 15,436 Greek words and a WORD FOR WORD accuracy of 96.9%,”
Likewise…
matthew: %97.1
Mark: %95
luke: %97.3
John: %96.9
Acts: %97.4
Romans: %96.4
- Corinthians %98.5
2.Corinthians: %96.9
Galatians: %98.4
Ephesians: %98.1
Philipians: %97.8
Colossians: %97.9
1.Thessalonians: %98.2
2.Thessalonians: %98.5
1.timothy: %98.6
2.timothy:%99
titus:%99.2
Philemon:%98.2
Hebrews:%98.3
James:%98.4
1.peter:%96.2
2.peter:%96.3
1:John:%98.6
2.John:%97.1
3.John:%98.6
Jude:%97.8
Revelation:%98.7
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
vern humphrey:
I suggest you read up on Albert Einstein. He proved God dosen’t exist a while ago, but many people are ignorant to it.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Ozanf said:
What an error is, depends in part on such questions as how much room one is prepared to allow to literary genres.
For example, if Matthew seriously means that a star stood over the place in Bethlehem where Our Lord was born, then he is suggesting an astronomical impossibility. For any star doing that, would burn up the whole of Bethlehem and its environs for miles around.I don’t think he was attempting to say that - I think that the account of the Magi and the star is a theological construction, built up from Numbers 24.17 and Psalm 72, which was intended not as a history, but as an account in story-form (a mode of writing very familiar to the Judaism of the time) of the significance of Jesus: which is, that for Matthew’s gospel He is the Messianic King. The star is mentioned, because it serves to show that Jesus is the “star out of Jacob”, as spoken of by Balaam. And the star is a royal emblem. It seems that for Matthew, the OT is the place to go for a biography of Jesus - which is why he is so fond of seeing fulfilments of the OT in the scenes of Jesus’ life.
There would be an error in Matthew 2 if the “standing” of the star “over where Jesus was laid”, were being described as a real event - if it is not, then that error vanishes. IOW, some - not all - errors, are present only if one miscategorises the text in the wrong sort of literary type. ##
I’m not sure what all these percentages are meant to do.
The fact remains, that none of this is evidence that the Gospels are inerrant.If two Gospels make contradictory assertions about the trial of Jesus, word-counting won’t salvage that.
Word counting will not make inaccurate statements accurate - it won’t make Quirinius governor of Syria when Our Lord was born. He was not - unless Our Lord was born rather earlier than 4 BC.
All too often, apologists confuse two very different issues: the preservation of the words of the texts; and, the inerrancy of the contents of those texts. They are not the same issue, and ir is fatal to confuse them. ##
That in turn is a completely different issue from those noted above.
I still want the issues I raised (or noticed) to be looked at.
##
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
In fact, Einstein tended toward a form of Deism, and admired the works of Benedict Spinoza. And, Spinoza, as you recall, developed proofs that God does exist.
Albert Einstein proved God doesn’t exist? Where? Can you give me a cite for that?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
In fact, Einstein tended toward a form of Deism, and admired the works of Benedict Spinoza. And, Spinoza, as you recall, developed proofs that God does exist.
D
Dismas2004
Guest
I’ve read some of the posts here and my meager contribution is this.
The bible is a book of literature, inspired by God. Not dictated. It demands correct interpretation. That is what the “church” is for.
As far as the current discussion, I beleive the bible tells us the Why of history and science, not the how.
When Theologians try to explain the laws of physics(unless of course they are a physicist) they cross the boundary of their discpline. Like wise when scientist try to tech articles of faith, they cross the boundary of their discipline.
The Bible tells us WHY, not HOW.
The bible is a book of literature, inspired by God. Not dictated. It demands correct interpretation. That is what the “church” is for.
As far as the current discussion, I beleive the bible tells us the Why of history and science, not the how.
When Theologians try to explain the laws of physics(unless of course they are a physicist) they cross the boundary of their discpline. Like wise when scientist try to tech articles of faith, they cross the boundary of their discipline.
The Bible tells us WHY, not HOW.
- Status