Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Thanks Sinperium. Excellent answer. H-o-w-e-v-e-r, evidently not to BT!
The Catholic Church Founder was Jesus. He established His Church upon the Apostles. So when did the Apostles know that Jesus was God?
Who was Christ? Christ was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, existing in the human nature which was born of the Virgin Mary, yet retaining ever His Divine nature. He is therefore GOd and man at one and the same time. As man He could die for His fellow human beings; as God He was able to expiate the insult offered to the DIvine Majesty and thus restore to men the possibility of eternal happiness.
Christ means the Messias promised by God to appear on earth who did appear in human form through the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As man, Christ existed on earth for 33 years. But as a Divine being in His nature as God, He existed all of eternity.
So, God first knew it and from all eternity. He promulagated the doctrine from the very beginning of the human race when He promised Adam and Eve a Redeemer would come and continuously through the prophets of the Old Testament of which the Apostles, including the Blessed Virgin Mary, were all well familiar with.
The Blessed Virgin Mary knew it for God had revealed that the Holy Ghost would overshadow her and "The HOLY" which shall be born shall be the Son of God.
Christ taught it clearly and claimed He was God and confirmed that by miracles. Christ answered your question put to Him by the Jews who doubted He was God. Jesus said to them that before Abraham came to be I AM. They understood and took up stones to cast at Him.
Simon Peter knew Christ to be the Son of God in the unique unprecedented Divine sense of equality with God the Father, having all the power there is in Heaven and on earth. So, they all knew it but for some it was much more clear after the Crucifixion and so much more so after Christ's Resurrection.
Who would you say that Jesus is? That Jesus Christ is God was first told by Christ Himself to His Apostles and they and their successors in the Catholic Church has been teaching this truth ever since 33AD and will continue until the end of the world.
Lula (#825); play your word games all you want, but a dead child to me anyway represents an aborted fetus (human). when your God takes care of business, you call it a miscarriage how quaint is that ... so I was right ... it is ok for you as long as we ourselves aren’t involved. Righteous infanticide just like in the 'good' book is ok as long as Mr. Benign is at the helm. If a miscarriage is not caused by man ... then who or what is the cause. Typical Catholic logic ... why is it that your God is in charge of 'everything' else, go figure.
Lula, this forum is not a 'Sunday School' class for you to practice your illogical approach to life. If you cannot say much in your own words, well I don't think many appreciate your quoting any Catholic Tom, Dick or Harry for their words of wisdom instead. If you cannot support your arguments without this Book in hand ... then you are just supporting someone else’s opinions and don't have any of your own (personal). In other words ... you are a complete fake relying on everyone else's opinions to give you a 'righteous' cause. Or are you just stricken 'lulu' by the ridiculous nature of Biblical lore that you cannot justify yourself without the help of others.
Personally, I don't care what your archaic Book or Bishop Pedophiles have to say ... I am not trying to have a discussion with a Book is all.
Lula (#826); nice and vague there, how typical. I am not interested in your folk lore, I am trying to find out when you Catholics knew guys Jesus was purported to be God in the flesh? Simple question and it doesn't require a false rendition of supposed past events. Seemingly you guys knew from birth so how does a known God walking this Earth HIDE from the people he professes to love … and why? Hell, you don’t even know the year He was supposed to have been born. Nazareth is another good subject to study … like where was it, hahaha. No wonder nobody locally know of all those miracles because they didn’t know where he was hiding. What day in history did this crucifixion take place. If Mary knew of the immortality of her son and his birthday and death day … how come you guys don’t know? Probably has little to do with the positions women held in societies at the time … where are the ‘femanazis’ when you need them, hahaha? See, it isn't difficult to use your own words and mind for a change now is it?
The question again: “What do you know of the personal life of your Jesus?”, no mumbo-jumbo necessary here. Lula, If Jesus told his Apostles what was what ... then why didn't they convey some of this in their Gospels which they of course didn't write themselves, go figure. No wonder you need a Church to tell you what it all means hahaha. You base everything in your life on the life of this man ... and you know absolutely nothing personal about him. To me this is impossible ... but it doesn't even faze the zealots.
PS: Lula, if you want to peruse this God thing alone (no science), please come to my article and take your best shot at "God does not exist". I am not going to pester this thread by dissecting your flawed logic and misplaced loyalties. Man up Girl, hehehe.
LULA POSTS: When a pregnant mother naturally loses her unborn baby, it is called miscarriage...something very different from procured abortion. They aren't equivical in any way, shape or form. That in and of itself should help explain the God angle!
No word games from me. We agree you are right that an unborn baby dies every time there is a miscarriage or an abortion. But we honestly can't blend the two as though they are interchangeable.
I simply made a reasoned observance between miscarriage and abortion. It all comes down to the moral value of the act...and in that regard a miscarriage is not equivalent to procured abortion.
A miscarriage happens naturally usually because a problem in the process of development exists, while an abortion is anything but natural.
I just discuss and answer questions the best I can.
You have not pronounced anything new.
We all know the Atheist's viewpoint that nothing is sacred, not God, not human life and their hatred of the Church and His holy religion.
I too shall not belabor this particular part of the JU discussion any longer except to extend to all this quote:
"Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged... Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them." Pope St.Pius X, "Our Apostolic Mandate", August 25, 1910.
The slavery of Atheism or true freedom in Christ? The choice is ours.
What hogwash! I'm not an Atheist but there are moral, law abiding Atheist's all over the place. To be a moral person means to conform to the rules of virtuous conduct. You can do that and live a moral life without believing in God or hating the Church. Saying those sort of things as you said is hateful.
About the freedom in Christ thing: Tell the American Indians about that. Really worked for them didn't it?
Whether you agree or not, like it or not, or think it's hogwash or hateful on my part, what I said is simply the truth about Atheism in general.
Regarding abortion, CHASBO writes:
In your realm of thinking, is the intentional and deliberate act of killing an unborn baby in the womb virtuous conduct? What is the moral value of the act of abortion?
Ha, go back and read... you pronounced plenty...just as you are doing here again.
Sorry though it is common knowledge that both Stalin and Hitler had great contempt for the Church and her moral teachings. If they had the same philosophy as Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, then the atheist's slaughter of human life from 1917 to 2007 that numbered roughly 148 million people would never have happened.
The callousness of atheist states towards human life is summed up in Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist in a chapter entitled "The Red Hand of Atheism".
What if the pregnancy is because of rape or incest? The woman as a victim has no choice?
I won't let you throw me under the bus on the abortion issue.
Here's the thing. What you said about Atheists is wrong. You can't decide what a person believes because you go to Church and follow the Catholic faith. Who gives a rats ass what you believe? This is a free country. I don't give a shit what you think. I don't tell you what to believe and you have no right to tell me or anybody else what to believe. That's the way it is and if you don't like it go to a place where they force a person to follow your belief system. I guess you'll be happy then.
HAVE A NICE DAY!
If you insist on talking about morals HERE (???) then let’s start with the OT, then the NT and then through Catholic dogma and compare your self-righteous absolute morality to say those of a little old atheist ... mine.
Jafo, let me know when enough is enough ok.
Getting back to the baptism thing. I asked my sister about baptism. This is what she had to say about it:
Luke 23:39-4339 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,[d] saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Jesus told the one criminal that he would be with Him in Paradise (Heaven) and that criminal had not been baptized... he was crucified right then and there with Jesus.We know for a fact that that criminal is in Heaven because Jesus said so. He was NEVER baptized! Baptism is something that we are instructed to do after salvation as a public profession of our faith. Baptism alone does not save us. If that were true, then all babies that have been baptized and never TRULY believe in Jesus and what He did for us and give their life to him, would go to Heaven... that is NOT AT ALL what the Word of God (Bible) says.
She also said to look at these verses:
John 3:16John 3:36John 20:31
She did say though, that claiming that Jesus as the Son of God "does not cut it." She pointed out James 2:19.
Mortalkhrist,
Regarding our last few posts....
We are definitely getting strictly into religion, something the other participants may not be interested in.
So on Baptism, etc. I just opened a new blog and responded there.
https://forums.joeuser.com/414999/page/1/#3052072
Religion is a hot poker in the mind of humanity with its indifference to the facts of life as we know them today. Our sciences would be as remiss as the religious zealots if we didn’t reevaluate our findings and beliefs with the invention/improvement of our technology and our improved knowledge. What in the Bible says we are supposed to be idiots, that we are useful only for kneeling down, praying to their jealous (???) God, donating much to the church coffers, and fantasizing over the bliss of sitting there all goo-goo eyed for eternity? I cannot imagine this existence on Earth and have no desire to experience this fiction for ‘eternity’. If the angels couldn’t tolerate the bliss in their short stay there (< infinity I suppose) … what chance does an inadequate evil human being have of surviving such an experience? How typical and self-serving; “I belong to the RCC and we can do better than the angels, Adam and Eve and all the rest of humanity … because God told me so”, hahaha. It is amazing the extent people will go to try and defy the grave hehehe.
On the other hand--despite all the red herrings, distortions and human interference--what if there is a core of truth in there. Wouldn't you want to know?
Sinperium; if there were a shred of truth in there it has long since passed recognition. The RCC has bastardized everything Biblical with the NT in which they replace the Jewish God (Yahweh) with their upstart who then gives them and only them, dominion over all things … sounds just like modern-day politics to me … business as usual. Christianity will not survive if it remains dominated by RCC canon. I don’t see any problems with a personal god, but if someone has to ask a Church how to act human … then they are not very human themselves because they do not understand or trust their own species and seemingly never will. Whatever…
Why do these debates always turn into "Atheists vs Christians"?
It's like the agnostics and the rest of the religions are the smart ones, and just make some popcorn and watch.
lulapilgrim ...it's comments such as this that WILL see this thread closed.
You cannot/will not condemn another's beliefs, be they religion or, as in this case - atheism.
I trust I have made myself quite clear.
Because it is the 'nature of the beast' that threads on topics such as this will inevitably be hijacked by personal agendum or extremist/fanatical opinion and disintegrate into verbal mayhem only to be abruptly closed down.
CHASBO,
I noticed that posts from WinnCustomize have no quote features.
you write:
I'm not an Atheist but there are moral, law abiding Atheist's all over the place. ..... You can do that and live a moral life without believing in God ......
Yes, of course there are moral, law abiding Atheist's out there.
But the larger question is where did they get those morals from? Certainly not from the animals they think they evolved from?
....................................
from your # 835
you post:
Why think that way? I took your own comments, put them together and asked a question.
Rape and incest are morally vile acts and those who commit them need to be punished to the max.
The woman involved in these crimes need our love and compassion. But yes, to be brutally honest, the woman involved has a choice. That's becasue while the act was brutal and horrible, the baby, the product of the act is an innocent human being. We punish the guilty rapist but why should we kill the innocent baby for the crime of the father?
Doesn't make sense and the murder of an innocent human being to relieve the suffering of another is never justified.
It's far better physically, mentally, and spiritually for the mother to carry the baby to term and give him/her up for adoption. That turns a horrible vile act into a win.win.win situation.
Just saw this as I posted my last comment.
Jafo,
I can understand not condemning another person personally, but really, I'm not allowed to condemn another's belief system be it religion or atheism?
Check other's posts...Isn't that exactly what others have been doing, condemning the Catholic Church and Catholicism all along?
Of course it is.
Fret not. This is no longer a site I'd like to contribute my 2 cents worth. This will be my last post.
You are FREE to debate religion [or it's absence], however universal statements that atheists are immoral is equivalent to statements that all Catholics condone the abuses of children by their Clergy.
Both statements are equally unacceptable. I trust this specific example makes it clear.
It is a fine line in religious/political [and other confrontationist] topics between debating a view and denouncing a view-holder.
Maybe it is because you have no idea what you are condemning? Atheism means one thing and one thing only. The belief that no God exists. It has nothing to do with some imaginary set of beliefs that you wish to paint a stereotype on others with. The range of beliefs that individual atheists have probably vary as much or more than those of all the religions which ever existed on this planet.
Essentially, yes.
That's the point...
Well I've held off as long as I can, but I finally must succumb to the alluring topic we have here in this thread...I'll start with the "34 page disclaimer" that what is to be said here may have been said before...and I don't feel like reading 34 pages to find out...
I first would say that in my opinion, religion is not really a choice per se as much as it is the product of life experience...you don't choose to believe in God as much as you are simply convinced one way or the other by your own personal life experiences...
I mean, think about...really think about it...you can't sit yourself down and say "Well, today's gonna be the day I choose between atheism and theism"...you either believe or you don't...your beliefs may change over time, and some can even point to a specific moment (or series of moments) that led them to their belief system today...but it was those moments, those life experiences, that caused you to "buy into" a certain worldview...
That is not to say choice is irrelevant...you can choose, to a degree, what life experiences you are exposed to...additionally, you can make choices or take actions that happen to lead you down a certain path...but in the end, religious beliefs are products of life experience, not the results of a definite decision...an "epiphany" or "moment of clarity" simply is not a choice as much as it is an event you experience...
I am sure many will disagree with this premise, but there's my thought on the matter...now, with that in mind...
I understand your point is more on why other religions are seemingly disregarded, but that really is more just the demographic of people on these forums (and I'd guess most discussions you/we are exposed to) than anything else...the real debate is between atheists and theists, and it equally concerns all religions (most of which just aren't proportionately represented by the community here/there/anywhere)...
Because religious beliefs (and one's willingness to accept or reject them) are the product of a life's worth of experiences, individuals are not easily swayed....of course this is obvious, we all went into this discussion fully aware that very few people here are going to change or be dissuaded from their beliefs...
But it is more than just "strong beliefs"...both sides are built on fallacious arguments with flawed thinking...it is an irreconcilable debate that can perpetuate itself with circular logic, semantics, and good old stubbornness...before you read too much into that and assume a tirade of flaming will follow, this statement is not meant to be offensive or critical in anyway....
In the end, such flawed thinking is unavoidable because we are human...the human mind inherently uses heuristics, confirmation bias, and defense mechanisms that heavily influence our beliefs...ultimately, neither atheists or theists have a single damn good reason to believe what they believe...really, neither side has a leg to stand on...advocates of each side ultimately have been "convinced" their side is right...there was no proof, merely evidence and a series of experiences vetted through the flawed human mind...and the product is an unshakable human belief system...
That doesn't mean we are wrong to have beliefs, or wrong to try and justify them (whether to ourselves or to others)...furthermore, just because the so-called "reasoning" behind a belief system is fundamentally flawed doesn't mean the belief system cannot possibly be right...there is no true solid, incontrovertible proof for atheists or theists, and eventually both sides will have nothing but "faith" going for them...your ignorant and unfounded beliefs are just as silly as mine are...
Barring the possibility of posthumous consequences, that someone is a theist or atheist is honestly irrelevant...a person's beliefs only need to serve that one person and their psychological needs, and both view points are quite adequate in satiating our intrinsic desires (in fact, agnosticism or apathy can fulfill those needs just as well)...clearly, what belief systems works best at "convincing" the human mind depends on which human mind we're looking at....
For the record, and because I think it's only fair people understand where I stand before progressing to properly criticize me, I strongly believe in God...and, I'll be the first to admit I don't have a single good reason to, I just do...I could point to reasons why I have been led to this belief, but ultimately there are no solid reasons why my belief is right or preferential to any other belief...
That being said, I think there is a big difference between the universally flawed thinking humanity depends on to live happily with itself and some of the thinking that is expressed here in this thread...in these types of discussions, I generally find both sides to be equally ignorant, illogical, intolerant, and shameful...I'm not saying all people who participated here are "problematic" or "antagonistic"...I simply am equally repulsed by hardliners from both sides...what bothers me the most about this type of debate in particular is that both sides commonly denounce the other side for being "intolerant", "ignorant", or "illogical"...in truth, I find both sides to be equally bad, going far and above the inherent bias and poor logic all human minds are plagued with...truly, these debates go to a whole new level of.....of, well, silliness...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
