The Non-existence Of God

[Winchester]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349964965' post='2492281']
Anomaly,
I'm a women and therefore "bro" is inapprioate in addressing me. Furthermore, the only thing I am "scared" of is your lack of grammatical skills.
[/quote]
You're a "women".

You're upset about Anomaly's grammatical skills.










Got it, bro.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Winchester

[PhuturePriest]

In the English language "he" and "guy" refers to both men and women. It is gender neutral. That is official whether feminists like it or not (And I'm not saying you are). It is correct in the language to say "he" when referring to a baby or animal or even a person with a Phatmass account when you don't know the gender because despite popular belief "he" and words like it are gender neutral. "Bro" is debatable because that is short for "brother" which is not gender neutral.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349920522' post='2492159']
Which is completely subjective and changeable. Counter that with dogma/doctrine which is objective and unchanging. I'll take the latter.

No wonder the Church needs a "Year of Faith"! Good grief!
[/quote]
[size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]Let's just try to ignore our grammatical planks and splinters and attempt to converse about our different perceptions, understandings, and the conclusions that was initiated by Era voicing when he started this thread.

Your post I quoted above is laudable and understandable based on your understanding. However, I don't think it is true that Dogma and doctrine (two different things) were developed objectively and are unchanging. Doctrine is something that is changeable. You probably misspoke, or have a different definition that is generally used.

Dogma would be closer to something that is hoped to be 'unchanging'. But that isn't quite the case, is it? Is there a "List of Dogma" produced by the Catholic Church that is officially approved, defined, and published? For example, Dogma concerning the Trinity and the role of Mary has changed, or at least developed. Now consider the defining and explaining of these Dogmas. This has been done in Councils and other collegiate gatherings. However, if you do your research and delve into history, you will find there was always geo-political intrigue and manipulations behind who was invited, allowed to participate, and what questions were even considered. Toss in the interpersonal relationships, and individuals differing goals of gaining power, defending their opinion, protecting personal champions, etc., it get's quite murky. It's not like Jesus dictated Dogma to the Apostles like God did for Moses.

You may accept explanations and defense of these human activities as being divinely controlled, but the evidence is not conclusive and reasonable questions and doubts remain. The influences of conflicting powers, social dynamics, and competing cultures play(ed) a heavy role in these meetings. Just do some reading on the East/West schism and these outside influences become are evident.

I can't speak for Era, but my understanding of what he's saying, seems similar to my opinion, that these outside political/cultural/social factors had (& have) a significant influence of what the Church professes and preaches in doctrine as well as how it defines or explains current teachings of "Dogma". This may really hurt your feelings, but if you hold and define doctrine at the same level of Dogma, then I can understand your obstinacy.[/font][/color][/size]

[size=2][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]editied for teh grammah..[/font][/color][/size]

Edited October 11, 2012 by Anomaly

[ACS67]

Thank you for your answer Anomaly. I disagree with you but at least you gave a sound intellectual argument.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349984170' post='2492373'][size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]I can't speak for Era, but my understanding of what he's saying, seems similar to my opinion, that these outside political/cultural/social factors had (& have) a significant influence of what the Church professes and preaches in doctrine as well as how it defines or explains current teachings of "Dogma". This may really hurt your feelings, but if you hold and define doctrine at the same level of Dogma, then I can understand your obstinacy.[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]
Yeah that's one aspect of it. Catholicism has been able to come to grips with its own historical difficulties with the concept of "development of doctrine." Catholicism is largely built on a sort of scholastic conception of Christianity where there is a vast doctrinal system that can be logically argued and defended by an unbroken institution centered on the papacy. But this is not the only way of conceiving Christianity (as seen in the Eastern Orthodox churches).

One can follow the changes in the conceptions of Christianity throughout history, just as one can follow, say, the changes in the conceptions of politics.

The greatest argument for Christianity is Christ. Really, he's the only argument...everything else collapses under its own weight. And Christ is certainly hard to ignore. I don't buy the idea that Christ was either "lunatic, liar, or lord." That's assuming, first, that the Gospels are divine portraits. Christ never wrote anything down (hence the search for the "historical Jesus").

The person of Christ is a beautiful idea...although I don't think beauty is exclusive to Christianity. Christ's death on the cross, for example, is certainly a beautiful idea IF you take as your premise the Christian conception of sin and redemption, but that's not a given premise...other cultures see humanity in other ways (e.g., Buddha was quite a remarkable figure, in a different way than Christ).

Theology is, like most of our beliefs, largely based on projections, personal, social, cultural, etc. The modern church is a church that has adapted to a world where the church is irrelevant. The medieval church reflected a world where the church was integral. The early church reflected a world where christians were an insignificant but dynamic minority. Theology absorbs all these changes. The eastern churches experienced the world differently than the west, and their theology reflects their experience.

Catholics will take something like purgatory and the papacy and defend it as a developing seed. But that's just a theological trick...it's clear that the early church lacked many of the conceptions that developed later. That's not to say the later developments weren't based on already present ideas, traditions, texts, etc. But to draw from this what theology draws from it can only be done with the eyes of faith. History tells another story.

There is a real difficulty with faith because it requires a double standard. Christians won't completely discount historical criticism / deconstruction of other religions and other religious texts, but they cannot subject the bible or their theology to the same criticism. I was unable to cross that line intellectually for many years...I understood that once you cross the line, it creates a serious problem in the realm of faith. I guess I've crossed the line. There is, I think, an incompatibility between faith and reason, religion and science, history and theology. I don't believe academic science is the only way of seeing the world...I think faith is a legitimate way of seeing the world, as is literature, culture, language. Buddha and Christ both said something beautiful, in their own contexts. But, as Aloysius pointed out, part of being in the Western mind is the scientific approach to the world, and our ways of thinking in the modern West cannot be separated from the developments in science that took place in the 20th century. The old medieval scholasticism was one way of building a system around faith and reason, but that system has been more or less demolished. Christians denounce this demolition as modernism, post-modernism, etc. They cannot cross that line that the West crossed long ago, and that's what I mean when I speak of the cognitive dissonance of being a Christian today. It requires the construction of a fantasy because the old categories that the Christian West produced are no more, but Christians cannot give up those categories...they have to live in a fantasy world that no longer exists, or else their theological structure collapses. That's why the church in the 19th and 20th century was so careful about not letting theologians go too far in subjecting theology to the usual rigors of history and science...once you start removing bricks from the building, eventually it cannot stand.

I don't say any of this cynically...I sympathize with Christians. But I admit I have crossed the line that previously I was too afraid to cross. Will I discover some new synthesis from where I stand? Perhaps.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Era Might

[ACS67]

Well Era it sounds like you have made up your mind. You have officially stated that you are not a Christian and you have no desire to be. There is nothing else I know to say to you. Godspeed.


P.S.
Apologies to all for my grumpy mood today and sarcastic words throughout this thread, especially Anomaly and Hasan. I failed in my duty to "get charitable."

[Era Might]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349991275' post='2492431']
Well Era it sounds like you have made up your mind. You have officially stated that you are not a Christian and you have no desire to be. There is nothing else I know to say to you. Godspeed.
[/quote]
I haven't stated that. I still consider myself Christian (even a Catholic), though not the kind who gets to heaven.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Era Might

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349926656' post='2492198']
Hasan,

My "fairy tale" keeps you coming back here everyday apparently . If you are so "Non Catholic" why are you hanging out on a Catholic forum? (why Phatmass allows you to is another puzzle).
[/quote]
You have just made an enormous blunder. It just displays your lack of theological understanding. Jesus associated with non believers/sinners? citing that it is the ill who need the physician. I don't propose to know what brings non Catholics/Christians to PM because I would hope I am not judgmental. I am glad that they are here and it would be a serious sin for PM to reject them. Most of them are very nice/spiritual people, even Hassan has his good looks and we are supposed to love them. You don't have to be a Catholic to be a neighbour.

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349920522' post='2492159']
Which is completely subjective and changeable. Counter that with dogma/doctrine which is objective and unchanging. I'll take the latter.

No wonder the Church needs a "Year of Faith"! Good grief!
[/quote]
Yes I agree we need more faith and less dogma/doctrine which is prone to being misunderstood. Majority of Catholics and many priests get by just fine lacking in real understanding but knowing that only good can come from God and anything less is from another source.
I would prefer to stand before God as a child rather than a Catholic in error who rejects Gods children because they pass judgement that not being a Catholic in their view should mean there eviction from a spiritual forum. Only nasty people get evicted from PM. Not meaning to imply anything!

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349964965' post='2492281']
Anomaly,
I'm a women and therefore "bro" is inapprioate in addressing me. Furthermore, the only thing I am "scared" of is your lack of grammatical skills.
[/quote]
Your lack of theological understanding is scarier. So far I see more good(God) from Anomaly than you! So you got some catching up to do.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349991275' post='2492431']
Well Era it sounds like you have made up your mind. You have officially stated that you are not a Christian and you have no desire to be. There is nothing else I know to say to you. Godspeed.


P.S.
Apologies to all for my grumpy mood today and sarcastic words throughout this thread, especially Anomaly and Hasan. I failed in my duty to "get charitable."
[/quote]
My apologies for my hasty response then. Understood! Us males can be more snitchier than females. I just happen to be fond of our non Catholic friends and prolly a bit hasty to jump to their defense.

[Seven77]

It seems to me that you are going through a purification. In the meantime, have you ever considered taking Pascal up on his wager? You have nothing to lose. If Christianity is not true--what else is there? And if there is a merciful and loving God who can do anything--why would he not become man? Don't answer. Just...Love.

I will pray for you my friend. "We're all in this thing together kid." (Harry Tuttle, paraphrase, [i]Brazil[/i])

[BarbTherese]

[quote]ACS67, on 10 October 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Which is completely subjective and changeable. Counter that with dogma/doctrine which is objective and unchanging. I'll take the latter.

No wonder the Church needs a "Year of Faith"! Good grief![/quote]


Scripture originates from personal encounters with God (Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Moses, the prophets etc. etc. etc. Mary and Joseph etc. etc. and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the apostles, personal encounters with Jesus Incarnate) and His Revelations and from that foundation flows on our Traditions, Doctrine and Dogma. Saints and our saint mystics down the ages have given us deeper insights into Scripture, Traditions, Doctrine and Dogma. St Therese of Lisieux and St Faustina (mentioning only two saints) with great impact on The Church in our day. Saints and mystics have personal encosunters with God to some degree or other. We have saints too who were theologians and St Therese is a Doctor of The Church.
Personal encounters with The Lord of some degree or other do give insight into Scripture, Doctrine or Dogma. St Therese : "unless you become as little children". St Francis of Assisi was moved by the poverty of Jesus and was moved to "rebuild My Church" - and he did so after false start Personal encouters with The Lord will never contradict Doctrine or Dogma and if they do so, the encounter was never with The Lord.

The Sacraments are quite personal encounters with The Lord, as is prayer. Prayer can sometimes give one a deeper insights into The Gospel and our doctrines and dogma, traditions.

I am learning much about grammar etc. in this thread.........................Pardon me phamers for I have offended -"encosunters" is misspelt and should be "encounters" and for this and all other many offences, both minor and major, which I just cannot overcome, please pardon! .........joking!

Edited October 12, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1349994463' post='2492483']
It seems to me that you are going through a purification. In the meantime, have you ever considered taking Pascal up on his wager? You have nothing to lose. If Christianity is not true--what else is there? And if there is a merciful and loving God who can do anything--why would he not become man? Don't answer. Just...Love.

I will pray for you my friend. "We're all in this thing together kid." (Harry Tuttle, paraphrase, [i]Brazil[/i])
[/quote]

I once said to a person who did not believe in God "Well, when I die, if there is nothing there, I have lived a happy life"

If God is there, when you die, you have lived a happy life and "Oh my goodness, [u][b]You are[/b][/u] here!"

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not really like Pascal's Wager. It feels rather slippery to me, and definitely begs the question. I understand it is not meant to be a proof as such, but as a tactic I really prefer to avoid it.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1350009522' post='2492574']
I do not really like Pascal's Wager. It feels rather slippery to me, and definitely begs the question. I understand it is not meant to be a proof as such, but as a tactic I really prefer to avoid it.
[/quote]
I generally don't like Pascal in general...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' timestamp='1350006973' post='2492557']
Scripture originates from personal encounters with God (Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Moses, the prophets etc. etc. etc. Mary and Joseph etc. etc. and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the apostles, personal encounters with Jesus Incarnate) and His Revelations and from that foundation flows on our Traditions, Doctrine and Dogma. Saints and our saint mystics down the ages have given us deeper insights into Scripture, Traditions, Doctrine and Dogma. St Therese of Lisieux and St Faustina (mentioning only two saints) with great impact on The Church in our day. Saints and mystics have personal encosunters with God to some degree or other. We have saints too who were theologians and St Therese is a Doctor of The Church.
Personal encounters with The Lord of some degree or other do give insight into Scripture, Doctrine or Dogma. St Therese : "unless you become as little children". St Francis of Assisi was moved by the poverty of Jesus and was moved to "rebuild My Church" - and he did so after false start Personal encouters with The Lord will never contradict Doctrine or Dogma and if they do so, the encounter was never with The Lord.

The Sacraments are quite personal encounters with The Lord, as is prayer. Prayer can sometimes give one a deeper insights into The Gospel and our doctrines and dogma, traditions.

I am learning much about grammar etc. in this thread.........................Pardon me phamers for I have offended -"encosunters" is misspelt and should be "encounters" and for this and all other many offences, both minor and major, which I just cannot overcome, please pardon! .........joking!
[/quote]
Scripture can also original with an indirect encounter with God, such as the book of Genesis, perhaps the book of Job, etc.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1350012127' post='2492585']
I generally don't like Pascal in general...
[/quote]

Not really that familiar with him. He was a Jansenist, right?
I remember really appreciating Pascal's Law during high school chemistry.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349354909' post='2489898']
No, the early christians (I hesitate to speak of "the early church" since it carries so much anachronistic baggage) were very much against abortion and homosexual acts...but they were also largely against heterosexual acts. Sex was a sort of necessary evil among the early Christians. Modern Christians may share moral tenets with the early christians, but both groups had very different worldviews. Christian morality today is largely about preserving the bourgeois family. Early christian morality was more about preserving the ascetic ideal. I say this not to hold up one or the other as the "true" version, only to point out that Christianity is a historical and sociological phenomenon, and I would argue, once it is seen in context, its "official" narrative of the unchanging church doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.
[/quote]
Sorry, I missed this bit in my initial skimming of the thread. As this answers some of the questions I had regarding your initial statements, I apologize for any frustration that might have caused.
I know you don't want to debate this, but I thought I might add a few points for whomever wants to read them.

The Church has never in fact abandoned the "ascetic ideal" of religious celibacy, as vows of celibacy are still required for those entering the priesthood and religious orders.
If the Church today had abandoned the ideal of celibacy, and was interested only in "preserving the bourgeois family," it would allow and encourage priests to marry and have children, especially as there has lately been a lot of pressure on her to drop the discipline of priestly celibacy.

Also, the Church remains "largely against heterosexual acts," in that she still opposes all fornication and adultery as gravely sinful, and teaches that sexual activity belongs only between a married man and woman. The Church's moral teachings have not changed at all in this regard.

Claiming that the Church regarded married conjugal acts in more or less the same category as homosexual and other perverted sexual acts is simply false.
The ideal of celibacy was never because conjugal relations are evil, but was (and is) a matter of sacrificing a lesser natural good (married conjugal love) for a greater supernatural good (celibacy in complete service to God and His Church).

There may be more emphasis in the Church today on the good of married love, and the so-called "bourgeois family" (a married man and woman and their children), but this is because the family is under more attack than ever in contemporary times, with more and more people never getting married, and having and raising children out of wedlock, as well as with aggressive political attempts to redefine the marriage and the family and push for homosexual "marriages" and such.

However, there is no damning evidence of a change in the Church's moral teachings.

[Seven77]

Socrates, you are absolutely correct... but it seems to me that Era was focusing more on the worldview of the early church and less on official teaching of the early church. The official teaching of the early church on sexuality is indeed unchanged---however, the [b]worldview[/b] has changed. I think the argument is this:

[i]Marriage is more elevated and asceticism is downplayed but it was the other way around in the early church--conclusion? "Christianity is a historical and sociological phenomenon, and I would argue...its "official" narrative of the unchanging church doesn't hold up well to scrutiny."[/i]

Now, i would argue that, while it may be true that some of the writings of the Fathers seem to indicate that sex is something that's best avoided, they are human beings after all. Christianity--the Church--is a divine and human institution of Almighty God. Yes, the Church is a historical sociological phenomenon!!! The Church was founded upon planet Earth, tobe administered by fallen human beings, to minister to fallen human beings. In the human dimension, the faithful "changes" in worldview--in the human dimension, the Church better understands herself throughout the ages. Not because the Church is schizophrenic or prone to identity crises, but because the Church is simply made up of human beings--and human beings ARE a historical and sociological phenomenon! And because the Church is Divine, the Holy Spirit always ensures that official Church teaching will always be on point.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349578985' post='2490859']
Soc, it isn't just "propaganda" from anti Catholics that paint the Church as a villan in history. Have you ever read "A Concise history If The Catholic Church" by Bokenkotter? That was the book that began opening my eyes to be honest with myself and what I saw in the Church.

Much of history is written by people with an agenda to promote or an agenda to defend.

Catholicism's claims of moral purity, infallibilty, apostolic succession, superior virtues, and consistent behaviors don't survive an honest analisis.
[/quote]
No, I haven't read the book you mentioned, though somehow I doubt it is also free from all bias.
I do know enough of the history of the Church to know that members of the Church have never been free from sin, even very serious sin (going all the way back to Judas!).

However, I think even an honest atheist must admit that overall the Church and Christianity has been largely a force for good in history. Much of what we take for granted today regarding concepts of human rights and such, we owe to Christians. (One need only compare the thinking of the pagan pre-Christian Roman Empire with that after Christianity became the dominant religion regarding ethical matters of human rights. in pagan times a head of a household could legally sell his wife or children into slavery or prostitution, or have them put to death with no questions asked.)

Might want to check out Rodney Stark's [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350347938&sr=1-4&keywords=The+Triumph+of+Reason"]The Victory of Reason[/url][/i].

However, the Church certainly never claimed that her members on earth are in any way incapable of sin. But I think you knew that already. The Church only claims infallibility on teaching regarding Faith and morals, and the ability of her ministers to confer the sacraments (which is in no way dependent on the personal morality or worthiness of the ministers). Free will is not taken away with Baptism or ordination to Holy Orders. Nowhere does the Church teach that churchmen (the Pope included) are without sin.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1350350294' post='2493826']
No, I haven't read the book you mentioned, though somehow I doubt it is also free from all bias.
I do know enough of the history of the Church to know that members of the Church have never been free from sin, even very serious sin (going all the way back to Judas!).[/quote]You're right, it isn't free from bias. It's written by a Catholic, and was peer reviewed by other Catholic Academia. It's a book used in many Catholic schools, etc. Check it out on Amazon and read his preface, ask opinions about it from Catholic Scholars. The bias is from the other end of the spectrum, it's very pro-Catholic Church and very positive.

[quote]However, I think even an honest atheist must admit that overall the Church and Christianity has been largely a force for good in history. Much of what we take for granted today regarding concepts of human rights and such, we owe to Christians. (One need only compare the thinking of the pagan pre-Christian Roman Empire with that after Christianity became the dominant religion regarding ethical matters of human rights. in pagan times a head of a household could legally sell his wife or children into slavery or prostitution, or have them put to death with no questions asked.)[/quote]I readily admit the Catholic Church has been more than 'largely' a force for good in history. The Church still is mostly a force for good in global society and mostly a positive good in today's culture as well. As an institution that generally has identified positive virtues and values and mostly promotes them, I welcome it. I also acknowledge, as any reasonable Catholic should, these same principles are evident and worthy whether they're being promoted by the RC Church, Islam, or the Taoist Tai-Chi Society.

[quote]Might want to check out Rodney Stark's [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350347938&sr=1-4&keywords=The+Triumph+of+Reason"]The Victory of Reason[/url][/i].[/quote]My money, time and energy that I can dedicate to propaganda is limited. I'll probably will pass.


[quote]However, the Church certainly never claimed that her members on earth are in any way incapable of sin. But I think you knew that already. The Church only claims infallibility on teaching regarding Faith and morals, and the ability of her ministers to confer the sacraments (which is in no way dependent on the personal morality or worthiness of the ministers). Free will is not taken away with Baptism or ordination to Holy Orders. Nowhere does the Church teach that churchmen (the Pope included) are without sin.
[/quote]I've got all that. 12 years of Catholic School Education, training to be a CCD teacher, teaching CCD and Confirmation Classes for a few years, not to mention the many years here at PM. pretty much inculcated me with a solid understanding of Catholicism.

As far as this topic that Era started, I think it we are both saying that the virtues of natural law are recognizable to reasonble humans of any culture and society, understanding of them develops, and are expressed in the religions and beliefs that are particular to the culture and societal influences that are most 'viable' at certain times in history. I think Era is saying that there is no Divine favorite and guidance.
You probably wouldn't be too far wrong to label us both as modernists of the enlightened philosophy variety, but labels and definitions are always subject to miscommunication.