The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[IWantGod]

I strongly disagree that learning Aristotle is in any sense necessary to salvation. .

Learning about science isn’t necessary to salvation either, but if you want to talk authoritatively about the universe it wouldn’t hurt to know a few things. In the age of science what good is the message of Christ in the mouth of a seven day creationist?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Learning about science isn’t necessary to salvation either, but if you want to talk authoritatively about the universe it wouldn’t hurt to know a few things. In the age of science what good is the message of Christ in the mouth of a seven day creationist?

Apparently salvation has very little to do with reality so understanding the existing universe and reality itself are completely irrelevant as far as salvation is concerned.

The new heavens and the new earth will, apparently, be so unlike the current iteration that there is no need to waste a second trying to figure out the former form of each. Philosophy (aka natural theology) is entirely meaningless – not just by comparison – but in principle.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The children of hill farmers in North Africa learn the Quran, and have done for centuries, because it is believed to be important.

In the same way, the Church could and would have taught the philosophies you admire to children in every village where there’s a priest, had it agreed with you. It doesn’t. One reason, presumably, is that without the majority sticking to hill farming and to fishing and other work, no one would have anything to eat. It’s not remotely possible for everyone to live in ivory towers thinking beautiful thoughts.

You need to familiarize yourself with the work of the monks from the time of Benedict of Nursia, to the Venerable Bede and Alcuin of York, through to the Carolingian Renaissance, and to Cluny. You might be surprised that your “ivory tower” monastaries weren’t what you might think they were; and that knowledge about the meaning of salvation is quite portable, transferable, flexible and applicable.

You might also want to bone up on the Oxford (or Merton) Calculators…

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Calculators

 

[Bradski]

Not sure that’s possible, given the old joke about Peter being asked by newcomers why part of heaven is walled off. Peter tells them that beyond the wall are the Catholics, “they believe they’re the only ones here and we don’t want to disappoint them”.

And the one from Marx (Groucho not Karl):

I wouldn’t want to join any club that would accept someone like me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the one from Marx (Groucho not Karl):

I wouldn’t want to join any club that would accept someone like me.

The Rational Rat Pack?

 

[inocente]

Learning about science isn’t necessary to salvation either, but if you want to talk authoritatively about the universe it wouldn’t hurt to know a few things. In the age of science what good is the message of Christ in the mouth of a seven day creationist?

Well, in science there are no authority figures - “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong” (Feynman).

Lots of people conflate Christ crucified with whatever other beliefs they happen to hold. Everyone wants God in their tribe, every nation thinks God is on their side.

The scientific question is why we Homo sapiens hold such strong beliefs. Perhaps it’s an adaptation for building tribal loyalties, since it doesn’t seem to matter whether the beliefs are rational, or even what they’re about, so long as they’re shared by our tribe. “Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! . . . You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you?” (Lord of the Flies, Golding).

 

[inocente]

Apparently salvation has very little to do with reality so understanding the existing universe and reality itself are completely irrelevant as far as salvation is concerned.

The new heavens and the new earth will, apparently, be so unlike the current iteration that there is no need to waste a second trying to figure out the former form of each. Philosophy (aka natural theology) is entirely meaningless – not just by comparison – but in principle.

You appear to be suggesting that God doesn’t smile any less on non-scientists or non-philosophers, that the message of the cross is for everyone, that grace is a gift to uneducated and educated alike.

Correct.

But I disagree that philosophy and science are thereby somehow worthless. You might as well argue that growing crops, driving trucks, teaching math, writing poems and a thousand other pursuits are somehow worthless.

inocente;14292048:

The children of hill farmers in North Africa learn the Quran, and have done for centuries, because it is believed to be important.

In the same way, the Church could and would have taught the philosophies you admire to children in every village where there’s a priest, had it agreed with you. It doesn’t. One reason, presumably, is that without the majority sticking to hill farming and to fishing and other work, no one would have anything to eat. It’s not remotely possible for everyone to live in ivory towers thinking beautiful thoughts.

You need to familiarize yourself with the work of the monks from the time of Benedict of Nursia, to the Venerable Bede and Alcuin of York, through to the Carolingian Renaissance, and to Cluny. You might be surprised that your “ivory tower” monastaries weren’t what you might think they were; and that knowledge about the meaning of salvation is quite portable, transferable, flexible and applicable.

You might also want to bone up on the Oxford (or Merton) Calculators…

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Calculators

Non sequitur. The Church could and would have taught the philosophies you admire to children in every village where there’s a priest, had it agreed with you.

You seem to have done your 2+2=5 thing, and concluded I’m arguing against learning. Quite the opposite. But I am saying that there is no elitism in God, that the chattering classes don’t get preferential treatment, that Christ died for everyone, including the waitress in the cocktail bar.

 

[inocente]

I wouldn’t want to join any club that would accept someone like me.

No one is acceptable, but the guy on the door lets you in anyway.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No one is acceptable, but the guy on the door lets you in anyway.

Universal salvation?

Be a fiend, a hypocrite, a liar, a cad, a traitor, a murderer, a rapist, a thief, or a fraud, if you like – none are acceptable, but you get let in anyway.

:ehh:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Non sequitur. The Church could and would have taught the philosophies you admire to children in every village where there’s a priest, had it agreed with you.

Actually, that’s what I thought the Church did every chance it had.

I suppose if the priest cares at all what happens to the children, he would have taught not just philosophy, but theology, mathematics, literacy, science, ethics and a whole host of other subjects and skills.

If human development or enrichment – in all its virtuous aspects: emotional, intellectual, physical, psychological, spiritual – has anything at all to do with salvation, then any caring priest would promote education as part of what it means to become more fully human.

I suspect we have two very different ideas about what salvation entails.

You appear to suppose it is transformation into some unearthly state completely detached from what it means to be human at all, thus any current state is irrelevant to one’s salvation.

My impression is that grace perfects nature, so salvation follows a trajectory from birth to fully human to supernatural existence. Grace perfecting nature through the development of both natural and supernatural virtues – rather than voiding or nullifying nature – is the way I understand the meaning of salvation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You seem to have done your 2+2=5 thing, and concluded I’m arguing against learning. Quite the opposite. But I am saying that there is no elitism in God, that the chattering classes don’t get preferential treatment, that Christ died for everyone, including the waitress in the cocktail bar.

I suppose the virtues that the “chattering classes” were actually developing or practicing, as compared to the virtues that the waitress was, would make a huge difference with regard to determining the “treatment” of either by God and whether that treatment was “elitist,” “preferential” or salvific to any extent whatsoever.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Church could and would have taught the philosophies you admire to children in every village where there’s a priest, had it agreed with you.

Not to be labour this point too much, but it seems to me that the priest and the Church would do everything in their power to instruct the children of every village not merely that Jesus “saves,” but more importantly what it means to be saved and what steps must be undertaken towards that end and why.

Otherwise, what you end up with are poorly catechized children who have no clue what they do or why with regards to their “salvation” and they then become easy targets for those outside the Church to lead them into foul territory.

Of course, if you think Jesus saves everyone no matter what, then I suppose nothing that happens to those children will matter anyway since “we are all sinners” and the guy at the gate lets everyone in.

The problem with your view, it seems, is that Jesus spoke of the narrow way that leads to eternal life in contrast to the wide one that leads to destruction. Why do you suppose he would characterize things that way if the “guy at the door” lets everyone in indiscriminately?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not to be labour this point too much, but it seems to me that the priest and the Church would do everything in their power to instruct the children of every village not merely that Jesus “saves,” but more importantly what it means to be saved and what steps must be undertaken towards that end and why.

Otherwise, what you end up with are poorly catechized children who have no clue what they do or why with regards to their “salvation” and they then become easy targets for those outside the Church to lead them into foul territory.

A fine argument for teaching apologetics side by side with catechetics.

 

[inocente]

Universal salvation?

Be a fiend, a hypocrite, a liar, a cad, a traitor, a murderer, a rapist, a thief, or a fraud, if you like – none are acceptable, but you get let in anyway.

:ehh:

Whoa buddy, what brand of Catholicism was that?

Doesn’t matter what you did or who you were, once you change your ways and ask forgiveness, you’re forgiven and you’re let in - “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” - Ps 103.

Actually, that’s what I thought the Church did every chance it had.

I suppose if the priest cares at all what happens to the children, he would have taught not just philosophy, but theology, mathematics, literacy, science, ethics and a whole host of other subjects and skills.

If human development or enrichment – in all its virtuous aspects: emotional, intellectual, physical, psychological, spiritual – has anything at all to do with salvation, then any caring priest would promote education as part of what it means to become more fully human.

I suspect we have two very different ideas about what salvation entails.

You appear to suppose it is transformation into some unearthly state completely detached from what it means to be human at all, thus any current state is irrelevant to one’s salvation.

My impression is that grace perfects nature, so salvation follows a trajectory from birth to fully human to supernatural existence. Grace perfecting nature through the development of both natural and supernatural virtues – rather than voiding or nullifying nature – is the way I understand the meaning of salvation.

Not sure where you’re going there.

You argued that Catholics, “as a whole – and the world around them – would have been far better off had a much larger proportion of Catholics read Aristotle and Aquinas”.

Then I replied that the Church would have taught those philosophers to all children if it agreed with you, but it doesn’t.

I suppose the virtues that the “chattering classes” were actually developing or practicing, as compared to the virtues that the waitress was, would make a huge difference with regard to determining the “treatment” of either by God and whether that treatment was “elitist,” “preferential” or salvific to any extent whatsoever.

Again, not sure what you mean. I just meant that intelligence, education, status and wealth have no influence over Christ. Luke 18:9-14. Anyone who reads Aristotle and Aquinas thinking it will make God love him more has not understood that we are all God’s children.

 

[inocente]

Not to be labour this point too much, but it seems to me that the priest and the Church would do everything in their power to instruct the children of every village not merely that Jesus “saves,” but more importantly what it means to be saved and what steps must be undertaken towards that end and why.

Otherwise, what you end up with are poorly catechized children who have no clue what they do or why with regards to their “salvation” and they then become easy targets for those outside the Church to lead them into foul territory.

Of course, if you think Jesus saves everyone no matter what, then I suppose nothing that happens to those children will matter anyway since “we are all sinners” and the guy at the gate lets everyone in.

The problem with your view, it seems, is that Jesus spoke of the narrow way that leads to eternal life in contrast to the wide one that leads to destruction. Why do you suppose he would characterize things that way if the “guy at the door” lets everyone in indiscriminately?

You play this game on every thread. You make up some nonsense, then say “Of course, if you think…” then you continue as if my view is the nonsense which you just tried to put in my mouth.

It isn’t. Ever.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, not sure what you mean. I just meant that intelligence, education, status and wealth have no influence over Christ. Luke 18:9-14. Anyone who reads Aristotle and Aquinas thinking it will make God love him more has not understood that we are all God’s children.

Actually, I never claimed that reading Aristotle or Aquinas will make God love them more; I would, however, claim that reading Aquinas and Aristotle would help THEM love God more – which is the crucial thing to be understood.

Yes, we are all children of God and loved by God; but it is our response to that love which will make all the difference. Since man is – according to Aristotle – a rational animal, humans act, when we act well, according to good reasons (and not by compulsion, emotion or causation,) which entails that understanding infused by grace is the means by which we are properly moved and NOT coercively compelled to act.

We are to know, love and freely serve God towards the ends for which God has created us because God is Truth Itself, Goodness Itself and Being Itself. Anything else is inherently self-defeating.

Learning also helps us to see that no one should attempt to have “influence over God” but to better understand the proper authority and influence that God (Truth, Goodness and Existence Itself) has over us – unlike, to take one example, the idea of pure “submission” to Allah that is prevalent in Islam.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A fine argument for teaching apologetics side by side with catechetics.

I have been wondering for a long time now why the Catholic Church schools do not require courses in apologetics. It seems essential to me that this is the only way to prepare young Catholics for the onslaught of atheistic faculties in college.

 

[IWantGod]

I have been wondering for a long time now why the Catholic Church schools do not require courses in apologetics. It seems essential to me that this is the only way to prepare young Catholics for the onslaught of atheistic faculties in college.

Agreed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You play this game on every thread. You make up some nonsense, then say “Of course, if you think…” then you continue as if my view is the nonsense which you just tried to put in my mouth.

It isn’t. Ever.

Perhaps you need to exert a bit more discretion over what comes out of your mouth?

When this kind of thing…

No one is acceptable, but the guy on the door lets you in anyway.

…proceeds from it, unqualified, and then you accuse me of stuffing your mouth, perhaps you need to be a bit more reflective about what it is you permit your fingers to type on your keyboard?

If you wish to continue making bold, brash, loose, and over-generalized statements as if they are indisputable and TRUE as they stand, and then accuse others of putting words into your mouth as if your statements couldn’t have been taken in any number of ways, please don’t complain about others “playing games.”

Perhaps you simply need to tighten your game by speaking more clearly, determinately and self-critically.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have been wondering for a long time now why the Catholic Church schools do not require courses in apologetics. It seems essential to me that this is the only way to prepare young Catholics for the onslaught of atheistic faculties in college.

Me, too. :sad_yes: