First Abraham Lincoln said this:
We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.— Abraham Lincoln, April 30, 1863
Then James Garfield said this later on:
"If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
— President James Garfield, 1876
I'm thinking maybe they were onto something. I believe God never takes away first without warning the people. The Jews know this firsthand. But do we? We have ignored many wise voices of the past. Are we smarter than they? The National Day of Prayer is next week. I think it behooves us to get on our knees and pray. Pray for our nation, our leaders and our military.
For those who believe in God, or in a God, praying can't hurt one bit in a time when it seems nothing else is working. For those who don't believe in God, they still need to have some kind of hope that things will get better, the least they can do is to ask those who believe in God to pray for them. I say if it could benefit us all, then by all means do it.
Your blog hurts me. I say that the best 'religion' is Buddhism, but the best religious choice is atheism. Religion is awful, and I'm surprised anyone still follows these terrible control systems.
Also, many people believe that Abraham Lincoln was a closeted atheist. =P
I'm sorry I hurt you. Didn't mean to do that.
The best religion is the one which offers salvation.
I Thank our merciful God we still (so far) have that option available.
Atheism is awful and most miserable by the atheists not only have I met but also those I've read about historically. I can't understand who would in their right conscience chhose it.
It's just that you say that there is a god instead of just saying that you believe it. I certainly don't believe it. Does that make me miserable? Are my views really inferior to yours? That's elitist and closed-minded. I'm a very, very happy atheist, and I'm disappointed that anyone would believe in some magical god. I've never done anything illegal, never consumed any dangerous or illegal drugs, never had a girlfriend yet(came close, but decided I'll wait until after college for that), and I don't go to parties or anything like that. I do nice things for people before doing nice things for myself most of the time, and I don't feel any need to change my ways.
The best religion is the one that provides absolutely no rules. You don't need your commandments to see if something's wrong or not, and you certainly don't need to worship some invisible god no one has ever seen for absolutely no reason at all.
As I said, clash of beliefs. I hope I can avoid this blog in the future.
Asimov and Sagan didn't seem very miserable at all, but go on, feel free to paint us all with one brush-stroke because you can't fathom our choices.
Though now that you mention it, why is the USA inherently the nation of "God"? From whence did this proclamation come? Why would God specifically favour one group of people over another based solely on their geographic birthplace?
Why are difficult times inherently caused by God angry at people who don't obey him? Why are the people who do obey him similarly punished?
I do not ask these to attempt to dissuade you from your belief; it is your right to believe as you do, just as it is mine to believe as I do. I am, however, insulted at how easily you dismiss atheists as miserable people, and alarmed that you truly believe that "moral" centers (that is, the church) should "aid" in controlling political centers.
As far as national prayer day goes, I'm surprised you don't know your bible.
Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
And one last thing. As far as your little remark about atheists being miserable goes... Matthew 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:.
Nephilim_X? Yeah, I think I love you. for atheism. :B
an atheist is using the bible against a Christian? Ok. Let's go there.
But you may want to also (to be fair) not only read that above scripture again, this time in context, so you don't escape the true meaning of the passage which has NOTHING to do with public prayer at all and all to do with the heart attitude and put in those other scriptures where public prayer IS used favorably as an example for the rest of us....including Jesus very public prayer (he wasn't in a closet) in John 17.
Remember the very first Congress not only started with a three hour long prayer they have done that ever since. Also, the very first act of Congress was to print 20,000 bibles to convert the Indians.
While you're reading the scriptures to get the correct context you may want to browse thru some history books as well.
I stand by my statement that Atheists are or come to be very miserable people. Maybe you're not there now, but you will be. A person with no hope, and believe that this is all there is is most miserable indeed.
But that's just my observations not only from those I've met and known over the years but also those very famous atheists in history. Darwin was very miserable. Read his life history. So was Hitler etc.
Please know this is not any sort of attack on atheism. I just know there's a better way that gives one hope and a future.
Here we go again. Why is an atheist going to the bible anyhow?
I know this is the very favorite bible verse of Atheists but again....got it wrong. Read the rest of it. It used to be everyone knew John 3:16 (in the old days) but now the most recognized verse is this one.....
and I believe it's in Matthew 7 not 6. IN FACT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A 6:37. I'm in another state right now with no bible handy, so why don't you grab a bible and check it out yourself!
We are to make judgments and we all do everyday. According to scripture we are NOT to judge in hypocricy or malice and that's what that verse is saying. Later Christ said to one of his disciples "you judged rightly."
We are not to judge the hearts of men, because only God can do that. But we are to make judgment calls on actions. That's why it says if we see an erring brother, we are to tell him first (Matthew 18) and if he won't listen, stay away from him (Corinthians)....not even to eat with him. The only way we can do this is by making a judgment call.
Hey, I'm free to offer my services for any other bible verses you have been taught erronously on......my pleasure. There's so much error floating around out there, I'm not surprised. Scripture actually teaches that Satan would deceive (and tries to) even the elect if he could.
Maybe just maybe you don't have a correct understanding on scripture in general. So if that's the case, and it seems so, why not at least honestly check into the whole thing first before YOUR making a judgment call against it?
you must be very young and naive. Come back in 10 years and we'll have a chat.
Oh, and BTW, the only rule in genuine Christianity is "follow me" A Christian follows Christ. There are no rules.....just a relationship. And when you love someone you do the best you can to please, love and honor them.
Of course there are rules in your religion. Ten Commandments, etc. In your religion unless the rules are followed, for whatever reason, you are condemned to a pit of eternal torment.
As for the Matthew mixup, yes, you're correct. I did misread; it's Luke 6:37, not Matthew. As for why an atheist references the bible, why wouldn't I be referencing the bible when discussing with a Christian? It's completely relevant to your beliefs, isn't it? Am I somehow forbidden from reading or referencing the bible unless I believe in everything it says? Or is the fact that there is scripture which can be taken in ways you don't prefer somehow threatening?
Now, let's move onto several of your other points. 1, why should I respect Congress for printing off bibles to convert Native Americans? Why is this necessary? Were unfair treaties and campaigns of genocide not enough to demolish their culture, or did they simply want some metaphorical blood on their teeth to go with the real stuff?
2, did your religion actually just tell you to exclude others who you don't deem to be right? What ever happened to turning the other cheek, or to not condemn? To forgive, to give, to love them regardless? Excluding them to the point of not even eating with them over their religion is idiocy. How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
As far as actions go, and your judgements on them, to think one is incapable of good acts because they are not Christian is, again, idiocy. I cannot speak for all atheists, nor all Christians. All I can speak of is myself - and if my blood donations, financial donations to the the Sick Kids Foundation ( http://www.sickkidsfoundation.com/home/ ), the fact that I'm currently training to be a Registered Nurse, and other good acts are all invalidated simply because I don't believe in your god, then frankly I would rather not partake of your religion - it seems to me a petty, trite reason to exclude someone.
Finally, again coming back to your "miserable atheists" statement - Hitlers religion is debatable and I concede it is perfectly simple for a politician to say they believe in something for rhetoric sake; the fact that many of his followers were Christian is not something you can dismiss however. On top of that, between crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, racial bigotry and homosexual bigotry, it's not hard to be pious and still inhumane. Furthermore, you ignore my examples of Sagan and Asimov as people who were clearly happy while being atheists. As far as Darwin goes, it's entirely true that he was deeply depressed after the loss of his daughter.
What being sad has to do with the validity of ones beliefs is beyond me. Is a sad Christian somehow made more or less valid? A sad muslim? Wiccan? Shinto?
I apologize for the double post, but edit is not working correctly.
You still ignored my questions about why god would apparently see fit to punish the innocent along with the guilty, or why the US is apparently his current favoured nation. Why, if god made every single human on earth as you believe, does he play favourites? Are they not all his children? Would he not, in his omnipotence and omnipresence, understand why we make the decisions we do? Is it not immoral to punish a flawed creation for being flawed?
Additionally, if Hitler could invoke the name of God for the purposes of motivating a population to do what he wants, why could you not consider that Lincoln and Garfield are doing the exact same in your initial post?
Young and naive? Don't make me laugh, you elitist pig. I was saying that religion has no real purpose with that statement. Come back in ten years? Ha! I'm obviously more mature and independent in my beliefs than you. Poor Christian. If you were raised elsewhere you may not be the fanatical Christian you are. However, I am currently living in East Texas, along the BIBLE BELT. I was raised a Baptist, and I didn't question my 'beliefs' or even think about them until around when I turned 14, years ago. Since then I've happily adjusted my views on life, and realized that religion is a control system that should have died as soon as it was created. Everyone seems to have their own religion these days, though, and I hope all of the bad stuff that comes from religion ends soon, or that religion just 'ends'. It seems more atheists are 'coming out' out on the internet than anywhere else, though, and that's makes me proud.
KFC,
Thanks for the quotes from Lincoln and Garfield..they go right to the core...
I agree and I did...I prayed and pray.
The National Day of prayer is simply a call to pray...it can be done privately or in a public gathering and there is no problem (yet?) with that. Public prayer for which we assemble together is something necessary and granted for it to have efficacy, for prayer to be holy, it must be done reverently.
In my town a few years ago, people gathered in the public park at the gazebo and prayed together for the good of our nation, state and town. Almighty God blesses those who pray together...St.Matthew 18:20
At the same time, public prayer should not displace obedience to this commandment of Our Lord to dedicate private times to pray to the Father.
FACELORD POSTS #4 [quote]It's just that you say that there is a god instead of just saying that you believe it. I certainly don't believe it. [/quote
That Almighty God exists is beyond a question of reasonable doubt. The purer the heart of the person, the clearer his mental vision of Him. When KFC speaks that there is a God, she speaks truth. Truth is in possession. People do not have to persuade themselves there is a God...rather, they have to persuade themselves there is no God. And yet, no one who has attained such a temporary persuasion has been able to find a valid reason for it. We don't grow into the idea of a God; we endeavor to grow out of it.
Your views are not inferior per se. Atheists are just foolish and weak because they purposefully and willingly shirk the duty of rendering to God what is due to God, shirk the responsibility of admitting that they are not infinitely perfect and shirk the greatest reality of life.
FaCELORD #12
Now, here you take your own virtue as a standard and proceed to find others wanting when measured by it. It often happens that those who don't believe in ALmighty God or practice no religion often canonize themselves as models of perfection and regard religious people in the vein as you've described above.
Here's something to consider....
It really would be better for you to take up your religious duties to God...as a matter of fact, it's impossible to be honest without believing in God and being religious...Right or true Religion is the highest form of honesty; a strict duty to God. Look at it this way...Jones owes one man $100.00 and another $1.00. He pays the $1 but not the $100. Smith also owes $100 to one and $1. to another. He pays the $100, but not the $1. Whose is the greater dishonesty? Now each owes a tremendous to God and a lesser one to his neighbor. By your own description, you pay the lesser (man), but neglect the Greater (God).
The person who is just to his neighbor but doesn't bother about his duty of religion to God, is the kind of person who pays the baker for bread he puts in his body, but nothing to God for the body he puts his bread into! religion is a strict duty of justice to God acknowledging our indebtedness to Him. If religious people sometimes fail, and of course they do, I don't justify that. But their creditors are insignificant compared to Creator God who supplied you with all you have and receive with no acknowledgment from you?
I'd rather be in the position of those whom you condemn. My belief in Almighty God and practice of religion may save me despite my many faults, while your self described goodness will not save you.
Facelord, settle down. You're coming off as rabid. Religion can indeed do many terrible things, but as a cultural factor it's one that won't be going away any time soon, and again, not everyone with a religion is some sort of hateful nutball. Given your age, yes, you are lacking maturity. Make like Bill & Ted and Be Excellent unto one another. Judge them not by their professed beliefs, but by their acts.
Lulapilgrim, there's zero proof of god. Why am I to assume it's your god that "gave" anything? Or indeed how would any of us genuinely know what sort of "divinity" wants? Is it not possible that an entity created the universe, then just sat back and watched it all happen, not actually caring or passing judgement on any of us? On this side note, the entire point of faith is belief without proof. As I've mentioned earlier, you are perfectly welcome to believe as you do, but to condemn others for their spiritual beliefs and solely their spiritual beliefs is massively bigoted.
If your god is so petty and vindictive that he would damn me along with many other good, decent people based solely on the fact that we do not worship him, that in itself is grounds for me not to worship him, as such egotism is repulsive. None of us asked to be given anything; these "gifts" apparently come with a heavy debt, one which I certainly did not agree to. Yet apparently even if I am healing the sick, giving to the poor, and doing the best I can for my fellow humans, I apparently deserve an eternity of torment on the grounds that I did not worship an entity claimed to have created everything.
Again, I ask, if god loves us, why does he punish us for not being sure he exists, or loving a different concept of him? Would it not be a simple matter to give revelation once one has passed on, and then provide rehabilitation? Is god simply too busy? Or does he expect us, in a world filled with thousands of varied takes on divinity, to pinpoint the exact branch of a specific religion where the truth is?
On one final side note, yes, the God of the bible is a pretty vindictive fellow.
Kings 2:23-24 (NIV): From there Elisha went up toBethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out ofthe town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!"they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around,looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of theLORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two ofthe youths.
God seriously had bears slaughter children for teasing? Suck it up, crybaby.
lULA POSTS:
neophilim_X posts:
You don't have to assume anything rather just be willing to use your God-made noggin' and think and you might, just might get to know something of Almighty God that you didn't know before.
First...God...the one, true and Supreme Being, an Infinitely Perfect Spirit and the Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth. God possesses all perfections without measure or number....Almighty, Eternal, Infinite in intellect; All knowing, everywhere present, All Holy, Just, Merciful, Good, True, Faithful and Unchangeable. God is the Beginning and End of all things and can be certainly known by the light of natural reason.
Romans 11:20 "for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." That means our idea of God is acquired from the dawn of reason.
Wisdom 13 assures the mind of man naturally rises from nature's Origin and Source, from things caused by a Necessary First Cause that always was, is and always will be, on which all things depend. The many proofs for the existence of ALmighty God comes from the fact that we humans instinctively know that we are limited in thought and activity, and feel deep in our heart that only a Supreme Being can satisfy the aspirations and longings of our soul. In short, natural law written in our heart reveals God to us, as the First Cause, the Necessary Being, the Prime Mover, and the Designer and Orderer of the universe, the Origin of Life, the Supreme Lawgiver and the Ultimate Good.
Now it would take alot of space to fully develop this and I'll only argue from causality as put forward by St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.
Some think that evidence must be seen or touched, but not necessarily so. We all have reason and intelligence and can appreciate intellectual evidence. Even apart from the Holy Bible, reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existence of God.
The first proof is from causality. The universe limited in all its details could not be its own cause. It couldn't come together with all its regulationg laws anymore than the San Francisco bridge could just happen or a clock could assemble itslef and keep perfect time witout a clock-maker.
The end of a thing is the purpose for which it was made. The end of a clock is to keep time and the end of a pen is to write. For what purpose was man made and if we discover that we'll know his end. Look around, everything has a purpose or an end. The soil is made for plants to grow for animals and us to eat and from this we can easily see that everything in the world was made to serve something else.
Was mankind made for something in the world? The answer is no.
We see all classes or beings were created for something higher than themselves. Plants are higher than soil because they have life and soil doesn't. Animals are higher than plants becasue they have life and can feel and plants cannot. Man is higher than animals becasue he has reason and intelligence and can understand while animals cannot.
There must be something higher than man himself but there is nothing higher than him in the world so we must look beyond to find that for which he was made. And looking beyond and considering all things, we find man was made for Almighty God..to know, love and serve Him both in this world and in everlasting life in Heaven.
On this same principle that the bridge and the clock need a maker, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute or question His existence.
Interesting I just finished commenting on faith, truth and reality and reason on another blog...
First, Faith is not necessary to arrive at the conclusion that God exists...faith though is necessary for the full acceptance of His Revelation.
In religion, faith is a supernatural virtue and a great gift of God. It's not an antithesis to reason rather it teaches us things which are above reason for the revealed truths known only to God must be above ordinary human thought. But while faith teaches some truths wwhich so profound as to be above human reason it never teaches any single doctrine which is opposed to sound and rational principles. If you can prove any Catholic doctrine to violate correct principles of reason, I shall cease to believe it at once!
Now..by faith we believe things. Certainly you understand that. Now people don't believe with their feelings and emotions...we believe with our minds. Belief is a mental conviction. If a Marine officer tells a woman that her son has been killed, her faith in his knowledge and veracity will make her believe the truth that he's been killed. From this knowledge emotion may follow as an effect. But an effect is not the cause just as perception is not the same as or cause of reality.
Faith then is not an emotion nor is it nor is it of the senses. Faith is an intellectual admission that a certain thing is true becasue although we have not seen the reality ourselves we reasonably admit that the one who told us must be reliably informed and will not deceive us. Nor is Faith involuntary. If I see an accident I know that it has occurred, and it's useless to tell myself it didn't occur. But if you tell me of an accident, and I didn't see it occur, then I have no direct evidence and I can choose to believe you or not. I can put my faith in what you tell me or refuse.
True Christian faith cannot lead one into error. We prove that God has said a thing and believe becasue He has said it. Doubt would be possible only if God could deceive or be decieved. But He could not. He knows all things and is Truth Himself. And He also has given abundant external signs to confirm His revelation.
pretty much what the first nations peoples believed--until the christians arrived convinced their god mandated them to kill them and steal their land.
really?
what differentiates what you believe (but cannot prove through any objective means whatsoever) god said from what the lds followers believe he said to joseph smith?
anyone who requires or claims to supply proof of something that is essentially unprovable rebukes true faith which involves neither.
My first thought at reading this was....tell Kingbee to send his complaint to Obama...he's fixin' everything wrong ain't he?
OK...cite the source of your assertion where God mandated Christians to kill Indians and steal their land.
A)....from my reading of history, most of the trouble, killing and stealing that the Indians had was amongst themselves...I found a very good book on this, but gave it as a Christmas gift and don't remember the name.
and
...also from my reading, Jesuit Missionaries to North America by Fr. Francois Roustang we learn the Catholic missionaries tried to bring the Church to the Indians and did many of them...and many of the missionaries met a very unpleasant fate at the hands of unfriendly Indians...St.Jean de Brebeuf and St. Gabriel Lalemant were captured by Iroquois warriors. Evidently there were no parts of their body that was not slowly burnt including the eyes.
St.Isaac Jogues and Jean de la Lande were tomohawked (sp?) to death following a crop failure and outbreak of disease. St.Charles Garnier, who ministered to the friendly Huron Indians was killed by Iroquois too.
The one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Bible teaches that the Chruch began with Christ over 2,000 years ago upon St.Peter, our first Pope, not with men or women 15 to 19 centuries later! The Church was founded when Our Lord spoke the following and other similiar words:
In 33AD, "Jesus came and spoke to them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: Teach them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
The Chruch of the LDS is not the true Chruch of Christ...and there can only be one...the one that Christ built upon Peter.
History proves that the first Protestant Church was the LUtheran Church founded in 1517 by the ex-priest apostate Martin Luther; all the other hundreds of sects, including the LDS, have been established since then.
The Bible also teaches that the rulers of Christ's Chruch have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion...
Heb. 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account; that they might do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofitable to you."
St.Matt. 18:17 "And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Chruch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
St.Luke 10:16, "He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me."
The Apostles repeatedly claimed this authority Gal. 1:3; St.John 1:10; Acts. So the laws or precepts of the Catholic Chruch are founded upon the same Apostolic authority in the New Covenant. The Bible teaches that Christ taught the Apostles and they in turn taught other ministers by the laying on of hands (bishops, priests and deacons) who represent Him in this world. They are stewards of the mysteries of God. 1Cor. 4:1; 2Cor.5:20. The Bible also teaches there is a sacrifice and a priesthood in the order of Melchisedech in the New Covenant. From the prophecy of Malachais 1:11, "For the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a clean oblation." (a pure offering). Hebrews 13:10 says, "We have an altar..."
The Protestant communion is not intended to be a sacrificial act which the prophet's word "altar" connotes. Only in the Catholic Chruch here since 33 AD, do we find among Christians an altar of sacrifice (the Holy Mass) and a clean oblation which is the sacrifice of the BOdy and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
Do you seriously not understand the circular logic you're using in arguing "this book is right because this same book says it is right"
Additionally, while it is true that Native Americans had wars between themselves, if you seriously cannot comprehend how that was different compared to what Europeans did to them then I'm not quite sure what to say. Moving on to your very, very tired argument about the watchmaker, aside from the fact that we've outright witnessed evolution taking place, there's the fact that your argument refutes itself: if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (i.e. God) must also have been designed by something yet more complex. Additionally, your argument about a heirarchy is flawed, because plants are alive, and in certain ways can sense external stimuli. Additionally, animals are not always emotional - other forms of life do work in collectives, controlled by pheremones, or simply have too primitive a brain to work beyond instincts. Finally, if we as humans "must" know that there's something higher than us, why can't we believe there is something above that? And above that?
Additionally, not a single believer in evolution posits that systems spring into being fully formed in their present state - rather that over vast amounts of time, through natural processes, they are gradually refined. And I only wish our bodies were as perfect as a swiss watch - the human body has a hilarious amount of flaws in it, some so basic and stupid that if someone had designed them, they need their engineering lisence revoked.
If you also do not see how a marine informing a mother that her son has died in combat differs from a human telling us that their religion and only their religion holds the sole truth in the universe, well. That's just incredibly ignorant. It's called reasoning - a marine is not simply dispatched to tell a lie about the death of other soldiers, and is an authority figure with facts and details that can be verified independently.
Though given you've suddenly brought politics into this with your little poke at Obama when none of us had mentioned him at all, a very clear picture is starting to form about what sort of person you are.
You also posit that all humans instinctively know that a single divine creator is responsible for us. Nnnnnno, that isn't how things work. I'm sorry to disappoint you. And yes, God does decieve in the bible. Consider the whole "Yo, Abraham, go kill your son to prove your loyalty" followed by "Whoa ok don't kill him, that's close enough". If God was omnipotent, why would he need to test Abraham like that?
And of course "True" christian faith can lead one into error. Consider how long it took for a pope to apologize about a certain incident regarding the refutation of geocentricism.
Finally I ask why you have not tackled any of my other questions regarding the morality of your lord. I see no further reason to continue replying to you if you are willing to ignore a valid point regarding the ethics of your god, while bringing politics previously completely unrelated and unimplied into it, along with taking a very, very narrow view of who was worse between Native Americans and Europeans on the grounds that conversion efforts were not well recieved.
It's not circular logic, but a lawful spiral argument of which the ends do not meet.
I'll admit that arguing from the inspiration of the Holy Bible to its authority does get some hairs to stand on end. However, a book that is inspired Word of God would be expected to say so, and the Catholic Chruch supplies the further evidence required.
Now, with you, something tells me that the fact, that the Jews always accepted the Old Testament as inspired and the Christians have also accepted both the Old and the New Testaments as inspired for sooo many centuries without question also argues to the truth of their inspiration, won't hold much water!
So we will move and I'll ask you to take the four Gospels and consider them for the moment as if they were not inspired. I don't deny their inspiration, but just for the moment we abstract from it, and make no use of it.
Let's subject the Gospels as books to all the laws of historical criticism --that very same laws that we apply to other books. they prove to be reliable historical documents....indeed, there is no genuine historical document in existence if these are not so. Now these historical documents tell us of a certain historical person who declared He was God, justified that claim by works which no ordinary man could do, and said that He would establish an infallible Church---a Chruch that was here in 33AD when He was here and a Chruch that is still here in this world.
So, with this we prove Christ's life and works from historical documents. We prove His divinity from His life and works. We prove the infallible Church from the promise of this Divine Person. But we do not yet say that the Holy Bible is inspired, though of course we know that it is. But our rational grounds for that belief come from the fact that the infallible Church of Christ teaches with her authority that the Holy Bible is inspired and the Word of God, and also tells us what Books comprise the Holy Bible.
That the Bible in infinitely superior to the sacred books of other religions becomes at once apparent. The most rigid criticism shows the strictly historical character of the Bible. Fabulous narratives cannot stand this test. The supernatural character of the Bible stands out in vivid contrast when compared with the teaching of other religious documents. The Catholic Church whose very existences in the world today cannot be explained by natural forces, guarantees the Bible as the Word of God.
Taking the Scriptures as historical documents only, the Chruch proves the historical fact that Christ endowed her with infallibility. Then using that infallibility (which btw means that the CC cannnot err when teaching ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals) the Chruch throws new light on the historical books by assuring me that they are inspired. So, I begin with historical books and finish with inspried historical books. But I did not use inspiration as the basis of my first premise.
In the 4th century, St.Augustine rightly said "I could not accept the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Chruch impelled me." I couldn't agree more.
Nephilim_X posts:
Guess that depends on how you define "evolution"...if you mean evolution as small change over time within kind then that doesn't refute anything as that is part of God's loving Creation, something called secondary causes. If by "evolution" you mean Darwinism Evolution Theory, that is, change over eons of time from one species into a completely different species as in reptiles to birds and apes to mankind, then I would point to God's creation and intricate, irreducibly complex design barrier of DNA and say impossible.
But hey, if you want to think your ancestors were ape-creatures, then what can I say...except mine go back to Adam and Eve. (Talk about wisdom from the past!).
Besides that, the human soul is directly created by God. God gives existence to the soul at the very moment when it is to be united to the body produced by generation, becasue it is designed by God to form with that body one human nature. The Council of Vienne in 1311 defined that "the rational or intellectual soul is directly and essentially the form i.e. the life giving principle of the body." The Divine origin of the soul is an infallible doctrine of the Chruch, which gives the lie direct to the theory of atheistic evolution and invests paternal authority with a religious and a sacred character.
Again, talk about wisdom from the past!
Aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha. Hookay, let's take it from the top.
The fact that you're already going on about some sort of "immediate" revelation upon reading the bible that it's "the truth" speaks very poorly of it. If you are correct, then your god truly is a vindictive sort for his punishment of his creations for flaws he created in them, when they did not willingly ask for any of this - again you have ignored the problems which I asked about earlier. And yes, your church and its saints can indeed be wrong on a great many things. Consider:
"To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure." -St Odo of Cluny
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbeggoten, for the active power of the male seeds tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power."-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
"Cursed be the man who holds back his sword from shedding blood."-Pope Gregory VII, Roman Catholic Pope
"Use against heretics the spiritual sword of excommunication, and if this does not prove effective, use the material sword."-Pope Innocent III
Now, onto evolution. There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution; they are the same thing - "macro" is simply the aggregate of many, many small changes over a long period of time. Evolution works almost exclusively by gradual change. Simply going by the fossil sequence and biogeography we have evidence for "macroevolution". And given that we've found what you might term as transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, well. Sorry. Nor is DNA irreducibly complex; we have an excellent understanding of how DNA operates, and we -have- decoded the human genome. Have you ever even taken science classes, or do you just ignore whatever you disagree with? Before we go on, I may as well point you towards this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Don't bother with more arguments about evolution unless it's not up there. And you do know the catholic church no longer rejects evolution, right? That they actually do endorse it, provided it doesn't seek to provide a materialistic explanation for the soul? Or do you simply prefer to be extremely selective with your interpretations of your mother church?
As to your blurb about the soul, that's what you believe on the grounds that that's what you've been told.
I ask you one last time. Why are you ignoring the moral quanderies I've pointed out in the bible itself? Why does god mutilate over a mere insult? Why does god demand a sacrifice he should logically know is not necessary? Why does God harden Pharoah's heart, other than to inflict more sorrow and misery against the Egyptians, including babies whose only crime was being the first born? What on earth does god have against clothes made with multiple types of materials? All of these are in the bible, and you have responded to not one argument - you simply parrot the same thing over and over, that the bible is right and the true word of god because it says it is, and because there is a (non-existent) immediate revelation upon reading it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
