|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholics are making it up. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I'm a bit confused.
On the one hand, you continually rhetorically ask your opponents whether they have ever "read" the Bible....which shows a smugness concerning your basic arguments....which you use the Bible to support. Yet on the other hand, you tell us that " all of the various bibles contain false statements, fiction and contradictions.". Labeling much of the New Testament as written by redactors and "salesmen", you conveniently set any argument up for denial based on those assertions. We have heard your pet theories and stories time and time again...about how God lies...the serpant tells the truth...etc ad nauseum. My point is that your belief and explanation of what the Bible means and its relevance to humanity today is itself a made up story. We can all agree that humans wrote it. What gets me is why some humans "make stuff up" while other humans "explain in context"...,.from a book that is nothing more than writings from earlier humans. Im proud of Faith for having patience in these discussions. Im sure she is learning something through these arguments, but I'm not as convinced that you are. You are set in your ways and in your beliefs, and if you cant see the Bible talking to you in any way other than how you feel makes logical sense, why criticize others for doing the same thing?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Original Sin is a PROTESTANT belief
True, but the Catholics had it 1500 years or so before them. The RCC is nothing but the bishop of the city of Rome who usurped power over the centuries against all the other bishops of all the other cities. It wasn't until 606 AD that the papacy as we know it today was formed, and that particular church just went on acquiring power, inventing justification for power, multiplying weird rituals, denying the people knowledge of the scriptures that would show it to be in serious error, keeping them enslaved, eventually coming to lord it over kings and boss them around too, the epitome of the union of church and state, the original totalitarianism justifying all kinds of abuses of power until the Reformation finally shot it down. But it seems to be gathering influence again these days, the result of ignorance of history and some kind of delusion that they've changed. Also, there were Protestants all the way back to apostolic times, who opposed the falseness of the RCC as it developed and were persecuted and martyred by the RCC for daring to disagree with their ridiculous made-up doctrines and pagan practices. The Reformers of the Protestant Reformation recognized those ancient dissident groups as Protestants like themselves. This knowledge was suppressed by the RCC of course, who labeled the dissident groups as heretics and gave themselves the right to murder them. There are doctrines from the early church that are accepted by Protestants. It's just the usual RCC chutzpah that claims they are the original church etc. etc. They made all THAT up too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So their definition of original sin is similar to Protestantism's. Well and good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Coyote writes:
Tangle has expressed the idea that religious doctrines must be nothing short of the absolute truth at all times.Faith writes:
Faith, consider the following: Tangle is right. But EvC is full of "liberal" religionists who are always willing to change God's revelation to suit their version of science or political correctness or whatever. Or even not bother to change it, just ignore it.1) Luther made strong statements in support of geocentrism. Calvin arguably also supported geocentrism. But nearly all Christians today deny geocentrism. 2) John Whitcomb was comfortable with a creation as much as 10,000-15,000 years old. But nearly all YECs today insist that it can't be much more than 6,000 years old. 3) Many of the pro-YEC arguments that I heard as a youngster are now on ICR's and AIG's lists of "arguments that should not be used". 4) B.B. Warfield supported a version of theistic evolution. But most reformed believers today who are his theological descendants completely deny theistic evolution. 5) Serious Christians (even in your own Reformed branch of Christendom) have different views on a huge variety of topics: eschatology, types of music allowed in worship, role of women in church leadership, etc. The fundamental, primary, essential doctrines of the Christian faith don't change. But secondary, non-essential doctrines DO change. This is not necessarily a bad thing."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
MrH writes: So you're judging the entire construct of religion on the basis of Faith's posts. Don't be silly.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
kb writes: Have you never come across entire scientific sub-disciplines which exhibit extreme dogmatism? Individual behavior often carries over to groups. The history of science is full of examples. Nearly every scientific revolution has had to fight dogmatic resistance from those who held to the old paradigm. This is a non-argument. Science changes as new facts are found. It doesn't matter how individuals or groups of scientists behave or cling on to erroneous facts; the process of science ensures change based on evidence. Religions and beliefs are quite different. There are no new facts to be found, there is only dogma and literary criticism. Their books and dogmas are interpreted and adjusted based on what society is prepared to put up with at particular times in the developmental history of the society they live in. This is change imposed on them, it does not emerge from new information or knowledge about their god/s. Almost all organised religions are dogmatic about their beliefs, they have membership rules which you need to sign up to to stay a member. If you don't comply with those rules you are excommunicated - in the past, and in some belief systems still, you are ostracised and sometimes murdered for heresy. Sitting at our computers in modern liberal democracies able to pick and choose between the bits and pieces of a largely emasculated religious belief system that is modern day, Western Christianity, we forget the history of 'real' Christianity. Faith is a throwback to remind us of those beliefs - but even her belifs are very moderate compared to what she would have been like just 200 years ago. The Catholic religion when it drops an absurd dogma such as limbo, is simply a reminder of how religions simply made shit up and forced compliance. It's not religion that is changing, it's society that is growing up and quietly putting aside the more embarassing attributes of religious organisations. Those here arguing that religions can change have very generalised and maleable beliefs. Mostly they have the same life models as I do - lead a decent life, be fair to others, help out where you can - they just tack on the existence of a god with various attributes which they can not agree on. 500 years ago, they would have burnt me at the stake.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
NoNukes writes: Tangle has expressed the idea that religious doctrines must be nothing short of the absolute truth at all times. No. I say that religions have claimed absolute truth for themselves.
He also leaves no room for any legitimate way for religion to progress towards truth. Not quite. I claim that modern society is changing some aspects of religious belief despite religion's objections - forcing traditional religions to drop their more obvious absurdities. Additionally, I do not believe that this has anything to do with a search for truth, it's simply a developmental process of abandoning the dafter aspects of some religious organisations. Modern, Western, Protestant Christianity disgarded most of it's Catholic nonsenses over the last few centuries, post reformation, leaving a sort of pick and mix version based on what modern-day people will accept. There has been no new 'truth,' no new facts, no new revelations, just a recognition that the old beliefs are daft.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Not quite. I claim that modern society is changing some aspects of religious belief despite religion's objections - forcing traditional religions to drop their more obvious absurdities. Actually your claim is that there is something nefarious or wrong with that. In particular you claim that the change is to maintain popularity rather than due to any legitimate analysis. In fact, you assert that there is no basis for any such legitimate growth. I'm just wondering if you are ever going to get around to making an argument. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
NoNukes writes: Actually your claim is that there is something nefarious or wrong with that. Actually my claim is what I say it is.
In particular you claim that the change is to maintain popularity rather than due to any legitimate analysis. I do. I also claim that there can be no legitimate analysis of religious belief as it's a purely subjective experience.
In fact, you assert that there is no basis for any such legitimate growth. Removing absurdities from belief systems is not growth - it's getting rid of the obviously ridiculous. The only new facts, information, knowledge that has emerged is how daft the beliefs that have been abandoned actually were. Eventually what will be left is a general, wishy-washy feeling that something nice is out there somewhere. i.e. it'll look something very similar to the Church of England, where you can believe pretty much anything and nothing so long as you turn up for births deaths and funerals occasionally - your own will do.
I'm just wondering if you are ever going to get around to making an argument that I agree with. Fixed that for you.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Actually my claim is what I say it is. Your claims are what you've already said which turns out not to be completely consistent with your summarizing remarks.
I also claim that there can be no legitimate analysis of religious belief as it's a purely subjective experience. And your claim is incorrect. Christian belief is derived from the description of Jesus as found in the New Testament. There are some fairly substantial lessons that can be cleaned from that on which there is substantial agreement, and then other things that can be drawn from that upon which people might disagree. None of that is purely suggestive. What exactly does the Bible say about whether divorces can be forgiven? Is it so clear cut that two people in different eras reading the material would necessarily reach the same conclusion. Divorce is frowned upon, but do people who divorce go to hell? I personally doubt it, and FWIW don't really care what the Catholic Church or the pope opine on the issue anyway.
Removing absurdities from belief systems is not growth - it's getting rid of the obviously ridiculous. The only new facts, information, knowledge that has emerged is how daft the beliefs that have been abandoned actually were. Sure. Only if that same process happened in science we would both consider it to be an improvement. We might evaluate why people accepted the previous wrong stuff even tentatively, but we would not throw out the process. Again, your reasons for distinguishing between what is acceptable progress in science and theology are seem to be simply a disregard for theology and nothing more. The disregard is what I expect. .
Tangle writes: I'm just wondering if you are ever going to get around to making an argument that I agree with. My claims are what I have said they are. Your arguments are paper thin and tell us more about you than they do the Catholic Church. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
NoNukes writes: Christian belief is derived from the description of Jesus as found in the New Testament. That made me smile. Christianity is based on what was written 2,000 years ago, by unknown authors, after the fact, cobbled together and hacked about by a Roman emperor 300 years later for reasons of power and politics. It's been argued and fought over ever since - hence even people that call themselves Christians can't agree on it. There's thousands of versions of this 'truth' - even liberal Christians can't agree. The particular dumped 'truths' we've been talking about where imposed on the laity by decree from a man claiming infallibility - for god's sake. There's no objective mechanism of testing these 'truths' - no process, just what people prefer to believe at any point in time. And that's just Christianity; the process has been repeated by thousands of different sects with any number of different books and beliefs - all un-evidenced and unchallengeable. And strangely all true. And you compare that hodge-podge of politics, superstition and mythology to science.....You're kidding yourself. The only progress made by religion is the gradual pairing away of its excesses, major stupidities and discriminatory practices as they lose market share to secularism. That's to be welcomed of course, but every time a doctrine that was previously crucial to the belief is dropped it asks questions about the remaining ones. Scientific knowledge is a process of addition with occasional deletions. Now that it's no longer possible for the shamans to just impose their fantasies on the public and control them, religious knowledge (sic) is forced to undergo a permanent process of reduction with no possibility of new knowledge. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And you compare that hodge-podge of politics, superstition and mythology to science.....You're kidding yourself. The point of comparison is a single one. Why it is that theology cannot legitimately change.
's been argued and fought over ever since - hence even people that call themselves Christians can't agree on it. Except that large numbers of them do agree for the most part. About other parts there is disagreement. As people change, the areas of disagreement may change without having to make up anything. And it is the accusation that changes represent the Catholic Church simply making up things that is the central accusation in the OP. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Christianity is based on what was written 2,000 years ago, by unknown authors, after the fact, cobbled together and hacked about by a Roman emperor 300 years later for reasons of power and politics. It's been argued and fought over ever since - hence even people that call themselves Christians can't agree on it. There's thousands of versions of this 'truth' - even liberal Christians can't agree. The particular dumped 'truths' we've been talking about where imposed on the laity by decree from a man claiming infallibility - for god's sake. There's no objective mechanism of testing these 'truths' - no process, just what people prefer to believe at any point in time. And that's just Christianity; the process has been repeated by thousands of different sects with any number of different books and beliefs - all un-evidenced and unchallengeable. And strangely all true.
Nonsense. You haven't said one true thing in any of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith, consider the following: 1) Luther made strong statements in support of geocentrism. Calvin arguably also supported geocentrism. But nearly all Christians today deny geocentrism. 2) John Whitcomb was comfortable with a creation as much as 10,000-15,000 years old. But nearly all YECs today insist that it can't be much more than 6,000 years old. 3) Many of the pro-YEC arguments that I heard as a youngster are now on ICR's and AIG's lists of "arguments that should not be used". 4) B.B. Warfield supported a version of theistic evolution. But most reformed believers today who are his theological descendants completely deny theistic evolution. 5) Serious Christians (even in your own Reformed branch of Christendom) have different views on a huge variety of topics: eschatology, types of music allowed in worship, role of women in church leadership, etc. The fundamental, primary, essential doctrines of the Christian faith don't change. But secondary, non-essential doctrines DO change. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I never said there aren't different interpretations of the Bible on some subjects. However, some of the above stretch the Biblical base quite a bit. I don't think theistic evolution can be Biblically justified. But there will always be even very good theologians who allow themselves to defend something that really isn't Biblically defensible. The point is that Protestants try to stay within the Biblical framework even if they push the envelope quite a bit in some cases. The RCC, however, has to be clearly identified as just about never bothering to stay within the Biblical framework but making up the vast majority of their doctrine, most of it out of their pagan predecessors, which was the reason they denied the Bible to believers over so much of their history. Remarkably, enough of the Bible accounts get through to enough rank and file Catholics for a few of them to actually be saved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I never said there aren't different interpretations of the Bible on some subjects. However, some of the above stretch the Biblical base quite a bit. I don't think theistic evolution can be Biblically justified. Such is the dilemma the church has put itself into. It is a bit like geocentrism. A religion will die a quick death if its theology is shown to be wrong by mountains of evidence. The RCC knows that the quickest way to end Christianity is to require people to ignore facts in order to be Christians. If the Bible can be so easily proven wrong on subjects about life and the movement of the planets, why should we trust it on matters of faith and morality?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024