P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Is there one even without the imprimatur on line? I certainly would be interested in seeing what it says - for example - of the description of “original sin”… and many other questionable verses.
- Status
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Here are two, though I cannot vouch for how good they might be since I’ve never used these sites:
catholicbiblestudyonline.com/
catholic.org/bible/
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
You can use this site to search Catholic topics:
aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/the-original-sin/
Again, I’m not sure how good it is, but it seems to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/the-original-sin/
Again, I’m not sure how good it is, but it seems to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Thank you, I will check them out.
Well, I checked this one, but I found it irrelevant to my question. It does NOT say if the story Genesis describes something that must be taken literally, or only allegorically. I will check the others, too. If it is only allegorical, then what was the actual “command” which was violated? Also when one violates a command, that does NOT mean that the person wants to sever all connections. It only means that one particular command was not followed… which is something that happens all the time, when children disobey some commands, for whatever stupid reason. The correct behavior on the part of the giver of the command is a :tsktsk: and NOT overreacting and CURSING the whole creation.
But let’s postpone that analysis to some other time.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Although I greatly respect my fellow posters, we part ways on several topics. One of them happens to be the interpretation of the book of Genesis and the story of the creation and the fall. I believe it to be largely allegorical, though I do believe man disobeyed God, and so do my professors, some of whom have studied the Bible for fifty years or more. The Church itself has said we are not a “people of the book,” who must take all of the Bible literally. For example, I do not believe Jonah was actually inside the belly of a fish, nor do I believe it took all those days to walk across the city of Nineveh!Thank you, I will check them out.
Well, I checked this one, but I found it irrelevant to my question. It does NOT say if the story Genesis describes something that must be taken literally, or only allegorically. I will check the others, too. If it is only allegorical, then what was the actual “command” which was violated? Also when one violates a command, that does NOT mean that the person wants to sever all connections. It only means that one particular command was not followed… which is something that happens all the time, when children disobey some commands, for whatever stupid reason. The correct behavior on the part of the giver of the command is a :tsktsk: and NOT overreacting and CURSING the whole creation.
But let’s postpone that analysis to some other time.
Because of these beliefs, and others, I’ve been called a “progressive,” though I consider myself rather traditional, and I’ve also been told I have a “strange theology.” To that, I say, “Bah, humbug!” It’s simply because I’ve been in formal study now for about seven years, five at my current school, and two in other schools. We learn many things in theology classes, especially the upper level classes, and they don’t all correspond to what we learned in catechism class as children or even what converts learn in RCIA. That doesn’t necessarily mean they must be at odds with one another. One simply can’t pack upper level theology classes into classes for children or the short time span covered in RCIA. Most Catholics, even devout Catholics, are not interested in becoming theologians or professors of theology. They don’t want to delve deeply into these things, and that’s okay. I just wish they wouldn’t automatically “shush” those of us who do.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Very well. My question is “how” do you decide which verses are to be taken literally and which ones are allegorical. What is the epistemological method you employ to separate the wheat from the chaff? If you do not want to get into details at this time, it is fine. Maybe we can have a discussion later.
In the meantime we can return to the topic of the thread. As I mentioned to Inocente, I do not play the card of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. Every claim should be subject to the same kind of analysis. Just because a claim happens to be “religious” in nature, that does not mean that it must be subject to extra “pressure”. But the opposite is true, too. Claims about God do not get special treatment. Logic, facts and reason are the guiding line. Faith and trust are unacceptable, if they are not supported by reason. (Of course if they are supported by reason, then there is no need for “faith”.)
One more remark: The new testament was compiled by the early church (even though the old testament was not). And yet the church says that even its own work is not supposed to be taken “as is”. That I find rather ironic.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
You never answered my question.
Why do you confine God to the cracks, to the things you can’t explain?
Do you see the fact that if you define God as ‘whatever is currently explainable’, that you reduce God to something that disappears as our technical abilities grow?
Can you see that?
That is the answer to your thread.
Why do you confine God to the cracks, to the things you can’t explain?
Do you see the fact that if you define God as ‘whatever is currently explainable’, that you reduce God to something that disappears as our technical abilities grow?
Can you see that?
That is the answer to your thread.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
She never answers anything that she is uncomfortable with. That’s how she operates.
P
Protestor
Guest
Dr.Craig’s version of this argument borders on insanity. If he didn’t have doctor at the beginning of his name no one would have even paid attention when he decided to dust off this so called argument for God. Dr.Craig asserts that a timeless(whatever this means), spaceless(whatever this means), immaterial(maybe this is spiritual), unchanging(i’m guessing this is necessary because he of the timeless bit), and personal(why this is necessary I have no idea) being caused nothing to become something. In all seriousness what Dr. Craig is asserting is incoherent. To make my objection clear anything that begins to exist ex nihilo cannot have and efficient cause. On top of this he flat out lies when he uses examples of creatio ex materia to backup his claim that of creatio ex nihilo like he doesn’t know that they are different.
You can use the KCA to say that the universe has a cause. Anything past this and you end up “proving” more than you want. Basically if you apply Dr.Craig’s assertions uniformly it could just as easily be applied to a timeless material cause, and not just a timeless efficient cause. I am obviously not the first person to say this about Dr.Craig’s version of KCAG. I could ramble on about this for a while but I will stop here.
My problem with invoking a philosophical argument when the original point was to have a observable super natural phenomenon.
I think that this should have been settled long ago. God should/could have just preinstalled the information that he exists to all humans. Before someone goes off on some tirade saying something like this would prevent our free will. Remember that God didn’t care about “taking away” the Jews free will to believe that he exists or not exists. Knowing God exist does not take away your free will to follow or not follow him. Also God didn’t seem all to worried about taking away the free will of the Pharaoh to let the Jews go. Still rambling
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
If God did not create out of nothing, then what is the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, etc. Something HAD to come from nothing.
P
Protestor
Guest
Is this really an answer from an associate professor in theology? What kind of theology, practical? Like my other rambling comment. When did God become unwilling to interfere with peoples free will to know he exists. He didn’t seem all to worried about this throughout the bible and if peoples testimonies can be believed throughout history. To answer your question, because supposedly he wants a relationship with us. Usually you don’t try to have relationships with things when you are not sure or aware of their existence.
As always if you have already answered these objections point me to the post number and I will read them.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I guess you missed this question:
If God did not create out of nothing, then what is the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, etc.? Something HAD to come from nothing.
Or else you cannot answer it.
I believe in the “Big Bang” myself, or a similar version, but the material that produced the Big Bang had to be created by someone, somewhere. How do you explain that?
If God did not create out of nothing, then what is the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, etc.? Something HAD to come from nothing.
Or else you cannot answer it.
I believe in the “Big Bang” myself, or a similar version, but the material that produced the Big Bang had to be created by someone, somewhere. How do you explain that?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Yes, it is. I teach upper lever Christology and this semester, Moral Theology.
It’s no use answering you until you stop begging the question. You are only going to accept answers that confirm your already established beliefs.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
None of the atheists or agnostics do.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
They are attempting to define God in purely human terms. They will not realize that God is transcendent and cannot be confined to purely human explanations.
And Christine (I think it was Christine) is right. If something does not agree with their mindset, they skip over it as if it were not asked.
To me, they are begging the question. They will only accept answers that fit their already conceived notions.
N
Nixbits
Guest
Lily, you’ve made several sweeping statements that I don’t believe are true.
Lily Berlans:
Lily Berlans:
With regard to never answering anything that someone is uncomfortable with, you said:
Lily Berlans:
Lily Berlans:
Atheists, as a group, are rather more varied. Some are close-minded, others are very much open to evaluating evidence that is put forward.
Lily Berlans:
I believe that many atheists do spend time and effort discussing what theists believe and why they believe it. They find it intriguing and, in some cases, the beliefs of theists have a direct effect on social structures and laws that affect atheists.
With regard to never answering anything that someone is uncomfortable with, you said:
Lily Berlans:
In my experience, atheists and agnostics are just as likely as anyone to answer difficult questions. In some cases, however, theists don’t like the answers that are given.
I
inocente
Guest
It’s a false dichotomy to say we have to accept either kind of universal skepticism, as they are philosophical claims, and neither us nobodies nor you philosophers have to believe in either of them.
Please stop trying to force your beliefs on me. (Sorry couldn’t resist.)
So far so good…
Gravity only notices changes at the speed of light, so a scientist must allow the possibility it’s gone. True it’s a very remote possibility, but there’s no way, even in principle, to know for certain.
I’m skeptical of your claim that an average person isn’t very skeptical since I don’t know what an absolute measure would be to compare it against. And yes, it’s illogical to demand 100% proof since induction can only provide weight of evidence based on the past.It is very true that I am more skeptical than the average person, since the “average” person has a very low level of skepticism, if at all. But you said that you are even more skeptical than I am.The question is "do you think that the level of certainty I need is unreasonable"?
The level of checking always varies.
Hopefully you don’t need as much evidence when a friend tries to convince you it’s worth watching a movie, as you would demand from a stranger who claims that jumping off a high building is good for your digestion. So with that comparison in mind, if someone believes she has encountered God, and finds that her faith helps her get through the day, and she joins a church and meets lots of people who become her friends, and she feels a valued member of that community, why would she want to make a federal case out of it?
P
Protestor
Guest
When I say that the argument is incoherent you don’t get to disregard that and continue on as if I granted your premises were true. Did you even read my objection? I’ll try to explain it another way there is no current definition of cause that could make sense of something causally affecting nothing. Basically Dr.Craig is proposing that God caused the nonexistent universe to exist. In order for causality to take place there must be interaction at least for efficient causes. Saying God didn’t interact with anything and produced an effect is not just absurd but incoherent.
Cool I’m currently reading Pannenberg’s “Jesus-God and Man” though I think it is above my head. What exactly am I saying that is begging the question, and for the record I am a Christian. I just think that this argument has flaws and they are many.
When you say “we” do you christians? If so this is not helpful for atheists. If not these examples are not analogous. Either way this is not the kind of response I would expect from a theologian.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
No, I didn’t necessarily mean Christians only or even all Christians.
How do you think all the “stuff” that went into the creation of the universe got where it is? How did it come into being?
How do you think all the “stuff” that went into the creation of the universe got where it is? How did it come into being?
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
The reason is simple. Since God is supposed to be benevolent, I look for the explanation of “bad” things. If God would supposed to be evil, I would ask for the explanation of good things.
In other words, I am looking for explanations of the discrepancy between reality and the “theory”.
That is exactly the case. The God of the gaps keeps on disappearing, slowly but surely.
Well, I was expecting something more rational from a professor of theology. “Nothing” is a concept, not an ontological entity. The phrase “something from nothing” is nonsense. The universe simply “IS”, it simply “EXISTS”, it is a brute FACT. There is no explanation, and there is no need for explanation.
The Newtonian worldview thought about the universe as a “bubble” of something in an infinite “ocean” of “nothing”. This worldview has been rendered incorrect in the Einsteinian concept of STEM, space, time, energy and matter. The universe is everything there is, to speak of “outside” the universe or “before” the universe are syntactically correct, but semantically meaningless utterances.
You speak of the Big Bang, as if it were the “beginning” of the universe. That is a usual misconception. The Big Bang is the beginning of the current form of the universe. The change of the singularity is an interesting physical problem, but it has no bearing on the metaphysics of the reality. Our current knowledge cannot penetrate the first instances of existence, and it is even questionable to speak of “time” within a singularity (just like to speak of “time” in a black hole). The actual physics of reality is much more complicated than we can currently comprehend.
- Status