I am an atheist

[Pax]

Let me give you an example. A prostitute murders her live in boyfriend who is a pederast and a thief right before their child is born. If the child is put up for adoption as soon as it is born, will the child in any way be affected by the pre-birth behavior of the parents? No drugs or disease is involved in this example.

From your statements, it appears to me that you are saying that science supports the idea that the child is damaged mentally, physically or psychologically in the womb by the immoral behavior of the parents. I would be very interested in seeing the scientific evidence. Could you provide a reference?

I am always willing to learn.

I will answer this in two ways. First of all, I would say that from the sketch and details of your example that it would be foolish for me to assert that there would be any damage to the child, psychological or otherwise. There is simply no way for me to know.

The second part of my answer is the more important of the two. I do not believe that your scenario is appropriate to my argument. An isolated case does not fit with what I was driving at. Perhaps, my presentation was not sufficiently clear or properly filled out. What I have been trying to say involves a much larger picture that includes multi-generational time frames and progressively degenerative behavior that is part and parcel of human kind with the exception of Noah and his family.

You asked for scientific studies. The science can be provided, but let’s keep it simple. We can use something that we are all familiar with. Dog breeding will do quite nicely to illustrate my point. Dog breeders pick the type of dog they wish to raise and sell. The sire and dame are chosen carefully and the breeder will very often breed their lines for temperament and other characteristics.

Some dogs have been bred to hunt, others to herd, others as guard dogs, etc. These characteristics are all due to breeding. Even the domestication of dogs was due to breeding. Changes in dogs and their characteristics are achieved over long periods of time and generational breeding. This of course applies to all domesticated animals.

There is absolutely no doubt that canine personalities and temperament are through breeding. A poodle and a Labrador Retriever are both dogs, but a poodle will not have the personality of a Lab any more than a Cocker Spaniel will have the aggressiveness and personality of a Pit Bull. Canine behavior tendencies come with the dog at birth. I’ve had two German Shorthaired Pointers many years apart and from different blood lines. Neither of these dogs received any training or exposure to hunting. Nevertheless, both of these dogs would spot game in brush or foliage and immediately go into a “pointing” posture. They would hold the “point” and not immediately flush the game. This is an effect within the breeding of German Shorthairs.

The CDC lists the following breeds as the most likely to bite:
Pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds , Huskies, Alaskan, Malamutes, Doberman pinschers, Chows, Great Danes, Saint Bernards, and Akitas. There tendencies to bite are part and parcel of their breeding.

Just as breeding has effects in the personalities and temperaments of dogs over time, we can be certain that this occurs in other animals and can even happen in human beings. In my outline of Noah and the deluge, I had hoped that I made it clear that man’s sad state of affairs was due to evil and violence being the norm from generation to generation. Scripture even says “that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”[Gen 6:5] The evil, violence, and savagery was the norm and permeated the generations like breeding characteristics in the examples above. The only righteous people were Noah and his family.

There is a book called “Pre-Parenting: Nurturing Your Child From Conception” by Thomas R. Verny & Pamela Weintraub that might be helpful. According to this book there have been many revolutionary discoveries in neuroscience and developmental psychology in recent years that give insights as to what inluences can occur in the womb. Apparently, even the tone of a mother’s voice can have an effect on the unborn child over the course of pregnancy.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

Noah was there, god could have worked through him. God also could have used himself to teach these people the right way instead of just killing them when they go in the wrong direction, or, could have intervened for the parents. There was plenty of time for intervention.

…
…

Thank you for blatantly dodging my question. Let me simplify my question for you to nullify that dodge: What benefit would be gained by burning Hitler alive rather than killing him by lethal injection? Or if you prefer: What benefit is there to giving a person a slower, more terrifying, more more painful death as opposed to a quick, less painful/terrifying one?

You avoided question 3 entirely. See above for further clarification of the other questions. Your responses have not answered any of the glaring problems to conclusion.

I apologize that you do not find my answers sufficiently satisfying. Perhaps my other posts will help somewhat. I’m sure that you will have something to say in response.

What makes you think that God did not give ample opportunity for people to turn from evil? Why is it that Noah and his family were not evil? Could it be that they took advantage of whatever God offered and no one else did? You assume that God did nothing, but this doesn’t fit with what we can surmise about those that were just. You make it sound as if everything is God’s fault because he gave free will to men. Why make excuses for the evil doers as if they could have been rehabilitated without destroying their freedom? Try rehabilitating a child molester using the best psychologists and science available today. You can’t do it.

People die in car crashes, fires, earthquakes, drownings, plane crashes and all kinds of different ways. Should God stop that from happening? God allows these things and He allowed a natural disaster to be the instrument of destruction for the evil doers in the tale of Noah and the Ark. God had His reasons for doing this and we can speculate but not be certain what those reasons are. Could it be that the evil doers didn’t deserve any form of mercy at all? Could it be that the deluge sends a message of God’s total sovereignty over creation that all subsequent generations can be aware of so as to help them not fall into idolatry?

You are quick to judge God’s actions and yet you have no ability to see things from the divine perspective. Oddly, you are not willing to make a negative judgment about the Aztecs even though you have a historical perspective available that makes this rather easy to do. This is something I just don’t get.

You claimed that I dodged your question about Hitler. I did not do so. I answered appropriately. Your modified question is better for your purposes. Modern America is sensitive to the idea of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Even Americans disagree on what is “cruel and unusual.” Likewise, the value judgment is not shared by a huge chunk of the rest of the world. Many would argue that the punishment should fit the crime. If a criminal tortures someone to death, then that person will be punished in kind. Some will argue that this will act as a deterent. Others will disagree. Others will claim it means that justice is served. Others will disagree.

Personally, I am not in favor of torturing anyone to death as punishment. In the USA we may not even need to inflict the death penalty at all because we can keep a prisoner locked up for life. Personally, I feel that a sentence of life imprisonment is cruel but there may not be an alternative. The stuff of your question may or may not apply to the deluge. People thought differently at that time than we do today in the comforts of our western society. Such punishments may have been the only thing that they would understand. Pagan peoples that came later had little appreciation for anything but power and brutality either.

We can see parallels even today in that some cultures look at our system of juris prudence and punishment as absurd. Americans get upset when they hear of a young man receiving a caning in an Asian country for some crime that we think to be minor relative to the punishment. The people in Asia where caning is common think that our system of punishment is stupid, whimpy, and even dangerous to society. They do not understand our practices and we do not understand theirs. What works for us may not work for them. Perhaps, your ideas and solutions simply were not appropriate for those that lived at the time of Noah. Perhaps the lesser measures that helped Noah and family just wouldn’t work with the evil people swept away in the flood. Likewise, the example of Noah may have simply left them unpersuaded.

 

[notself]

You asked for scientific studies. The science can be provided, but let’s keep it simple. We can use something that we are all familiar with. Dog breeding will do quite nicely to illustrate my point. Dog breeders pick the type of dog they wish to raise and sell. The sire and dame are chosen carefully and the breeder will very often breed their lines for temperament and other characteristics.

Some dogs have been bred to hunt, others to herd, others as guard dogs, etc. These characteristics are all due to breeding. Even the domestication of dogs was due to breeding. Changes in dogs and their characteristics are achieved over long periods of time and generational breeding. This of course applies to all domesticated animals.

Just as breeding has effects in the personalities and temperaments of dogs over time, we can be certain that this occurs in other animals and can even happen in human beings. In my outline of Noah and the deluge, I had hoped that I made it clear that man’s sad state of affairs was due to evil and violence being the norm from generation to generation. Scripture even says “that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”[Gen 6:5] The evil, violence, and savagery was the norm and permeated the generations like breeding characteristics in the examples above. The only righteous people were Noah and his family.

There is a book called “Pre-Parenting: Nurturing Your Child From Conception” by Thomas R. Verny & Pamela Weintraub that might be helpful. According to this book there have been many revolutionary discoveries in neuroscience and developmental psychology in recent years that give insights as to what inluences can occur in the womb. Apparently, even the tone of a mother’s voice can have an effect on the unborn child over the course of pregnancy.

I hope this helps.

The Nazis and the Soviets did breeding experiments for athletic ability and intelligence. The experiments failed. The genome of a human being is significantly more complex than that of a dog or other domesticated animals. People after all are not puppies.

I reviewed the book you referenced on Amazon and the editorial review refers to Drs. Verney and Weintraub as New Age. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. I am not a big fan of New Age speculation and anecdotes. I do prefer peer reviewed science.

Why don’t you take the Flood as allegory rather than the literal truth? I know that the Church does not require a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

 

[rboo124]

If you are asking this question it shows me that you haven’t read my posts in this thread. This has been asked before, and answered.
Nope, but I admit that I would be glad to discover that someone had looked something up because they doubted my words. I would be thrilled if someone examined critically something that they had not in the past examined critically, because I inspired them to examine critically.
I hope you don’t mean that. It would be quite sad to need a ‘payoff’ before accepting reality.
I think it is quite easy to see that faith such as the catholic church is powerful. I can accept that many find it comfortable.
Have you considered that neither of these items has anything at all to do with whether it is true or not? People claim the same benefits from following the mormon faith, or wiccan. They can’t all be right, can they?
Sounds reasonable to me.
So what matters to you is how ‘appetizing’ something is? I will do my level best to accept reality even if it is unappetizing.
Maybe *especially *if it is unappetizing.
Good thing I don’t believe in that angel either, eh? If your mythos suggests that one can be used against their will and without their knowledge, how do you know that isn’t happening to you right now?
If you see no point to being here, why are you here?

I am here to ‘strengthen’ my faith, and gain more knowledge regarding Catholicism. I too have already stated this in my posts here. Perhaps you haven’t read my posts?

When I read an atheists words, it helps me realize how much further I’ve progressed in faith than what I give myself credit for. I find it to be a good measuring device…it is hard to notice how much you grow over time when growth occurs a little each day.

I hope you realize you require a payoff also…concrete proof is your payoff and without it, you are left with nothing. Unfortunately, you will never receive your payoff on your terms. Sadly, from my perspective, you seem more than content with that.

I’ve considered many different angles, and wasted a lot of time and energy doing so…God granted me faith, without it, I’d still be wasting my time. But, I did take the first step…I prayed, even though I wasn’t convinced any good would come of it.

I have read your posts…but I don’t ever recall any of them stating that you are here to save us all from our faith by critically examining the words you state.

Hi there, I am an atheist. I enjoy computers, astronomy, chess and fishing. If anyone would like to ask me some questions about any of that, I will be happy to answer.- A (OP)

All I know is, you came here to talk about fishing, chess and computers…which was a farce…you knew full well you weren’t here to discuss fishing, chess and computers. That appears to simply be your introductory statement…a salesman waiting for the door to open so he can put his foot in.

Why would you come to a Catholic website, state you’re an atheist and request discussions on unrelated topics? Is this a form of trickery? [Moderator removed uncharitable comments]

I’m sure if you google those topics, you would find an appropriate forum to discuss them in. I’d think someone as intelligent as yourself would not need to be instructed on how to do so.

I respect your intelligence, but I certainly don’t respect your motives and how you apply the brains God gave you…of course, you probably take credit for your intelligence, don’t you?

 

[_A]

I am here to ‘strengthen’ my faith, and gain more knowledge regarding Catholicism. I too have already stated this in my posts here. Perhaps you haven’t read my posts?

I didn’t mean why are you on this forum, I meant if this thread is so meaningless and useless to you why are you on this thread so much?

When I read an atheists words, it helps me realize how much further I’ve progressed in faith than what I give myself credit for.

I think it’s a shame that you have to compare yourself to see your value. Let me share the words of a priest with you - “Do not compare yourself with others, for you will become vain and bitter” (from the poem ‘Desiderata’)

I hope you realize you require a payoff also…concrete proof is your payoff and without it, you are left with nothing.

I don’t require proof the way that you are required to believe. If I lack proof, I can do without or go seek more - without belief there is nothing left of your religion.

Unfortunately, you will never receive your payoff on your terms. Sadly, from my perspective, you seem more than content with that.

You are edging on being insulting here. Calling me ‘sad’ because I don’t share your worldview? I feel sorry for you.

I’ve considered many different angles, and wasted a lot of time and energy doing so…God granted me faith, without it, I’d still be wasting my time. But, I did take the first step…I prayed, even though I wasn’t convinced any good would come of it.

I prayed plenty - and got nothing. I say you are imagining things, or hallucinating.

I have read your posts…but I don’t ever recall any of them stating that you are here to save us all from our faith by critically examining the words you state.

I was answering your question. I said that I was not here to convert, but I would be happy if someone found me to be an inspiration to think critically.

Hi there, I am an atheist. I enjoy computers, astronomy, chess and fishing. If anyone would like to ask me some questions about any of that, I will be happy to answer.- A (OP)

I have been willing to talk about any of those things. I have found that many more of the posters here enjoy discussing my atheism than computers (though fishing could be a close second)

All I know is, you came here to talk about fishing, chess and computers…which was a farce…

You are going to have to prove that I created a thread called ‘I am an atheist’ to talk about those things, and also show that I have not been willing to talk about them. If you can’t, then perhaps you should reconsider your accusatory tone. Everyone is watching, you know.

you knew full well you weren’t here to discuss fishing, chess and computers. That appears to simply be your introductory statement…a salesman waiting for the door to open so he can put his foot in.

Again with the venomous tone. I wonder why you are so angry at me for answering questions here. If you just stopped coming to this thread, you would not have to put up with me answering your questions, and pointing out when you do things like erroneously painting me as having sinister, secret motives for posting here.

Why would you come to a Catholic website, state you’re an atheist and request discussions on unrelated topics? Is this a form of trickery?

I have answered the ‘why am I here’ question. Perhaps if you had asked politely I would be more inclined to repeat my answer. As it is, you wont go read my earlier responses to that question. Is this polite behaviour?

I’m sure if you google those topics, you would find an appropriate forum to discuss them in. I’d think someone as intelligent as yourself would not need to be instructed on how to do so.

I used that introduction to introduce myself (and have been willing to talk about those subjects, too). Most of the people who asked questions or made comments here took note of the title of this thread, and were more interested in atheism than computers.

I have been making great efforts here to answer everyones questions. If you think I am a liar, I would suggest that it is a waste of your time to continue discussing it with me. In any event, you wont be hearing more from me until you offer an apology, rboo.

 

[rboo124]

I didn’t mean why are you on this forum, I meant if this thread is so meaningless and useless to you why are you on this thread so much?

I explained why I am on this thread.

I think it’s a shame that you have to compare yourself to see your value. Let me share the words of a priest with you - “Do not compare yourself with others, for you will become vain and bitter” (from the poem ‘Desiderata’)

I’m not comparing myself to others to see find my value…I’m comparing to measure my growth. Big difference. You’re attempting to twist words, read my post again.

You are edging on being insulting here. Calling me ‘sad’ because I don’t share your worldview? I feel sorry for you.
I prayed plenty - and got nothing. I say you are imagining things, or hallucinating.

I didn’t call you sad. You are being overly sensitive and reading what you want to read. Read what I posted again when you aren’t feeling so defensive.

I was answering your question. I said that I was not here to convert, but I would be happy if someone found me to be an inspiration to think critically.

I have been willing to talk about any of those things. I have found that many more of the posters here enjoy discussing my atheism than computers (though fishing could be a close second)
You are going to have to prove that I created a thread called ‘I am an atheist’ to talk about those things, and also show that I have not been willing to talk about them. If you can’t, then perhaps you should reconsider your accusatory tone. Everyone is watching, you know.Again with the venomous tone. I wonder why you are so angry at me for answering questions here. If you just stopped coming to this thread, you would not have to put up with me answering your questions, and pointing out when you do things like erroneously painting me as having sinister, secret motives for posting here.
I don’t like you calling me a liar, and I will ask the moderators to have a look at this and see if it fits in with their posting rules. I have answered the ‘why am I here’ question. Perhaps if you had asked politely I would be more inclined to repeat my answer. As it is, you wont go read my earlier responses to that question, instead calling me a liar. Is this polite behaviour?
I used that introduction to introduce myself (and have been willing to talk about those subjects, too). Most of the people who asked questions or made comments here took note of the title of this thread, and were more interested in atheism than computers.

I have been making great efforts here to answer everyones questions. If you think I am a liar, I would suggest that it is a waste of your time to continue discussing it with me. In any event, you wont be hearing more from me until you offer an apology, rboo.

You continue to be untruthful…and it is you who should be apologizing. You did NOT come to a Catholic forum to discuss computers, astronomy, chess or fishing…so, let’s not pretend you did. Had you sought conversation to those topics, you would have gone elsewhere.

It’s rather insulting that you think your motives aren’t obvious. You came here to discuss God. Do you assume us so naive to believe that you came to a religious website to discuss fishing? Why not go to a fishing website?

Yes, people are watching…which is the reason most have dropped out of this silly thread. They have realized the game you are playing and the true reason for your presence in this thread.

Point; don’t go to a car dealership if you are shopping for a loaf of bread.

A response from you is not required, as I’m done with this thread and feel it is you who owe an apology. I said you were a liar and stated my reason for saying that…nothing has changed. If you do not accept your deception as such, then I’ve offered more self searching for you to conduct on yourself.

 

[AndrewLong]

You continue to be untruthful…and it is you who should be apologizing. You did NOT come to a Catholic forum to discuss computers, astronomy, chess or fishing…so, let’s not pretend you did. Had you sought conversation to those topics, you would have gone elsewhere.

It’s rather insulting that you think your motives aren’t obvious. You came here to discuss God. Do you assume us so naive to believe that you came to a religious website to discuss fishing? Why not go to a fishing website?

Yes, people are watching…which is the reason most have dropped out of this silly thread. They have realized the game you are playing and the true reason for your presence in this thread.

Point; don’t go to a car dealership if you are shopping for a loaf of bread.

A response from you is not required, as I’m done with this thread and feel it is you who owe an apology. I said you were a liar and stated my reason for saying that…nothing has changed. If you do not accept your deception as such, then I’ve offered more self searching for you to conduct on yourself.

I’m going to speak in his defense.

He never once stated that he came here to discuss computers, astronomy, chess or fishing – that was an introduction – one that would fit in any discussion. If you want to discuss those, great, but he never once stated that was why he was here. He already explained that the title “I am an atheist” gave away that there were going to be discussions about God and non-God. So honestly, stop with the “car dealership” comparison.

He has not deceived one person here, and he doesn’t owe anyone an apology. He said he was open to discussion and questions – it’s your choice to talk about fishing or engage the topic of atheism.

I would LOVE to talk about atheism. It’s fascinating. I’ve been there.

 

[_A]

A response from you is not required, as I’m done with this thread and feel it is you who owe an apology. I said you were a liar and stated my reason for saying that…nothing has changed. If you do not accept your deception as such, then I’ve offered more self searching for you to conduct on yourself.

Go and have a nice time where you go. I would like to offer some advice about forums, though.
Read the thread title.

By the way, thanks, AndrewLong, I am glad to know that not everyone reached the same conclusion about my motives.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hi A,

I was thinking about you and the memorial for your friend. I am assuming it has already passed. If so, I hope that you were able to put aside your discomfort and focus on grieving for your friend in the way that you know best. I hope everyone affected by his passing receives all the support that they need.

 

[AndrewLong]

By the way, thanks, AndrewLong, I am glad to know that not everyone reached the same conclusion about my motives.

Of course, my friend. There’s no reason why we can’t respect each other’s beliefs. The last thing anyone should be doing here is pointing fingers and saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” or “You need to think/act/be this way.”

Ooopppeeeennn yourselves!

 

[_A]

Hi A,

I was thinking about you and the memorial for your friend. I am assuming it has already passed. If so, I hope that you were able to put aside your discomfort and focus on grieving for your friend in the way that you know best. I hope everyone affected by his passing receives all the support that they need.

Thanks, I went to the service this afternoon. There was a huge group of people who knew and liked him, and a priest who didn’t lol. I think he did his best just the same.
I would like to say that Jaxon was a good man. Happy, enthusiastic and helpful. I went and drank to him, then went to ‘hang out’ with friends, and am having a happy night. That is how he was, and if any of you have read his horror story, I would like you to do some happy-making. The man would want you to be enjoying. That is how I am trying to honour him, it is my best estimate on what he would want.
I hope for all the supports and such too, but today is for him.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Thanks, I went to the service this afternoon. There was a huge group of people who knew and liked him, and a priest who didn’t lol. I think he did his best just the same.
I would like to say that Jaxon was a good man. Happy, enthusiastic and helpful. I went and drank to him, then went to ‘hang out’ with friends, and am having a happy night. That is how he was, and if any of you have read his horror story, I would like you to do some happy-making. The man would want you to be enjoying. That is how I am trying to honour him, it is my best estimate on what he would want.
I hope for all the supports and such too, but today is for him.

Yes, the day is for him. I will have a cup of tea for him, as I think you mentioned he liked tea, and it is pretty chilly out.

 

[Aleii]

What makes you think that God did not give ample opportunity for people to turn from evil? Why is it that Noah and his family were not evil? Could it be that they took advantage of whatever God offered and no one else did? You assume that God did nothing, but this doesn’t fit with what we can surmise about those that were just. You make it sound as if everything is God’s fault because he gave free will to men. Why make excuses for the evil doers as if they could have been rehabilitated without destroying their freedom? Try rehabilitating a child molester using the best psychologists and science available today. You can’t do it.

You are saying that somehow everyone was 100% evil except Noah’s wife, and Noah’s kids, and Noah’s son’s wives happened to escape this? What happened to your feral people make feral children argument? And what makes you think that god did give ample opportunity? When you condemn even little children and teens, you have not worked nearly as hard as you should have! God knows all, and could have intervened far, far in advance. I would not underestimate god to say that he could not have successfully intervened.

People die in car crashes, fires, earthquakes, drownings, plane crashes and all kinds of different ways. Should God stop that from happening? God allows these things and He allowed a natural disaster to be the instrument of destruction for the evil doers in the tale of Noah and the Ark. God had His reasons for doing this and we can speculate but not be certain what those reasons are. Could it be that the evil doers didn’t deserve any form of mercy at all? Could it be that the deluge sends a message of God’s total sovereignty over creation that all subsequent generations can be aware of so as to help them not fall into idolatry?

Genesis 6: 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish That reads that god did not just allow a natural flood to occur, but in fact he took initiative to create a global flood.

You are quick to judge God’s actions and yet you have no ability to see things from the divine perspective. Oddly, you are not willing to make a negative judgment about the Aztecs even though you have a historical perspective available that makes this rather easy to do. This is something I just don’t get.

You have not yet given proof that the pleasure was derived from killing and not from satisfying religion. There is a difference between saying a man is evil and saying his religion is evil.

You claimed that I dodged your question about Hitler. I did not do so. I answered appropriately. Your modified question is better for your purposes. Modern America is sensitive to the idea of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Even Americans disagree on what is “cruel and unusual.” Likewise, the value judgment is not shared by a huge chunk of the rest of the world. Many would argue that the punishment should fit the crime. If a criminal tortures someone to death, then that person will be punished in kind. Some will argue that this will act as a deterent. Others will disagree. Others will claim it means that justice is served. Others will disagree… People thought differently at that time than we do today in the comforts of our western society.

You have yet to tell me how a child does not deserve every form of mercy and compassion available. And choosing a terrifying way of dying like drowning when god could have easily poisoned the air is abuse of power. Death is death. We have advanced far beyond eye-for-an-eye justice. God is supposed to be the ultimate example to the people. Saying he has to stoop to a more primitive form of justice is absurd.

…They do not understand our practices and we do not understand theirs. What works for us may not work for them. Perhaps, your ideas and solutions simply were not appropriate for those that lived at the time of Noah. Perhaps the lesser measures that helped Noah and family just wouldn’t work with the evil people swept away in the flood. Likewise, the example of Noah may have simply left them unpersuaded.

So you teach the people who are about to die a torturous lessen in god’s justice? Why not just create a story to symbolize, instead of actually doing the terrible deed? There are a huge number of alternative possibilities that haven’t been utilized. Again you fall back on the idea that we can’t understand god, and that since you believe your bible is perfect, that means that any contrary understanding of it must be in error, even though the story just doesn’t make sense in a Catholic context.

 

[justinthemartyr]

no one said the persons and creatures that died, suffered in any way. God has absolute authority over His creation.

In the same way that He changes bread into His glorified Flesh and wine and water into His glorified Blood, yet in the vast majority of these consecrations by His ministers He ordained, they appear to be the bread and wine that were previous to the consecration. In certain cases which He allows, they become visible flesh and blood, never to lose the properties of fresh flesh and blood scientifically.

God could say that you are a fire hydrant, and you would be, in spite of your appearance, and then make water gush from you, if it would further the building of His kingdom, yet I highly doubt He would do that.

In the situation with the world being evil, they obviously had their chances to love and serve God and did not, and therefore God did what was best for His creation at that moment, which is beyond our full comprehension. Similarly to the way satellites and communications 80 years ago would have been laughed at by persons such as yourself, and pretty much everyone else on the planet. Who would have thought 80 years ago that we not only would go to space, but also be able to talk to dozens of people from every area of the earth at the exact same time through a chat room on a web site? It would have been laughed out of the room. Just as you laugh now and think you have some sort of wisdom that we lack, or greater wisdom than the God who created you, of which you cannot even explain what he created and how it works so amazingly, such as the human eye in connection with the brain. You may have hypothoses on these things, but no absolutes.

Just as a person who is blind from birth, and then gains sight as an adult because of scientific advancement cannot handle what they are seeing and has to take breaks from opening their eyes because it is physically exhausting to take it all in, the brain cannot process these things that quickly. they must take several naps a day because of the exhaustion of trying to process what was once unthinkable a day before.
This is similar to our knowledge and wisdom as compared to the Intelligence (God) which created it.

 

[Pax]

The Nazis and the Soviets did breeding experiments for athletic ability and intelligence. The experiments failed. The genome of a human being is significantly more complex than that of a dog or other domesticated animals. People after all are not puppies.

I reviewed the book you referenced on Amazon and the editorial review refers to Drs. Verney and Weintraub as New Age. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. I am not a big fan of New Age speculation and anecdotes. I do prefer peer reviewed science.

Why don’t you take the Flood as allegory rather than the literal truth? I know that the Church does not require a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

Please be advised that the Soviet and Nazis experiments are not much help here and they prove little or nothing as far as my point goes. Likewise, I would agree that dogs are not people. Nevertheless, the truth is that genes do play a part in behavior. The book I gave you was just a quick example I happened to come across. I am not a New Age supporter either. Since you value the reviews of Amazon you can check out Are We Hardwired?: The Role of Genes in Human Behavior by William R. Clark. This book and the data it is based on should satisfy your scientific requirements. There are other works as well.

No one can reasonably argue against the idea that both nature and nurture play a part in behavior. Man was severely handicapped by the “fall” and is seriously prone to sin. It is obvious to me that savage pagans and their savage and vicious practices would have an influence on the gene pool and on the effects of nurture. IMHO there may even be a synergistic effect between the two. My position is quite reasonable based upon the historical data that we have concerning the behaviors and practices in various cultures over time. I think the Aztecs make a great case study. It is almost amusing to me, that anyone would think that their behaviors and practices would not be inculcated into their children in subtle and not so subtle ways from the get go.

I am not too concerned about whether or not the Genesis account of Noah and the flood should or should not be taken as allegory. It really doesn’t matter. My purpose is to show that even if taken literally, there is no reason whatsoever to take exception to the actions of God. There is nothing in the narrative to indicate that anyone that was swept away in the flood was good or innocent and thereby treated unjustly. I completely disagree with the statements presented on this thread that God is unjust, unmerciful, and some sort of genocidal maniac. This is IMHO an absurd construct and that attempting to use scripture to establish this idea will inevitably fail.

 

[Pax]

You are saying that somehow everyone was 100% evil except Noah’s wife, and Noah’s kids, and Noah’s son’s wives happened to escape this? What happened to your feral people make feral children argument? And what makes you think that god did give ample opportunity? When you condemn even little children and teens, you have not worked nearly as hard as you should have! God knows all, and could have intervened far, far in advance. I would not underestimate god to say that he could not have successfully intervened.

Simply read my prior posts on the narrative. I pointed out that the passage begins by talking about the reduced life spans and that the extremely long lives of Noah and his predecessors are associated with their closeness to God and that the shortening was due to man’s distancing himself from God. This is not an overnight issue and the men of the times had plenty of opportunity to turn to God. Somehow Noah and his family managed to be just in the sight of God. Just because the details of this are not explained is not important. The narrative fulfills its purpose without writing an overly detailed tome on the subject.

The feral people line of reasoning has not been refuted and there is no contradiction. Noah and his family are simply the only exceptions cited. The peoples surrounding them were evil. I simply gave some reasons and examples as to how this might be explained. The narrative says that everyone else was evil and violent. It doesn’t mention children per se. Interestingly enough, Noah and his married sons are not said to have had any young children of their own when they entered the Ark. I have no clue as to whether or not there is a significance to this as it might pertain to the rest of his neighbors and the ages of their off spring. Nor can I hazard a guess as to whether this has an allegorical component. It may or it may not.

I so not understand why you are still attempting to be critical of the flood as it may or may not pertain to God intervening earlier in other ways. The language of the narrative says “that every imagination of the thoughts of his[man’s] heart was only evil continually.” You can’t even see that the Aztecs were evil. You separate their evil religious practices from the people involved in them. Do some research on the Aztecs. Researchers do not conclude that there mythology alone explains why so much blood was shed and why so many people were sacrificed. You are IMHO looking for any and all reasons to excuse man and condemn God. This is totally backwards.

Just because the narrative does not spell out specific steps that God may have taken does not mean that man was not given interventions or opportunities. Noah is the example that something was going on and available. Simply place the blame where it belongs. Man’s free will is essential to his humanity even if man uses it to his own destruction. The darkened senses of men that have imaginations with every thought of their hearts focused on evil continually kind of says it all. Why lay the blame on God? God is not in debt to man in any way shape or form. Your view would make it appear that God is in debt to man.

Your criticisms set up conflicts that would compromise or perhaps destroy man’s free. Likewise, God’s perfect justice would have to conform to your human sense of justice that is imperfect and lacking in an immediate perspective of the events. You are also injecting something into this that is not supported by the text. The narrative says nothing of innocent children and teenagers. If there were teenagers and children swept away in the flood then they were not innocent and they fell into the category of those described as having “evil thoughts continually.” You have not established that man is right and God is wrong or injust.

 

[Pax]

Genesis 6: 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish That reads that god did not just allow a natural flood to occur, but in fact he took initiative to create a global flood.

God used a natural disaster to sweep away the evil in the world. God spared Noah and his family. God is the primary cause for both. I agree with your point and this is why I thought the deluge was the best example from scripture for arguing for and against your position on God’s judgments.

ultimate

example to the people. Saying he has to stoop to a more primitive form of justice is absurd.

I nearly drowned when I was a child and my experience does not fit with your descriptions. If you are aware that you are dying then death is terrifying to some degree. Your methods are not necessarily more merciful. Descriptions of limnic eruptions and the subsequent suffocations of people by CO2 don’t sound like fun at all. Your recommendations are meaningless. There are too many factors involved here. Let’s suppose for example that the flood was the choice by God because it would have the least negative future impact for the environment which would be necessary for Noah’s family and the wild life that would have to survive later. Your solutions may have made that impossible or very difficult. Likewise, if God poisoned the air as you would have suggested than there may have been no reasonable way to save Noah. The building of the Ark itself is a testimony and work of faith and obedience on Noah’s part. This could also play into the choice on God’s part. I suspect that your solutions are fraught with other problems that we have not thought of.

So you teach the people who are about to die a torturous lessen in god’s justice? Why not just create a story to symbolize, instead of actually doing the terrible deed? There are a huge number of alternative possibilities that haven’t been utilized. Again you fall back on the idea that we can’t understand god, and that since you believe your bible is perfect, that means that any contrary understanding of it must be in error, even though the story just doesn’t make sense in a Catholic context.

I think I have already answered this. Your contentions for possibilities has been dealt with and your own suggested alternative of poisoning the air is probably not an option and could be defined by someone as torturous. You call the flood a terrible deed. If you mean terrible in the sense of immoral than you are simply wrong. It is immoral for a man to blow up a dam to cause a flood that damages property, damages the environment, and kills people. If God were to vaporize the world today it would not be an immoral act. It is His possession as He created it. He knows His creation in intimate detail. He would not vaporize the world or cause the deluge in Noah’s time unless it met the requirements of both His perfect mercy and His perfect justice.

Your inability to see the justice in the narrative of Noah escapes me. Likewise, you assume that no mercy or patience was shown by God. You assume that no interventions were made even though Noah and his family would be an example that such was provided. Noah and his family are the only one’s that walked with God and were thus the only ones that took advantage of His mercy.

Speculations by you and me are in some ways problematic when it comes to the deluge. INHO we are given what we need in the narrative. It is a short tale with little detail. We are not supplied with pages and pages of information that would answer any and all questions that we might ask. Instead, it gives us just enough information to get the intended message across. I can live with that.

 

[_A]

Instead, it gives us just enough information to get the intended message across. I can live with that.

Let’s boil this down to basics. If there is pain, anguish, pestilence, rape, torture and politics, your thoery of Yahweh suggests that he **made **it all that way. If you are going to give your Yahweh credit for creating everything, and omnipotence, then he gets credit for everything. Not just the happy stuff. If you give this creature the characteristic of being the cause of everything, then he is not only the largest cause of abortion, but the only cause,j for example.
How can the catholic church take a stance against their own gods’ plan?

 

[Pax]

Please go back and read my prior posts…particularly those that address the issue of primary and secondary causes. Likewise, please consider everything that has been said about free will.

 

[Aleii]

justinthemartyr:

no one said the persons and creatures that died, suffered in any way. God has absolute authority over His creation.

How do you make the world drown and not cause terror and suffering?

In the situation with the world being evil, they obviously had their chances to love and serve God and did not, and therefore God did what was best for His creation at that moment, which is beyond our full comprehension. Similarly to the way satellites and communications 80 years ago would have been laughed at by persons such as yourself, and pretty much everyone else on the planet. Who would have thought 80 years ago that we not only would go to space, but also be able to talk to dozens of people from every area of the earth at the exact same time through a chat room on a web site? It would have been laughed out of the room. Just as you laugh now and think you have some sort of wisdom that we lack, or greater wisdom than the God who created you, of which you cannot even explain what he created and how it works so amazingly, such as the human eye in connection with the brain. You may have hypothoses on these things, but no absolutes.

Again…. If you think a child has failed, then you have not given the child enough chances nor the proper intervention. I do not laugh at purported technology of the future – its exciting to hear new ideas, even far fetched ones, and brainstorm on if it is possible. It is fascinating to me. I’m a big sci-fi person. But if I can see a better alternative than god, who should easily be at the highest standard possible, there’s something wrong. Normally, when you make a computer program, or anything, you seek to make it self-sustaining, good for the long haul, and work to fix any errors before release. I see humans as more biologically based/mechanical/less free will than you so we may need to just end it right here. But god knew that if he created Adam and Eve just so, and placed this tree in this location, and these animals in these locations, and this stream in this location, that events in the future would be shaped by that. God could see from the get-go this world being evil problem, yet let things go by until they were so bad he needed to destroy it all? Somehow several daughter in several evil families happened to become righteous and marry Noah and Noah’s son – doesn’t that say that other people could become better too if given the proper chances and rehabilitation? It doesn’t make sense to say otherwise.

This is similar to our knowledge and wisdom as compared to the Intelligence (God) which created it.

Ok, but this absolutely can not be used to say we can not critically interpret the Bible. Otherwise, I’ll start talking about how we can not fully understand Zeus, therefore Zeus is 100% right and we should banish the thoughts in our mind that might say otherwise and follow him.

Pax:

The feral people line of reasoning has not been refuted and there is no contradiction.

We are not saying that genes and environment don’t play a huge role in a person’s development. We are, however, saying you can not condemn a fetus/child just because they happen to be born from terrible parents. Environment makes a bigger impact than genes do, but just because a parent was a murderer, does not mean a child will be, (nor especially not a fetus!! That is a horrendous and unjustified thing to condemn them!! Prove that children adopted from murderers will be murderers and then we might have something to talk about, otherwise that is simply a horrible thing to say.) especially if they are placed in a better environment. You seem to be taking a black and white stance, while notself and I are arguing it should be shades of gray instead.

I completely disagree with the statements presented on this thread that God is unjust, unmerciful, and some sort of genocidal maniac. This is IMHO an absurd construct and that attempting to use scripture to establish this idea will inevitably fail.

And I completely disagree that you disagree with critically looking at a situation involving god to see if god measures up to the highest standard possible, which he should pass with absolute flying colors. You are making excuses for god and not giving enough credit to the ability of humans to be rehabilitated. I don’t entirely blame you though, I know its just a caveat of religion, a protection, that you must, from the beginning, look at any story as god being 100% right lest you start to suspect that maybe the religion isn’t right, and alter your thoughts in any way possible to achieve that. Until you can openly say that you will be open-minded to any idea possible, we can not accurately discuss this solution.