Quote from: wulfgar;2504041. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.
2. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.
3. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

Wulfgar, laying the Catholicism down!  Catholicism has always been my favorite brand of Christianity, as it's the only one that comes close to making a lick of sense.  At least it follows logically from it's premises.

You might appreciate this:  I blame Otherkin on the Protestant Revolution.

In the Catholic tradition, when a new idea is proposed -- a new way of reading a passage, a change in doctrine -- the idea is thoroughly debated and an official sanctioned position is created.  Thus while one can't say what any particular Catholic believes, one can always definitively say what the Church teaches as the faith.

In the Protestant tradition, the articles of faith vary from individual to individual.  There is no larger debate.  If two Protestants disagree, they have no way of resolving the dispute except to split.  (Splitters!)  So over time, you have the Catholic Church remaining a single whole, while the Protestant church becomes more and more and more fractured.

But at the same time, with no constraints on Protestant Christianity, you begin getting freak variants of Christianity.  There's the big ones: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Amish.  Then theres all the little cults and stuff.  Basically Protestant Christianity becomes "whatever you want to believe + mention of Jesus."

The next step from there, once you've ditched logic, coherence, tradition, and passing respect for reality, is to start ditching the elements of Christianity that don't appeal. Like Jesus.  Why does Christianity have to be about Jesus?  So you get "pagans" who are basically Christians except they worship Jesusina aka The Goddess, who is basically Jesus in a dress.

From the 'personal spirituality' of Protestantism it's only a few short steps to the 'personal spirituality' of Paganism, and from there only a few more steps to Otherkin.

This is what happens when you take an idea like faith, make it unquestionable and unassailable, and then remove all religious authority over faith.  Eventually you end up with people who have religious faith in the existence of ElfQuest, and believing as a part of their 'personal spirituality' that they are elves and shit.

SO.......,

 Short version: Patriarch dude does believe in Souls and thinks there IS a meaning of life.


 All that other religion/Christianity/God stuff may have been more interesting in another thread.

I was hoping for friendlier & mellower discussion of the 2 main questions - yeah, I know too late now.


- Ed C.

That was actually pretty well said Jackalope.  Seriously.

Hi Bill,

I think you missed the point of my explanation about the dual sources of revelation in the Catholic Faith, either because I didn't explain it clearly enough, or because you chose to reject it.  Either way, I'll try clarifying.

The Bible is not my "primary manual".  It is one of two.  The other is the teaching authority of the Church.  Chronologically speaking, the Church's authority came first.  The Early Christians had no Bible.  It wasn't finished till about 100 AD.  So obviously one does not need the Bible to be a Christian, because Christians existed before the Bible.

That I do not believe the earth was made in 6 24 hour days does not violate, the Bible or the Church's teaching.  Let's say the creation account in Genesis was to be taken literally.  God does not create the sun until the 4th day.  So if we're taking things literally, it would logically follow that there's a very good chance the "days" involved would not match up with our 24 hour days, because that unit of measurement is dependent upon the sun.  

But like I said, I don't think that passage is to be taken literally.  I'm sure you have read many books that were allegorical- why is it a cop out for that to be the case with some of the books of the Bible?

QuoteHmm. See, this is why it is not science. My primary point here, Wulfgar, and maybe it has been lost as we have gone along, is not to say your religion is wrong, but to take exception at your direct comparison of religion to science. I am a scientist and far more important, an engineer by training, profession and preference. Science, in the practical, is precise. Even in what it outlines as questionable (fact->theory->hypothesis). Not you, but most people who take the stance that science takes faith are usually not educated in science or engineering and really does not understand how it works. Scientists are just as happy to be proven wrong as right, reverse old stances on new evidence. Religion, not so much. If God was found to be a figment of the collective imagination of man, religion would be finished.

I am an engineer as well, so we have some common elements in our background to work from.  I don't think I've ever said science=religion.  I have said that believing there is no God requires as much faith as belief in a God.  Belief in no God is not science, as you and I have both agreed, someone can be religious and scientific, one or the other, or neither.  I would disagree with the precision you ascribe to science.  Every physics problem you ever do will start with "assumptions" or "givens".  As one example the dating of the fossil record you have mentioned is based upon several assumptions that materials have always behaved like they do now in the past.

QuoteAs to Jesus, his "miracles" were regularly performed by con men of the time. He had message of peace that he himself did not follow

1. Con men may have given the appearance of raising others or themselves from the dead, but none of them actually did it.  So if you believe Jesus is who he says he is, then no, nobody else ever did what he did.

2. How did Jesus not live by his message of peace?  Does throwing over a few tables in the temple, make you an unpeaceful person? (Actually, I'd argue that pacifism is not an orthodox Christian position, but I would say Jesus led a peaceful life.  He came into contact with many soldiers throughout his life, and he never told one of them to stop being a soldier.  I'm curious how you see otherwise.)

Quote. If you are going to say God is in those ceremonies then you must say God is in the vile side of the equation as well. He moves the priest to bugger a child. He moves a Pope to declare the Inquisition. Inspires war along with peace, hate along with love. This would make a neutral God, not a benevolent one.

Do you have children?  Do you love them?  If the answers are yes and yes, do you force them to do what is best for them all of the time, or do you allow them to make mistakes?  If you forced someone to love you, then they aren't really loving you..they are your unwilling slave.  My belief is that God loves mankind so much that He gives us the freedom to reject Him if we so chose.  

QuoteSee, a big thing I also have a problem with is the general intolerance built into your religion. I am going to hell. This cannot be argued. Many Christians have told me so.

I have not told you, that you are going to Hell.  I wouldn't know.  I don't know if I am either.  This is another key area of distinction between Catholics and most protestants, the whole concept of being "saved" as in "I was saved when I was 12 at my grandma's church".  Someone could live a godly life for most of their life and then murder a bunch of people and go to Hell.  Someone could live a horrible life and then repent and go to heaven (see the thief on the cross).  So why not party hardy and just go to church when we're old?  Well we never know how much time we have.

QuoteMy point is, if I do not believe in your faith, why is it necessary that you:
a) attempt to convert me
b) tell me I will be punished under your rules

I don't believe I've done either of those.  I'm just having a friendly discussion.  Cool?

QuoteDo you know what evolution is? Seriously, I am not being snarky but you seem to be using a definition that I am not aware of.

Quote3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

I think evolution happens.  I'm merely challenging some of the statements you've said about it.  You've said it is reproducable and repeatable.  While such "micro-evolutionary" results like creating a new breed of dog, might be reproducable, where is the reproducable and repeatable experiments for "macro-evolution", or the creation of new species?  

QuoteGiven enough time, a breed could develop traits of other speicies, see definition above.

That is an assumption you have made based on the evidence you have available to you.  That sounds perfectly reasonable, but it's still an assumption, or have you seen a new species develop from an old one?

QuoteAs to "into a new species", you are joking right? That is a requirement of evolution to you. I do not see it

Well, unless you believe all current lifeforms have always existed, then I think it would be a requirement for you.  Most biologists think that life began with single celled organisms.  These would have had to evolve into multicelled organism, and into the vast array of different plant, animal, and other species that have existed in the past or exist now.  Whether or not one believes in God, you'd have to explain how all these different species came to exist.  So how do you explain it?  

If my tone comes off as snarky or antagonistic (in a personal sense) that is not my intent at all.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250476This violates the Dogma of your primary manual.

Your primary manual.

Bill

If I may interject, as biblical history and linguistics are favorite hobbies of mine...

The original words used for 'day' in the Torah literally meant 'a span of time'... and were colloqually used to mean 'a day' by native speakers, but were not limited to that use.   Thus, when translations were made to promulgate 'The Book', one needed to pick a word to use, and the term 'Day' was an obvious choice.

At the end of the day, Genesis, in its original form, was far less clear on just how long it took God to make the world than in its current form.

Also, and this is purely a source of personal amusement, a very literal reading of the opening passages of Genesis suggests to me that God did not create the oceans... they were already there.  I don't have a bible handy, but bet I could dig one up in a few minutes to quote the relevant passage.

I am aware that some religious studies classes point out that there are actually two accounts of creation in Genesis that are only haphazardly slapped together (The six day thing and the Adam/Eve story... two authorial styles, etc...) to make it seem like they belong together.

Quote from: Spike;250534Also, and this is purely a source of personal amusement, a very literal reading of the opening passages of Genesis suggests to me that God did not create the oceans... they were already there.  I don't have a bible handy, but bet I could dig one up in a few minutes to quote the relevant passage.

A literal reading of the Genesis story has some very interesting oddities.  Did you know that outer space is made of water?  Says so in Genesis.

That's why the sky is blue.

That's a really wonky way to read the same passage I think.   Contextually, the writers would have no conception of 'outer space', nor the original readers, so it requires a leap of... not faith, but... self-insertion? to make that claim.

You inject, essentially, out of character knowledge into the writer's intent.

The parts I snipped here I will let go. I believe one way and you another. I think the picking and choosing what will be applied from the bible will make this discussion a bit more difficult since I will need to ask you what applies and does not. That said.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I am an engineer as well, so we have some common elements in our background to work from.  I don't think I've ever said science=religion.  I have said that believing there is no God requires as much faith as belief in a God.  Belief in no God is not science, as you and I have both agreed, someone can be religious and scientific, one or the other, or neither.  I would disagree with the precision you ascribe to science.  Every physics problem you ever do will start with "assumptions" or "givens".  As one example the dating of the fossil record you have mentioned is based upon several assumptions that materials have always behaved like they do now in the past.

Assumptions that can be reproduced or varified. 2+2=4 does not require faith. It is reproducible. Believing in a super being living in the sky that could end suffering but does not takes a boatload. This is the root of my point. If you agree, and I am not sure you do, then we agree and no further discussion is needed.

Quote from: wulfgar;2505221. Con men may have given the appearance of raising others or themselves from the dead, but none of them actually did it.  So if you believe Jesus is who he says he is, then no, nobody else ever did what he did.

Reported by biased sources. The point is, these were not "miracles" beyond being reproduced by con men and other "messiahs".

Quote from: wulfgar;2505222. How did Jesus not live by his message of peace?  Does throwing over a few tables in the temple, make you an unpeaceful person? (Actually, I'd argue that pacifism is not an orthodox Christian position, but I would say Jesus led a peaceful life.  He came into contact with many soldiers throughout his life, and he never told one of them to stop being a soldier.  I'm curious how you see otherwise.)

Yes. He was violent. He attacked money changers in the Temple.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522Do you have children?  Do you love them?  If the answers are yes and yes, do you force them to do what is best for them all of the time, or do you allow them to make mistakes?  If you forced someone to love you, then they aren't really loving you..they are your unwilling slave.  My belief is that God loves mankind so much that He gives us the freedom to reject Him if we so chose.  

Hmm, yes, I ave children. Yes, I make him clean up when he makes a mess. No, I do not let him be raped by a priest. No, I would not let him die slowly from leukemia over several years in a great die of pain if I had the power to change it. Can you see my point?

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I have not told you, that you are going to Hell.  I wouldn't know.  I don't know if I am either.  This is another key area of distinction between Catholics and most protestants, the whole concept of being "saved" as in "I was saved when I was 12 at my grandma's church".  Someone could live a godly life for most of their life and then murder a bunch of people and go to Hell.  Someone could live a horrible life and then repent and go to heaven (see the thief on the cross).  So why not party hardy and just go to church when we're old?  Well we never know how much time we have.

Ah, but the operative is belief in Christ. If you do not believe in Christ you are going to Hell. If you believe in Christ, you could kill thousands and still go to heaven. That abdicates an important role in responsibility for one's own actions. This is unacceptable to me.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I don't believe I've done either of those.  I'm just having a friendly discussion.  Cool?

I am just trying to give you a reference to my experiences. Again, I regret the medium since it sounds much worse than intended.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522I think evolution happens.  I'm merely challenging some of the statements you've said about it.  You've said it is reproducable and repeatable.  While such "micro-evolutionary" results like creating a new breed of dog, might be reproducable, where is the reproducable and repeatable experiments for "macro-evolution", or the creation of new species?  

This is called experimentation or perhaps for an engineer as a prototype. That is to say, effects can be produced on the small scale then it is possible to apply what is learned to the large scale. It is reasonable to say, and provable by experiment, that evolution exists and has been at work on a planetary scale. It is not rational to say "It works on a small scale and none of the proven concepts work on a large scale". Details may vary, capabilities might be an issue, but you will be able to scale just about anything.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522That is an assumption you have made based on the evidence you have available to you.  That sounds perfectly reasonable, but it's still an assumption, or have you seen a new species develop from an old one?

You should watch Jackalope's link.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522Well, unless you believe all current lifeforms have always existed, then I think it would be a requirement for you.  Most biologists think that life began with single celled organisms.  These would have had to evolve into multicelled organism, and into the vast array of different plant, animal, and other species that have existed in the past or exist now.  Whether or not one believes in God, you'd have to explain how all these different species came to exist.  So how do you explain it?  

Quote from: wulfgar;250522Ah, so you are confusing terms. Yes, I believe that species developed from other species to use your terms. I also believe (as in a theory) that species can evolve into other species in the future. However, it takes a great deal of time to happen. This is evidenced in fossils. Now, before you say I need faith to believe this, no, I do not. I need the ability to reason and I need to understand the definition of theory. 2+2=4 is a fact. Evolution is a theory. Neat thing about science is new facts can change a theory. Creationism is a faith based bedtime story. You can try and twist it to fit science and since it uses elements of magic you can get a somewhat believable scenario, but it is not based on observed results.

If my tone comes off as snarky or antagonistic (in a personal sense) that is not my intent at all.

Likewise. Sorry for the confusion above. I was using the generic "you".

Bill

QuoteIf you believe in Christ, you could kill thousands and still go to heaven.

Yes, possibly.  If you repent.  Belief in Christ in and off itself is not enough.  This is yet another distinction between Catholics and most Protestants.  Martin Luther preached a doctrine of salvation by faith alone, which was supported by the Bible...once he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28.  

It's pretty clear Satan knows who Christ is and believes in him.  He fought a war against God in heaven.  He tempted Christ in the desert.  Yet, Satan chooses to reject God even though he knows who he is.  So, there's an example faith not being enough.

Quote from: wulfgar;250582It's pretty clear Satan knows who Christ is and believes in him.  He fought a war against God in heaven.  He tempted Christ in the desert.  Yet, Satan chooses to reject God even though he knows who he is.  So, there's an example faith not being enough.

First, Satan doesn't have faith- Satan has certain knowledge.

Second, in Protestant terms faith is a bit more than just belief in. It also includes acceptance, etc.

1) Do People have Souls or Spirits?

No.

2) Is there a Meaning of Life -or- A Meaning To Life?

No.

All concepts of "spirituality" are human constructs to deal with our fear of death and all religions are human constructs to control other humans via this fear.  

When we die, we rot.   All the rapists, murderers and goody two shoe virgins simply rot.

Quote from: wulfgar;250522(Actually, I'd argue that pacifism is not an orthodox Christian position, but I would say Jesus led a peaceful life.  He came into contact with many soldiers throughout his life, and he never told one of them to stop being a soldier.  I'm curious how you see otherwise.)

You should read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.  it's available free online.

The strongest example of Jesus advocating for pacifism occurs in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the soldiers arrive to take Christ and Peter draws his sword and attacks Malchus (Matthew 26:52, John 18:10), Jesus rebukes Peter and tells him "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

The whole tradition of martyrdom is rooted in the refusal to use violence towards any end.  When Christians refuse to die for their faith, and instead kill to preserve themselves, they are in fact turning their back on Christ's teachings and the traditions of his most direct followers, who all surrendered themselves to violent death rather than resist.

A real Christian has no fear of death, and goes willingly into it, and has no need to dominate in this world.  For the true Christian, this world is only preparation for the next.

Quote from: wulfgar;250582Yes, possibly.  If you repent.  Belief in Christ in and off itself is not enough.  This is yet another distinction between Catholics and most Protestants.  Martin Luther preached a doctrine of salvation by faith alone, which was supported by the Bible...once he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28.  

It's pretty clear Satan knows who Christ is and believes in him.  He fought a war against God in heaven.  He tempted Christ in the desert.  Yet, Satan chooses to reject God even though he knows who he is.  So, there's an example faith not being enough.

Actually, that would be different. Satan KNOWS God and Christ exist. He rejects them. This is not believing in Christ in the sense intended. Perhaps a better phrasing would be accepting Christ. This still is a religion of intolerance readily condemning others for not believing their flavor of God.

Bill

QuoteThis still is a religion of intolerance readily condemning others for not believing their flavor of God.

Hmmm, while people Christian and otherwise certainly do condemning of each other, I'd say the church's position is more one of evangelization then condemnation.  And actually, if you look at the Catholic Catechism, it's pretty interesting what it has to say about folks who grew up in darkest Africa for example and never heard the gospel.

I'll have to see if I can track down a hardcopy of that book Jackalope.  I get a headache trying to read anything that long off the computer screen.  

If you want to talk about the merits of pacifism, either in a religious context, or otherwise, perhaps we should start a different thread.

To briefly make my point though, I'll just say that Jesus, although born at Christmas, is just as much a "part" (part really isn't the right word, but the Trinity makes analogies difficult) of God in the Old Testament as well. To read the Bible in it's entirety, Old and New Testament and arrive at pacifism as the supported world view is quite a stretch.  And like I've said, I don't rely on the Bible alone, and Church teaching is quite clear that there are instances when the use of force, up to and including deadly force is appropriate, just war doctrine and all that.