My two objections to Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter SebastianTorres
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muchas gracias Pobretón por tu lúcido comentario!
Pobreton said:
Darwin se expresa en términos claros (en su correspondencia) respecto a que no existe ninguna incompatibilidad entre su TEORÍA y una visión teísta de la realidad. Una figura prominente del campo de la botánica en USA era muy amigo suyo, esa persona era cristiana, no recuerdo su nombre. Hay correspondecnia entre ellos, también.
Click to expand...
Creo que te refieres a Alfred Russel Wallace.

Out of topic, estuve leyendo un poco sobre el Carlismo, la leyenda negra de la conquista española y otros temas afines, es muy interesante. Pensar que en un momento fuimos un poderoso Reino (católico, por cierto), hoy que fragmentados estamos en mezquinos estados en crisis!

Saludos, hermano hispanoamericano.
 
Last edited:
Your example of an animal eating a human and being moral or ethical is logically unsound…
If your dog mortally bit your neighbors child, you could get sued and your dog could be put down… a human being is worth more than an animal… this is universal worldwide… calling a woman a bi$ch or a guy a dog is derogatory for a reason
 
Even cultures who practiced child sacrifice realized their human babies were worth more than animals…
 
Wanting to be alive is a universal (unless one is mentally ill or depressed), this is why murdering an innocent person is wrong…

Even atheists strive to be alive and live…
 
Con mucho gusto. 🙂

¡Ya lo encontré! Asa Gray | Biography, Facts, Contributions, & Works | Britannica
His 1856 paper on plant distribution, “Statistics of the Flora of the Northern United States,” was written partly in response to a request by Charles Darwin for a list of American alpine plants. Gray was one of the few persons whom Darwin kept fully informed concerning the publication of his Origin of Species (1859). Gray was a devout Christian, however, and, although he did accept natural selection as the cause of new species, he did not believe it to be the only cause of variation, which he considered to be caused by some inherent power imparted in the beginning by divine agency. Indeed, he was one of the first advocates of the idea of theistic evolution, which holds that natural selection is one of the mechanisms with which God directs the natural world. Gray, an excellent writer of philosophical essays, biographies, and scientific criticism, staunchly supported Darwin’s theories and collected his supporting papers into the widely influential Darwiniana (1876, reprinted 1963).
Click to expand...
Así es, la triste realidad, mi hermano…

Perdieron su religión los “líderes” y acabaron causando desastres. En México, en cuestión de unos años, tuvimos la catastrófica revolución y la guerra cristera. ¡En pleno siglo veinte! Pero, ya desde antes le respondían a “Washington”. Por poco acabamos con un canal como el de Panamá aquí, en tiempos de los juaristas y estuvieron a punto de firmar un acuerdo para permitir que el ejército yanqui entrara a territorio mexicano sin dar explicaciones y de pasada perdieron medio territorio nacional… Pensar que en la época de la Nueva España no dejaban ni siquiera que entraran los extranjeros de visita a menos que tuvieran un permiso de la Corona (y se les podía revocar dicho permiso).

Perdimos la unidad, por culpa de los malos gobiernos y ve cómo nos fue.
 
Last edited:
The “Laws of nature” are universals such as gravity, breathing air etc… also life and dying and preserving life are common to all animals and human, and sentient life
 
Don’t get me wrong, I just meant that what is good for us may be bad for other species, I was refering to the relativity of the concept good-evil if applied to all species besides just humans, not that a man-eating animal would be moral.
A human being worth more that an animal, of course, for you and for me in our opinion but not in the opinion of a lion. that is the “moral relativity” I mean.
 
SebastianTorres said:
Althrough the morality of the catholic is one of the things that attracts me most to the church, specially regarding family values, and the lack of morality is one of the things that I hate most in the enemies of the church, I still beleive that good and evil are relative concepts.

What is good for me is bad for others. You may say “there are unversal goods for all mankind” and you’re right, but even those universal values are relative if we take in consideration all Creation. For example, for a creature that feeds on us or take us as enemies, our common good is bad. Maybe my logic is wrong, I’m not a philosopher, if so please give me your opinion.
Click to expand...
Lee a Séneca. Su tratado sobre la ira (y otros escritos).

Relativismo: ¡OH, JOJO! Cuidado, que a mi en lo personal fue precisamente el Catolicismo lo que terminó de derrumbarme a mis ídolos Nietzscheanos. 😃 Ahí empieza el problema en la era moderna. Si quieres “quebrarte el coco” están Maritain, Ratzinger y algunos otros.
 
Last edited:
Boler said:
And the argument that, “yes science explains love as chemical and neural reactions” is a cop-out.
Click to expand...
So true. If it was just a chemical and neural reaction, we could whip up some anger in a lab. Emotions require a sentient being to experience them or they don’t exist.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but you can alter the emotional state of a man in a lab through chemical and/or electrical impulses.
 
But try to get that to work on a dead body. Emotions are a power of a soul. Not a material reality. Sentience is required. No sentient being no emotion.
 
  1. Like many have told you, the Catholic Church manages to reconcile the creator God with evolution and, even, with abiogenesis. God simply set things up from the start so that they’d end up like we see them today! It certainly shouldn’t be beyond his power to do so, right?
    But one can also ask whether things could be as they are, but without any god intervening… no need for a creator… If this is a possibility and there seems to be no evidence for any god beyond “what people believe in”, then perhaps this is the correct possibility.
  2. The bible is a book, written by men, for men. According to the NT, Jesus didn’t come to change the law, but to fulfill it, right? Which law? the Torah… the old laws, many of which, we don’t care for nowadays - legislation of slavery (slaves?), legislation of foods not to be eaten (pork?), legislation of clothing with mixed fabrics (polyester and cotton? oh no no no no), etc… - were supposed to just be put in better perspective, right?
Also, the NT is not supposed to be a historical account, but rather a theological one, so you can interpret it as you want to further your beliefs… and maybe that is why so many cults have developed from Christianity…
Maybe god’s inspiration should have been far more to the point and less poetry, so as to keep everyone in line and require little or no interpretation.

Personally, I think all religions, all natural events, from gravity, to quantum, to evolution don’t require any god.
Some folk here are saying that god is responsible for keeping nature working, for keeping the fabric of the Universe as it is, instead of just unraveling into non-existence… I ask them, how do they know that? Where does that information come from?
 
Wow pocaracas, don’t expected to get this sort of an answer here.
So, I woke up in the morning, live my life, work, see all sort of random events around me, go to bed, life goes his course. Where is God to be found? In my everyday life, I don’t see Him interviening anything. I can get the concepts of First Cause, etc… I know is mentioned in old books, but I don’t see God in my real everyday life, as much as I want it and tried to find Him!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an atheist, I think some sort of God (or gods) may be “behind the courtain”, is a possibility but I don’t think is a irrefutable thing, I don’t see Him acting behind anything in my day by day life. All that happens around me can be explained without his intervention, except maybe the First Cause.
But, again, let’s say I believe in God. Maybe not strictly the OT God, but moslty yes, an all powerful intelligent God. Now the hard step for me is to be convinced of the divinity of Jesus. When I read about the first followers of Jesus (Nazarens, etc…) it just get more confusing. It seems that modern christianity differs widelly from initial form, as you say, a Jesus who come to fulfill the Torah, versus the “Pauline” actual form.
 
Last edited:
Pobreton said:
Lee a Aquino y a sus seguidores (incluyendo contemporáneos accesibles como J. Haldane, etc.)
Click to expand...
Ahora veo que mencionas a J. Haldane como seguidor de Aquino. Pero no era este J. B. S. Haldane un convencido marxista? Tal vez lo estoy confundiondo con otro del mismo apellido.

Saludos!
 
For showing evolution as compatible with guided creation, here is my post to help with that
40.png
Higher Power Through Technology Philosophy
I posted this essay on my blog a long time ago at Musings of an Outsider by N.D. Moharo: A Higher Power Through Technology but I figure it’s worth a share here for those who have to deal with the idea that Science proves there is no God. The greater our technology gets, the easier it is to think that a Higher Power exists. How can this be? As technology advances, humans are getting closer and closer to developing a great Artificial Intelligence (AI). Not only that, we also get closer to creat…
Click to expand...
One extra thought about evolution is the question of sex. Why would a being that could reproduce without sex then split and limit reproductive abilities to requiring 2 different sexes?

As for that Christianity is the true faith, it’s teachings extend beyond the Bible. You can ponder those teachings and the various miracles that have happened that science cannot account for. Personally, a big clue that Catholicism is the true faith is that it’s completely compatible with the philosophy about Man’s purpose is True Love.

The Universal Moral Code Philosophically Proven

To the philosopher and society, I have made a philosophical claim that the key to understanding morality is if some act he...
ndmoharo.blogspot.com ndmoharo.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
You are not allowed to post your own blog. It goes against community guidelines. :confused:
 
Last edited:
From that link:

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

So, Adam and Eve were real people. What were they, if evolution theories are true? A couple of hommo sapiens from around 10000 b.c., members of some tribe (according evolution they cannot be alone), picked up by God to be the first bearers of a soul? What about the other hommo sapiens around? That’s confusing to me, and a barrier to fully accept any abrahamic religion.
 
Ah, ok. I was bad informed about it then. Thanks for make it clear.
 
Kathleen18 said:
Are you afraid that if you believe as your father does, then you are rejecting your mother? Or vice versa?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. maybe yes, I’m afraid of that. Thank you for the book recomendation, I will check it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top