Jesus and Comparative Mythology

[Kaninchen]

What the heck is this? You come back, no Hi Kaninchen is back. Berlusconi is still causing trouble in your absence. Hmm…

In all honesty I am happy because Today A.V. -1 City - 1

Made my day.

In any event since I just extended a welcome to a new member; my manners should dictate that I state welcome back Kani here because I don’t know where to post elsewhere. Back to the matter at hand and take it easy on me:shrug:. Sorry for the diversion folks.

Grazie a te but it was only a month in Italy. As to Silvio, a month of ‘Il Cavaliere’ on the TV news every day was quite enough - I wonder if they had a thread on the Dino Boffo affair (editor of the Catholic paper ‘Avvenire’ who was forced to resign, basically as part of the Berlusconi-owned media’s counterattack on those who have been annoying ‘il capo di tutti i capi’) anywhere on CAF.

Ah well, looks like CAF will have to put up with me until next year’s return to ‘il bel paese’.

Lewis did pose a trilemma not a dilemma, by the way.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It seem that yankee and others, seem to believe in the same theory that was proposed by Zeitgeist, the Movie that assert in Part I of the movie that Christianity is borrowed from other religion. A lot of historians criticized that movie for sending out a lot of misinformation, and lack of any truth scholarship.

 

[yankee_doodle]

When your mind is absolutely closed to any possibility of proof (as you stated with your prejudicial judgement that “no evidence is possible”) then yes, probative value is meaningless and thus- your statement is incomprehensible. How can it be otherwise?

Well, do you have any evidence? Anything that even lends itself to scientific examination? No, you only have the same argument from incredulity religions have always used to sustain itself. We can’t explain why eclipses happen, therefore god (or the gods). We don’t know why it rains, so let’s do a rain dance or sacrifice a goat to the gods. We don’t know what caused the big bang, therefore god.

Even your metaphysical argument doesn’t necessitate god. Again, it’s purely an argument from incredulity.

Wait a minute. The original concept of holes through the unfathomable prospect of space and time was not originally “magical” in it’s audacity? Again Yankee, can you truly comprehend space-time? Much less a “hole” through such an “unnatural” conceptual model? What evidence have you personally experienced that “proves” space-time and wormholes to you? Feel free to take a pass on this question with the “Red Herring” card Yankee.

It was theorized through mathematics, which is something real and tangible. Whether the math is right or not is a different question, but it’s still a theory with a rational basis. Do you have any mathematical formulas that show the reasonableness of religion? No!

No. It was a concept borne out of his mysticism. Does that make it less “factual”? Less real? Or is it purely imaginative mythology like… “love” for instance?

Something born out of mysticism is not factual. Indeed it can’t even be classified as a reasonable theory unless there’s a rational basis for believing its true. Love is an emotion we know exists (terrible analogy).

So… the original concept of a “missing link” was wrong? Or has the goal post of “empirical evidence” been moved, ever so slightly?

Here’s an article on the find:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

Science is wrong all the time, and indeed scientists have every incentive to prove each other wrong (this is one of the great features of science, and why, as a body, it’s far more trustworthy than religious institutions).

I wonder, would you believe in God if He jumped through your window tonight, Yankee?

Yes I would, as long as it was really god and not a bible thumper with a bad halloween costume

Without time or space- what does it matter? The model is outside of nature. It is supernatural- is it not Yankee? You seem to be dodging that question. Should I let it slide, Yankee?

I’m not dodging the question (I think I answered it twice). Before the big bang scientists posit there was a singularity comprised of dense hot matter. The key word is “matter” (which is a natural property). Again, the conditions had to exist to make the big bang possible, and those conditions were natural (not supernatural).

A better question is what caused those conditions to exist.

 

[WellAndShallows]

Well, do you have any evidence? Anything that even lends itself to scientific examination?

Again Yankee, you ask a fallacious question. You have already stated that your mind is decidedly closed to all but one answer. You have already declared that no evidence is ever possible in your mind. And yet you ask: ‘Do you have any evidence?’ Again, in that predetermined context your question is meaningless and incomprehensible. And you have yet to give any explanation to counter that salient point.

It was theorized through mathematics, which is something real and tangible. Whether the math is right or not is a different question, but it’s still a theory with a rational basis. Do you have any mathematical formulas that show the reasonableness of religion? No!

“Tangible” Yankee? The math is “tangible” yet unproven? Have we seen a wormhole? Have we touched a wormhole? Have we photographed a wormhole? Or do we “believe” there are wormholes? Where is your “empirical evidence” Yankee?

Love is an emotion we know exists (terrible analogy).

I will concede that my question was a poor analogy Yankee …uhm … just as soon as you prove to me that “love” exists. Have you measured “love”? Have you seen “love”? Have you touched love? Give me “empirical evidence” of “love” Yankee.

Science is wrong all the time, and indeed scientists have every incentive to prove each other wrong (this is one of the great features of science, and why, as a body, it’s far more trustworthy than religious institutions).

Actually, The Church admitted that it was wrong about Galileo, and yet cough some people use that incident as a club to forever beat the Church over the head as they shout “See! That proves you have no credibility!” Let us revisit St Augustine’s position- shall we?

“Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason”

Yes I would, as long as it was really god and not a bible thumper with a bad halloween costume

How about God with a “legitimate” appearance Yankee? Would you believe then?

'm not dodging the question (I think I answered it twice). Before the big bang scientists posit there was a singularity comprised of dense hot matter. The key word is “matter” (which is a natural property). Again, the conditions had to exist to make the big bang possible, and those conditions were natural (not supernatural).

Again Yankee- “matter” alone (without space or time) does not constitute “nature”. That model (or “condition” if you will) would be outside of nature; in other words “supernatural”. Are you willing to concede that there is a “state”, or “occurrence”, or “model” that is evidence for the “supernatural”?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Again Yankee, you ask a fallacious question. You have already stated that your mind is decidedly closed to all but one answer. You have already declared that no evidence is ever possible in your mind. And yet you ask: ‘Do you have any evidence?’ Again, in that predetermined context your question is meaningless and incomprehensible. And you have yet to give any explanation to counter that salient point.

Red herring. I’m open to evidence. Do you have any mathematical formulas that tell us god must exist? Any verifiable sightings of god? Is there a shred of real evidence that god exists? Unprovable metaphysical assumptions, miracles that do not lend themselves to scientific scrutiny, etc. is not proof.

You’re plugging in biblical rhetoric and platitudes, with the pretended inference you actually have evidence, when you don’t.

“Tangible” Yankee? The math is “tangible” yet unproven? Have we seen a wormhole? Have we touched a wormhole? Have we photographed a wormhole? Or do we “believe” there are wormholes? Where is your “empirical evidence” Yankee?

Let me provide an example. Pluto orbits the sun once every 248 years. The first time man has ever observed Pluto was roughly 100 years ago. Therefore, we’ve never actually witnessed Pluto make a full orbit around the sun, yet we know it orbits the sun once every 248 years. We assume the laws of physics remain constant, and we do the math.

There are plenty of things we can know exist, and plenty of other things we can theorize exist, based on science; so no I don’t need to always see it to believe it!

I will concede that my question was a poor analogy Yankee …uhm … just as soon as you prove to me that “love” exists. Have you measured “love”? Have you seen “love”? Have you touched love? Give me “empirical evidence” of “love” Yankee.

Emotive platitudes aren’t logical arguments

Actually, The Church admitted that it was wrong about Galileo, and yet cough some people use that incident as a club to forever beat the Church over the head as they shout “See! That proves you have no credibility!” Let us revisit St Augustine’s position- shall we?

Did it apologize? Or did it do something like express regret (and toss out some sophistic feel good baloney that’s just short of an apology)?

“Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason”

good for Augustine. In that case half of Genesis and all of Exodus are gone.

How about God with a “legitimate” appearance Yankee? Would you believe then?

it would have to obviously be god. I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” (probably some typical theist play on words) so I need elaboration before taking your bait.

Again Yankee- “matter” alone (without space or time) does not constitute “nature”. That model (or “condition” if you will) would be outside of nature; in other words “supernatural”. Are you willing to concede that there is a “state”, or “occurrence”, or “model” that is evidence for the “supernatural”?

When I say matter, scientists believe the singularity was comprised of physical elements that appear in nature today (so the cause for the big bang was a natural one); but I’m not sure why you’re fighting so hard on this point. Whether god was the cause of the big bang itself, or he was the cause of its cause … wouldn’t your point remain valid?

You say at the end of the chain of causation god is the necessary first cause. It doesn’t make my case any better whether or not we can trace the trail of causation back before the big bang.

 

[WellAndShallows]

Red herring. I’m open to evidence.

Wait. When previously asked: So no evidence is ever possible?

You stated: “Of course not.” Are you now changing your position to the possibility that there may be evidence of God’s existence, Yankee?

Let me provide an example. Pluto orbits the sun once every 248 years. The first time man has ever observed Pluto was roughly 100 years ago. Therefore, we’ve never actually witnessed Pluto make a full orbit around the sun, yet we know it orbits the sun once every 248 years. We assume the laws of physics remain constant, and we do the math.

There are plenty of things we can know exist, and plenty of other things we can theorize exist, based on science; so no I don’t need to always see it to believe it!

Bad example Yankee. We verified Pluto’s existence by visual identification. From there we extrapolated Pluto’s movements by observing it’s position over a period of time. Wormholes on the other hand, have yet to be positively identified. Only theorized. So scientific theory is enough for you to “believe”? Scientific theory that you admit is often wrong? So what is factual and tangible about that? Where is the empirical evidence?
Oh and speaking of science often being wrong- in recent years “science” can’t no longer agree with “itself” if Pluto is even a “planet”. Empirical evidence has a tendency to redefine itself doesn’t it Yankee.

Emotive platitudes aren’t logical arguments

Who used emotive platitudes Yankee? You stated “Love is an emotion we know exists.”
And I simply asked you for “empirical evidence” of “love”.

If you don’t want to answer the question then feel free to say so.

Did it apologize? Or did it do something like express regret (and toss out some sophistic feel good baloney that’s just short of an apology)?

The Church has continually admitted that it was wrong. But now you are demanding an apology, Yankee? So now you want emotive platitudes?

Has science ever apologized for the most amazing aspect of the missing link; The fact that it’s still missing?

good for Augustine. In that case half of Genesis and all of Exodus are gone.

Mmmm nope. They’re still there. And still relevant to contextual interpretation.

it would have to obviously be god. I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” (probably some typical theist play on words) so I need elaboration before taking your bait.

No need to be paranoid Yankee. I’m letting you determine the definition of “legitimate”. The elaboration is yours to make. No bait. No tricks. Just a humble question from a humble man who’s learning about himself with each passing word.

When I say matter, scientists believe the singularity was comprised of physical elements that appear in nature today (so the cause for the big bang was a natural one); but I’m not sure why you’re fighting so hard on this point.

Not quite Yankee. Time and space are just as much a part of nature as matter. In fact, without time and space, physical elements would have no “where” to “appear”. And time was so distorted at the singularity that (for all practical purposes) there was no “time” before the Big Bang. So you see, I’m not “fighting” you on this point Yankee. I’m simply correcting the fundamental flaw in your premise of “nature”. If anything you seem to be resisting all the factual elements that comprise nature.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Wait. When previously asked: So no evidence is ever possible?

You stated: “Of course not.” Are you now changing your position to the possibility that there may be evidence of God’s existence, Yankee?

What the ****

Here’s the prior discourse you’re referring to (verbatim):

WellAndShallows:

So no evidence is ever possible.

yankee_doodle:

Of course not, but the evidence needs to at least show a reasonable likelihood.

The last clause of my response qualifies the statement I think pretty clearly.

Of course not, meaning of course I don’t mean no evidence is ever possible, but the evidence needs to at least show a reasonable likelihood (of the truth of the thing asserted).

Bad example Yankee. We verified Pluto’s existence by visual identification. From there we extrapolated Pluto’s movements by observing it’s position over a period of time. Wormholes on the other hand, have yet to be positively identified. Only theorized. So scientific theory is enough for you to “believe”? Scientific theory that you admit is often wrong? So what is factual and tangible about that? Where is the empirical evidence?

Yes, and that’s why we can say we “know” Pluto orbits the sun once every 248 years without actually observing an entire rotation. In other words these are the sort of circumstances where we can accept something as factually correct without observing it.

Wormholes are entirely theoretical (so they cannot be accepted as fact). However, the fact that they’re based on good math makes the theory reasonable (and worthy of further research). If there were evidence of god comparable to the evidence we have regarding wormholes, believing god exists might indeed warrant further consideration.

You act as if atheists don’t want to believe in god for some diabolical reason, an assumption you make because this is what your bible teaches (in fact most of us were raised in Christian families in a Christian society and have very few ulterior incentives for identifying as and remaining atheists, besides the fact we don’t believe the evidence presented by theists is credible).

I suppose some think they’re mad at god and walk away from religion (or go through some unfortunate catastrophe in life), but that’s different than being a thoughtful non-theist who really has no reason to be mad at anyone (much less a figure we view as mythological). I can assure you, I gave religion much more consideration than I would give any other proposition based on a similar amount of evidence.

continued in following post

 

[yankee_doodle]

Oh and speaking of science often being wrong- in recent years “science” can’t no longer agree with “itself” if Pluto is even a “planet”. Empirical evidence has a tendency to redefine itself doesn’t it Yankee.

Indeed, and in fact we should celebrate when an entire professional community is so willing to admit it was wrong. That’s sincerity worthy of trust.

Who used emotive platitudes Yankee? You stated “Love is an emotion we know exists.”
And I simply asked you for “empirical evidence” of “love”.

If you don’t want to answer the question then feel free to say so.

I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist, so I’m not an expert in the field of human emotion. I’m sure a professional could give a good answer, like we’ve done numerous studies on human emotions, and we have plenty of empirical evidence that love exists.

If you like I could Google love and dig up an answer for you … but if you’re really curious you sound bright enough to do the research yourself (and somehow I suspect that’s not why you’re asking the question anyway).

The Church has continually admitted that it was wrong. But now you are demanding an apology, Yankee? So now you want emotive platitudes?

OK great … all I asked for is a link to an article where the CC officially admitted it was wrong about anything? Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so. From what I can tell they very carefully say things like the Galileo affair was very unfortunate, and Galileo made many great contributions to science, bla bla bla … yet never directly say – we were wrong, we reverse the papal bull that affirmed his conviction, etc.

I’d love to know they did – and if you prove me wrong, my respect for the CC can only grow.

Has science ever apologized for the most amazing aspect of the missing link; The fact that it’s still missing?

That’s a silly statement.

Mmmm nope. They’re still there. And still relevant to contextual interpretation.

Fair enough, but we know the chronology of Genesis is wrong, it’s virtually impossible to think Adam and Eve were literal people (and the Pauline epistles rely heavily on the Adam & Eve narrative), and if the Exodus account were true Egypt would have been stripped of half its entire population, it would have caused regional economic collapse (which is recorded no where in history), the line of Hebrews in the desert would have been 150 miles long, and there’s logistically no way most of the events described in the chapter could have happened. It’s outside the range of historical possibility, but yeah sure it’s still in the bible (a book that’s almost entirely outside the range of reasonable historical possibility).

No need to be paranoid Yankee. I’m letting you determine the definition of “legitimate”. The elaboration is yours to make. No bait. No tricks. Just a humble question from a humble man who’s learning about himself with each passing word.

It is a baiting question. If I set the bar for legitimate will that stop you from criticizing my criteria? This isn’t paranoia, this is someone whose been down this road before and who understands there’s only one direction entertaining these sort of questions go.

You’ll criticize me for not answering anyway, but at least the slippery slope will be much shorter.

Not quite Yankee. Time and space are just as much a part of nature as matter. In fact, without time and space, physical elements would have no “where” to “appear”. And time was so distorted at the singularity that (for all practical purposes) there was no “time” before the Big Bang. So you see, I’m not “fighting” you on this point Yankee. I’m simply correcting the fundamental flaw in your premise of “nature”. If anything you seem to be resisting all the factual elements that comprise nature.

The question, when time began, is at this point theoretical and subject to lively debate within the scientific and philosophical community. Don’t get me wrong, you have good company in your assertion (I think Stephen Hawking might agree with you). Nevertheless, you’re assertion is theoretical, not factual (and indeed we don’t have enough information about what happened before the big bang to know one way or the other).

In reality the question is usually whether the universe before the big bang was classic nature (described by a smooth space-time), or was it in a highly fluctuating quantum state.

Nature: The material world and its phenomena. This is a good broad definition of nature (that will probably withstand future refinements of the big bang theory). Some scientists believe we’ll never know what happened before the big bang, but here’s a link illustrating some of the ongoing research on this topic:

space.com/scienceastronomy/090113-st-before-big-bang.html

Here’s an excerpt from another article:

An explanation for this “heavy-on-one-side universe” would be if these fluctuations represented a structure left over from the universe that produced our universe.

universetoday.com/2008/06/13/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/

Here’s some even more interesting insight into modern theoretical physics:

blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/category/science/

 

[AntiTheist]

Can you name another belief system that compares to this Christ?

I think that in fact you have missed my point. “This message is unique” is not an argument for the message being true. You cannot logically make that work.

Just because a message is unique in no way makes it any more likely to be true.

I’d love to see you try to demonstrate how a statement being “unique” makes it any more likely to be true.

QuietTimes:

I would love to see your scientific or historical account as to why Jesus was just a myth.

Science isn’t in the business of proving that stories are myths. There’s no “scientific or historical account” as to why the Greek gods are myths, for example. There’s just no evidence that the myths are true.

Similarly, there’s no evidence that the Jesus stories are true. As I said, they seem to be legends, oral tales that developed over years of tellings and retellings that eventually got written down long after the purported events. That’s not a sensible basis for believing an account, particularly not an account that involves magic.

 

[cantheist]

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition at Google Video

This movie is a must see, on this topic it is 122 min but a great movie. It is a inspiration for all godly catholics and that atheist should see it he needs to learn more about the origin of religion.
god bless you atheist
I do not want you to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity to never be forgiven for your lack of faith in something that may seem not to be at all logical but it is trust me and give 10% of your money. Just your faith and money is all god needs so please repent and give to catholic church. You will see how much god loves you when you are in hell.

 

[Kaninchen]

I know I’ve said this before but one of the great triumphs of Christianity was to invent an illness (eternal damnation) and announce itself as the only cure - giving adherents the opportunity, in the face of any doubters, to say: ‘join us or you’ll burn for eternity’.

The problem, for Christians, was that they then split into different groups who all say to each other, never mind those of us who don’t believe a word of the whole business, ‘if you don’t believe exactly in the particular way we do, you’ll burn for eternity’.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I know I’ve said this before but one of the great triumphs of Christianity was to invent an illness (eternal damnation) and announce itself as the only cure - giving adherents the opportunity, in the face of any doubters, to say: ‘join us or you’ll burn for eternity’.

The problem, for Christians, was that they then split into different groups who all say to each other, never mind those of us who don’t believe a word of the whole business, ‘if you don’t believe exactly in the particular way we do, you’ll burn for eternity’.

Sounds more like a Nietzschean argument rather than one coming from another theist

 

[WellAndShallows]

The last clause of my response qualifies the statement I think pretty clearly.

Of course not, meaning of course I don’t mean no evidence is ever possible, but the evidence needs to at least show a reasonable likelihood (of the truth of the thing asserted).

My apologies Yankee. I was obviously laboring under the interpretation that your response: “Of course not” meant “No” (no evidence is ever possible). Again, my apologies. I never intended to misconstrue your position. I should have verified more clarification from you.

Yes, and that’s why we can say we “know” Pluto orbits the sun once every 248 years without actually observing an entire rotation. In other words these are the sort of circumstances where we can accept something as factually correct without observing it.

Wormholes are entirely theoretical (so they cannot be accepted as fact). However, the fact that they’re based on good math makes the theory reasonable (and worthy of further research). If there were evidence of god comparable to the evidence we have regarding wormholes, believing god exists might indeed warrant further consideration.

My point however is that Pluto’s movements have been observed over decades. This makes the extrapolations much more conclusive than theoretical. However, as we both agree, wormholes are entirely theoretical. Not just theoretical, but theory that is far more radical than the mere extrapolation of physically observed data over an extended period such as Pluto.

It is important to remember that Einstein’s theory of relativity was initially wrong and was finally corrected by the brilliant Catholic priest/ professor of physics and astronomer- Monsignor Georges Lemaître (author of The Big Bang Theory):

"*At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître’s theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable”[5] (“Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.”) The same year, Lemaître returned to MIT to present his doctoral thesis on The gravitational field in a fluid sphere of uniform invariant density according to the theory of relativity. Upon obtaining the PhD, he was named ordinary Professor at the Catholic University of Leuven.

Both Friedmann and Lemaître proposed relativistic cosmologies featuring an expanding universe. However, Lemaître was the first to propose that the expansion explains the redshift of galaxies. He further concluded that an initial “creation-like” event must have occurred. In the 1980s, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde modified this theory by adding to it a period of inflation.

Einstein at first dismissed Friedmann and then (privately) Lemaître out of hand, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories. After Hubble’s discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître’s theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.
*" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Why is this relevant? Because it is believed that Einstein did not want to face the “Deistic” implications of a Cosmic Egg when the accelerating (not constant as he proposed) expansion of the universe was reversed back to it’s singularity where time was so distorted it could no longer be defined as “time” in a practical sense as we know it. Ergo- the “creation” of the universe took place beyond time. Quite a feat. But quite simple for a supreme entity Who is beyond time. “I Am Who Am”. Centuries before, St Augustine aptly came to the broad metaphysical proposal which said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

"The latter part of Augustine’s Confessions consists of an extended meditation on the nature of time. Even the agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell was impressed by this. He wrote, “a very admirable relativistic theory of time. … It contains a better and clearer statement than Kant’s of the subjective theory of time - a theory which, since Kant, has been widely accepted among philosophers.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

*"Lemaître himself also described his theory as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation”; it became better known as the “Big Bang theory,” the term having originally been a sarcastic remark of Fred Hoyle’s.

This proposal met skepticism from his fellow scientists at the time. Eddington found Lemaître’s notion unpleasant. Einstein found it suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. On the other hand, Einstein encouraged Lemaître to look into the possibility of models of non-isotropic expansion, so it’s clear he was not altogether dismissive of the concept. He also appreciated Lemaître’s argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past."* - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Of course Fr. Lemaître gets little to no public recognition from today’s scientific community (I believe) because he was first and foremost a Catholic priest, and his theory clearly left the door wide open for a “Cosmic Egg” constructed and “hatched” by a Divine Creator.

This is what I love about Catholicism, Yankee; it doesn’t reject Truth (whether spiritual OR scientific) it embraces it.

 

[yankee_doodle]

My apologies Yankee. I was obviously laboring under the interpretation that your response: “Of course not” meant “No” (no evidence is ever possible). Again, my apologies. I never intended to misconstrue your position. I should have verified more clarification from you.

No problem.

Why is this relevant? Because it is believed that Einstein did not want to face the “Deistic” implications of a Cosmic Egg when the accelerating (not constant as he proposed) expansion of the universe was reversed back to it’s singularity where time was so distorted it could no longer be defined as “time” in a practical sense as we know it. Ergo- the “creation” of the universe took place beyond time. Quite a feat. But quite simple for a supreme entity Who is beyond time. “I Am Who Am”. Centuries before, St Augustine aptly came to the broad metaphysical proposal which said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

The problem is even this view of cosmology is beginning to fall apart. Astronomers have discovered that the universe is lopisided, which indicates substantial mass may have existed before the big bang (and even the view that time didn’t begin until the inflation, along with the inflation theory itself, is now being questioned).

What they believe is there was a previous universe before our own, and they’re working on proving it right now. So I guess my advice to theists would be, don’t become too wedded to a certain view of cosmology.

As for your claims about Catholicism and thruth, I’ll withhold my opinion on that one.

 

[WellAndShallows]

Indeed, and in fact we should celebrate when an entire professional community is so willing to admit it was wrong. That’s sincerity worthy of trust.

OK great … all I asked for is a link to an article where the CC officially admitted it was wrong about anything? Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so. From what I can tell they very carefully say things like the Galileo affair was very unfortunate, and Galileo made many great contributions to science, bla bla bla … yet never directly say – we were wrong, we reverse the papal bull that affirmed his conviction, etc.

I’d love to know they did – and if you prove me wrong, my respect for the CC can only grow.

**From NewScientist.com (November 1992) Vatican Admits Galileo Was Right **

“Last week, 359 years later, the Church finally agreed. At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. The formal rehabilitation was based on the findings of a committee of the Academy the Pope set up in 1979, soon after taking office. The committee decided the Inquisition had acted in good faith, but was wrong.” - newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html

From TimesOnline.com (March 4 2008) Vatican Recants With A Statue Of Galileo

*"Four hundred years after it put Galileo on trial for heresy the Vatican is to complete its rehabilitation of the great scientist by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.

The planned statue is to stand in the Vatican gardens near the apartment in which Galileo was incarcerated while awaiting trial in 1633 for advocating heliocentrism, the Copernican doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Nicola Cabibbo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a nuclear physicist, said: “The Church wants to close the Galileo affair and reach a definitive understanding not only of his great legacy but also of the relationship between science and faith.”

Professor Cabibbo said that the statue - paid for by private donations - was appropriate because Galileo had been one of the founders of the Lincei Academy, a forerunner of the papal body, in 1603. He had not been tortured or burned at the stake, as many believed, though he was forced to recant by the Inquisition.

The move coincides with a series of celebrations in Rome, Pisa, Florence and Padua in the run-up to next year’s 400th anniversary of Galileo’s development of the telescope. Events include a Vatican conference on Galileo to be attended by 40 international scientists and a re-examination of his trial at an institute in Florence run by the Jesuits, who were among Galileo’s fiercest opponents in the Inquisition.

The celebrations begin today with the opening of an exhibition on Galileo’s telescope entitled “The Instrument Which Changed the World” at the Museum of the History of Science in Florence. The museum, which is undergoing an 8 million (£6 million) renovation, contains many of Galileo’s own scientific instruments.

Paolo Galluzzi, head of the Florence museum, said that “even if Galileo had been wrong, you cannot judge scientific errors in an ecclesisatical court”. Giorgio Ierano, a cultural historian, said: “The wrong done to Galileo is being put right on the territory of his historic enemies. Wherever Galileo is in the afterlife, he must be enjoying this moment.”

In January Pope Benedict XVI called off a visit to Sapienza University, Rome, after staff and students accused him of defending the Inquisition’s condemnation of Galileo. They cited a speech he made at La Sapienza in 1990, while still a cardinal, in which he quoted a description of the trial of Galileo as fair. The Vatican said that the Pope had been misquoted.

The Vatican’s repentance over its treatment of Galileo began in 1979, when John Paul II invited the Church to rethink the trial of Galileo."* - timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3478943.ece

I submit to you Yankee, that The Church did indeed admit it’s error towards Galileo. In fact, they displayed their acknowledgement in stone. Literally. In the statue of Galileo himself. Is that not beautiful in it’s humility? I think it is. Again, this is what I love about the Catholic Church- it is in love with the Truth and it embraces it. And that is exactly what caused Chesterton to fall in love with The Roman Catholic Church as well (much to his initial dismay). If you have never done so, read G.K.Chesterton. If you have, read him again. Especially ‘The Everlasting Man’. This was the book that C.S. Lewis pickup as a skeptic and put down as a believer. Which is exactly what happened to me.

 

[WellAndShallows]

I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist, so I’m not an expert in the field of human emotion. I’m sure a professional could give a good answer, like we’ve done numerous studies on human emotions, and we have plenty of empirical evidence that love exists.

If you like I could Google love and dig up an answer for you … but if you’re really curious you sound bright enough to do the research yourself (and somehow I suspect that’s not why you’re asking the question anyway).

Obviously Yankee, neither one of us are “experts” in any of the fields we are discussing so there is no need to defer our opinions solely to the thoughts of “professionals” at this point. We are having a very personal discussion (albeit in a public forum) so I value your opinion. Feel free to use whatever references you wish, this is not a court of law and I’m not trying to corner you with a “gotchya!” moment. That would serve nothing more than to reduce my position to a petty exercise in senseless and undeserved pride, which would contradict the humility that Christ requires of me in my journey of faith.

Fair enough, but we know the chronology of Genesis is wrong, it’s virtually impossible to think Adam and Eve were literal people (and the Pauline epistles rely heavily on the Adam & Eve narrative), and if the Exodus account were true Egypt would have been stripped of half its entire population, it would have caused regional economic collapse (which is recorded no where in history), the line of Hebrews in the desert would have been 150 miles long, and there’s logistically no way most of the events described in the chapter could have happened. It’s outside the range of historical possibility, but yeah sure it’s still in the bible (a book that’s almost entirely outside the range of reasonable historical possibility).

Fair enough Yankee. I have no problem with your position. Again, contextual interpretation does not require the text to be 100% historically accurate.

It is a baiting question. If I set the bar for legitimate will that stop you from criticizing my criteria? This isn’t paranoia, this is someone whose been down this road before and who understands there’s only one direction entertaining these sort of questions go.

You’ll criticize me for not answering anyway, but at least the slippery slope will be much shorter.

Again Yankee, I’m not baiting you. What is the worse thing you can you possibly say? What is the worst thing I can possibly say? Free yourself. Feel free to state your standard of “legitimacy”. The worst I can do is disagree with you. Criticism is obviously an integral part of any debate and it doesn’t have to result in insults. That’s my goal, at least.

Instead of continuing a thousand fires of debate at once Yankee, I propose we concentrate on one point at a time as best we can. Most of the topics we have covered are subject to perception and interpretation and can spiral on into infinity. I propose we address the personal psychology of our individual beliefs. I think that would be a refreshing and enlightening exercise for both of us. At least I’m sure I could discover more about myself if nothing else. Would you be open to this Yankee?

 

[WellAndShallows]

What they believe is there was a previous universe before our own, and they’re working on proving it right now. So I guess my advice to theists would be, don’t become too wedded to a certain view of cosmology.

As for your claims about Catholicism and thruth, I’ll withhold my opinion on that one.

I’m completely open to new scientific discoveries Yankee. If there was a previous universe- no problem. That universe had to come from Someone. No matter how far back the process goes- I believe God started it. To me that is the most logical conclusion there can possibly be. We will probably never agree on that, and that is fine by me. Whatever your beliefs Yankee, I ultimately wish you peace of heart. I was fortunate enough to find that peace through Christ. I wish you the same outcome- whatever path you choose.

 

[WellAndShallows]

OK great … all I asked for is a link to an article where the CC officially admitted it was wrong about anything? Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so. From what I can tell they very carefully say things like the Galileo affair was very unfortunate, and Galileo made many great contributions to science, bla bla bla … yet never directly say – we were wrong, we reverse the papal bull that affirmed his conviction, etc.

I’d love to know they did – and if you prove me wrong, my respect for the CC can only grow.

Yankee my friend, let your respect for the Roman Catholic Church grow.

ONLINE NEWS HOUR WITH JIM LEHRER: A PAPAL APOLOGY (March 13, 2000)

*JIM LEHRER: There was an extraordinary event in Rome yesterday as Pope John Paul II issued an apology for errors of his church over the last 2000 years. Our coverage begins with a report from Peter Morgan of Independent Television News.

PETER MORGAN: The pope’s “Day of Pardon” mass was designed, in the Vatican’s words, to ask forgiveness for the past and present sins of the Church. Pope John Paul wants Catholics to reexamine their consciences in the new millennium. His homily did not single out specific periods or groups in history but a plea to forgive the use of violence in the service of truth was a subtle reference to the brutal excesses of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Cardinal Edward Cassidy talked of the people of Israel, asking questions to acknowledge the sins committed against Jews. There was no specific reference to the Holocaust, and when the pope replied, the effect of Parkinson’s Disease was evident in every word and gesture.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: (translated) We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. *

pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee my friend, let your respect for the Roman Catholic Church grow.

even a tiny respect is better than what I have now

 

[WellAndShallows]

even a tiny respect is better than what I have now

So now you have a newfound respect for The Church (tiny though it may be) Yankee?