Dispelling the usual nonsense about the Galileo affair.....

[Kieran]

I will not push this more since nobody has ever changed anybodies opinion on this debate, but the above sentence pretty much describes the frustration me and people that think like me have. A thing that can be interpreted a billion different ways by a billion different people ...some take it literal, others take part of it, leave out others...
There is always tennis, no?

Well, you interpreted me there and drew conclusions, so it might be contagious.

And yeah, there's always tennis. Fedal wars are so much more fun... :snigger

 

[calitennis127]

Kieran, Murat is caught up in a literal 4th grade understanding of the Genesis story. And he is so ignorant of Christian erudition that he seriously thinks he has rejected high-level arguments in his mind.

The fact is - someone like Tom Woods is too knowledgeable and too rational for him to feel comfortable listening to him.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Kieran, Murat is caught up in a literal 4th grade understanding of the Genesis story. And he is so ignorant of Christian erudition that he seriously thinks he has rejected high-level arguments in his mind.

The fact is - someone like Tom Woods is too knowledgeable and too rational for him to feel comfortable listening to him.

Really? I will take Dawkins, Hitchens, Epicurus, Pavlov, Freud, Bertrand Russell, Rand, Richard Feynmann, Peter Higgs, Carl Sagan, Susskind,Dennett, Stephen Hawking and others over Your Tom Woods any they of the week and twice on Sunday, thank you very much. My library is full of works from these guys and I am very happy about that.

You on the other hand might think a guy like Stephen Hawking also has a 4th grade understanding of religion. That would be YOUR problem. We have already established the fact that if you read a Hawking book, you would not be able to get past page 1.

 

[calitennis127]

Kieran, Murat is caught up in a literal 4th grade understanding of the Genesis story. And he is so ignorant of Christian erudition that he seriously thinks he has rejected high-level arguments in his mind.

The fact is - someone like Tom Woods is too knowledgeable and too rational for him to feel comfortable listening to him.

Really? I will take Dawkins, Hitchens, Epicurus, Pavlov, Freud, Bertrand Russell, Rand, Richard Feynmann, Peter Higgs, Carl Sagan, Susskind,Dennett, Stephen Hawking and others over Your Tom Woods any they of the week and twice on Sunday, thank you very much. My library is full of works from these guys and I am very happy about that.

You on the other hand might think a guy like Stephen Hawking also has a 4th grade understanding of religion. That would be YOUR problem. We have already established the fact that if you read a Hawking book, you would not be able to get past page 1.

Dawkins is an uneducated poseur who gets away with his front of being erudite for one reason and one reason only: educational standards in the West have collapsed utterly in the last 70 years. It is hilarious to hear his errors any time he veers away from science, while only very few are even aware that he has a a bluff that should be called.

Hitchens' books on religion and history have been thoroughly refuted - in a very short time. His books have more historical errors in them than even some Soviet-produced junk scholarship.

What's funny about my last long post is that I made mincemeat of all of your specific points and you had nothing to say back at all, except an insult to offer and a boneheaded reference to the supposed uniquely horrible contribution of religion to the problem of war.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, are you one of those people who believe the world is 6000 years old and was created in 6-7 days?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

By the way, Dawkins is one of the premier evolutionary biologists of our time but according to you, he is uneducated. Go figure...What do you think about Hawking? Oh wait, don't tell me...he is a moron , right?

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, are you one of those people who believe the world is 6000 years old and was created in 6-7 days?

Lol.....Murat, are you one of those atheist morons who think that the best case for Christianity is made by Evangelical goofballs with 6-day museums in Tennessee? I already know the answer to that one.

One of my good friends is a Christian geologist who has been working on a book for over 10 years that shows how a modern scientific understanding of evolution is entirely reconcilable with a proper understanding of the Bible. Like me, my friend believes the world is actually millions of years old and that man was physically evolved from simian ancestors. But we also believe that God created the universe and set in motion these complex evolutionary processes.

The problem with you, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, etc. is that you are so limited in your perception that you can only manage to pick the silliest and easiest enemies to engage. You can't even bother to find intelligent Christians or high-level Christian scholarship.

It's easy to be undefeated if you're Roger Federer and the only opponent you ever face is the 500th ranked player in the world, isn't t?:lolz:

 

[calitennis127]

By the way, Dawkins is one of the premier evolutionary biologists of our time but according to you, he is uneducated. Go figure...What do you think about Hawking? Oh wait, don't tell me...he is a moron , right?

Dawkins is an excellent scientist, but he is just an excellent scientist. Where he is an uneducated poseur of the highest order is in the areas of philosophy, religion, literature,and history. If he just stuck to evolutionary biology, I would have no problem with him, because he is great in that domain. But he clumsily and arrogantly pontificates on subjects he doesn't have a clue about. And because he has a British accent and post-Christian/post-Classical educational standards produce people like Bill Maher as leading public commentators, people think Dawkins is some sort of profound intellectual.

It would be simply funny, it it weren't also so damaging in its real-world effects.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, are you one of those people who believe the world is 6000 years old and was created in 6-7 days?

Lol.....Murat, are you one of those atheist morons who think that the best case for Christianity is made by Evangelical goofballs with 6-day museums in Tennessee? I already know the answer to that one.

One of my good friends is a Christian geologist who has been working on a book for over 10 years that shows how a modern scientific understanding of evolution is entirely reconcilable with a proper understanding of the Bible. Like me, my friend believes the world is actually millions of years old and that man was physically evolved from simian ancestors. But we also believe that God created the universe and set in motion these complex evolutionary processes.

The problem with you, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, etc. is that you are so limited in your perception that you can only manage to pick the silliest and easiest enemies to engage. You can't even bother to find intelligent Christians or high-level Christian scholarship.

It's easy to be undefeated if you're Roger Federer and the only opponent you ever face is the 500th ranked player in the world, isn't t?:lolz:

See that sentence above, could you please explain who is it that decides what the "proper" understanding of the Bible is?

Still waiting for your answer regarding Hawking by the way...what do you think about him?

Also, I want to understand you a bit better. Do you believe in a personal god? Like the one that listens to you, answers your prayers every time, or you just believe in something...

Those high level christian scholars had a lot of difficulties explaining themselves when they debated against guys like Dawkins, by the way. Just do some research and find some videos. Embarrassing really...

 

[calitennis127]

See that sentence above, could you please explain who is it that decides what the "proper" understanding of the Bible is?

This means reading it in accord with its intended meaning. When it comes to Genesis, the mistake made by Young Earth Creationists and their rivals, the Dawkins atheists, is to take it as a work of science, when it was never intended as such and hasn't even been understood as such by the greatest thinkers in Christendom. As Kieran pointed out, the early Church Fathers did not even take it as a scientific account - and they were around 1600-1800 years ago, well before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species.

Still waiting for your answer regarding Hawking by the way...what do you think about him?

Of the names you listed, he is one that I am least familiar with. I remember hearing of him a few years back, but I never really investigated. Post some links and I'll take a look and get back to you.

Also, I want to understand you a bit better. Do you believe in a personal god? Like the one that listens to you, answers your prayers every time, or you just believe in something...

I believe in a God that is omniscient, omnipresent, and all-powerful. I believe that He created the universe and instituted basic moral laws, some more fundamental/important in pragmatic terms than others (e.g. respect for property and marriage). In terms of "personally" relating to human beings or connecting with them or communicating with them, I believe that God is infinitely sophisticated and often very elusive. He has a way of humbling everyone, including those who believe in Him, and He rewards those who put the greatest effort into understanding. Naturally - in a country such as the USA where half of the people are dependent on the government and many more are duped by the influence of major institutions - it is very tough for God to find followers, because so many people are living in a godless fantasy land.

Do I believe all prayers are answered? Absolutely not. God rewards hard workers and people who make sacrifices. Often times, we as humans get what we want on God's timetable, not our preferred one in the moment.

I don't believe that God entirely predestines human events or that He never interferes with human affairs. This is an eternal and unpredictably mystery.

Those high level christian scholars had a lot of difficulties explaining themselves when they debated against guys like Dawkins, by the way.

You may think that they were high level scholars, but they probably weren't. They were probably celebrity preachers or Evangelical TV stars, public faces with a lot of pomp but little substance. As someone who is familiar with the best educated members of the Christian/conservative elements, I know for sure that Dawkins hardly even knows who they are, let alone engages them in debate.

If I hadn't shown you the Tom Woods video, would you even know who he was? No. And as a well-educated historian and economist from Harvard and Columbia, Woods can't even get mentioned by the likes of Dawkins. You know why? Part of the reason is that Dawkins is afraid of a genuine challenge. It's easy to be the bully when you are the 9th grade football player and your only challengers are the 3rd grade kids.

Just do some research and find some videos. Embarrassing really...

I have seen Dawkins talk hundreds of times, so I know what an intellectual charlatan he is. But go ahead and post links to the particular debates you have in mind, and I'll tell you what I think of the individuals he debated with.

He certainly wasn't talking to any Tom Woods-types. I know that already!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

See that sentence above, could you please explain who is it that decides what the "proper" understanding of the Bible is?

This means reading it in accord with its intended meaning. When it comes to Genesis, the mistake made by Young Earth Creationists and their rivals, the Dawkins atheists, is to take it as a work of science, when it was never intended as such and hasn't even been understood as such by the greatest thinkers in Christendom. As Kieran pointed out, the early Church Fathers did not even take it as a scientific account - and they were around 1600-1800 years ago, well before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species.

Still waiting for your answer regarding Hawking by the way...what do you think about him?

But there lies another issue: Who determines what the "intended meaning " is? I have heard tens of different interpretations of it. What makes you so sure you have the right answer?

Of the names you listed, he is one that I am least familiar with. I remember hearing of him a few years back, but I never really investigated. Post some links and I'll take a look and get back to you.

I find it hard to believe a gy like yourself is not familiar with Stephen Hawking. A Brief History Of Time? The dude in the wheelchair?

Also, I want to understand you a bit better. Do you believe in a personal god? Like the one that listens to you, answers your prayers every time, or you just believe in something...

I believe in a God that is omniscient, omnipresent, and all-powerful. I believe that He created the universe and instituted basic moral laws, some more fundamental/important in pragmatic terms than others (e.g. respect for property and marriage). In terms of "personally" relating to human beings or connecting with them or communicating with them, I believe that God is infinitely sophisticated and often very elusive. He has a way of humbling everyone, including those who believe in Him, and He rewards those who put the greatest effort into understanding. Naturally - in a country such as the USA where half of the people are dependent on the government and many more are duped by the influence of major institutions - it is very tough for God to find followers, because so many people are living in a godless fantasy land.

Do I believe all prayers are answered? Absolutely not. God rewards hard workers and people who make sacrifices. Often times, we as humans get what we want on God's timetable, not our preferred one in the moment.

I don't believe that God entirely predestines human events or that He never interferes with human affairs. This is an eternal and unpredictably mystery.


If it was proven tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god, would you go around killing people, raping kids? I would not, and I do not believe in god. I believe in human decency, being a good person and I never needed a higher being to tell me those things. There was morality before christianity. In fact if you know your religion, you will see it is a copy of hundred other religions that came before it. From virgin birth to self sacrifice. Do you only believe the latest version of the story? You say god rewards hard workers and people who make sacrifices. There are millions of those who live in poverty and pain and they work hard, make enormous sacrifices. What is gods selection process? You say he does not answer all prayers, meaning you believe he answers some. I will ask you a very simple question: Is there not ONE amputee in this world that was worthy of a new limb? Because a lot of cancer patients, when they beat cancer they say they prayed and god answered, knowing full well it will be never proven what healed them . But an amputee is a different story, no? There is no gray area there. So, not one amputee who believed, prayed, lived a decent life , made sacrifices that was worthy of a new limb by an all powerful god? How mean is that?

Those high level christian scholars had a lot of difficulties explaining themselves when they debated against guys like Dawkins, by the way.

You may think that they were high level scholars, but they probably weren't. They were probably celebrity preachers or Evangelical TV stars, public faces with a lot of pomp but little substance. As someone who is familiar with the best educated members of the Christian/conservative elements, I know for sure that Dawkins hardly even knows who they are, let alone engages them in debate.

If I hadn't shown you the Tom Woods video, would you even know who he was? No. And as a well-educated historian and economist from Harvard and Columbia, Woods can't even get mentioned by the likes of Dawkins. You know why? Part of the reason is that Dawkins is afraid of a genuine challenge. It's easy to be the bully when you are the 9th grade football player and your only challengers are the 3rd grade kids.

I know Tom Woods because he is one of the rare people that actually supported Ron Paul, whom I would vote for if I had a vote.

Just do some research and find some videos. Embarrassing really...

I have seen Dawkins talk hundreds of times, so I know what an intellectual charlatan he is. But go ahead and post links to the particular debates you have in mind, and I'll tell you what I think of the individuals he debated with.

He certainly wasn't talking to any Tom Woods-types. I know that already!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I really screwed up the format there, sorry.

 

[tented]

Well, go with that if you prefer. It's just a misuse of language, kind of like pairing the words "gay" and "marriage" in a single coherent phrase.

"Gay marriage" is not a misuse of language, as opposed to, say, "intelligent design" or "Cali's Mensa membership".

 

[calitennis127]

Well, go with that if you prefer. It's just a misuse of language, kind of like pairing the words "gay" and "marriage" in a single coherent phrase.

"Gay marriage" is not a misuse of language, as opposed to, say, "intelligent design" or "Cali's Mensa membership".

The argument for gay marriage historically, philosophically, ethically, morally, and religiously is utterly stupid on all counts.

The fact that people are so uneducated that they take the idea seriously does not mean that the idea should be taken seriously.

 

[tented]

Well, go with that if you prefer. It's just a misuse of language, kind of like pairing the words "gay" and "marriage" in a single coherent phrase.

"Gay marriage" is not a misuse of language, as opposed to, say, "intelligent design" or "Cali's Mensa membership".

The argument for gay marriage historically, philosophically, ethically, morally, and religiously is utterly stupid on all counts.

The fact that people are so uneducated that they take the idea seriously does not mean that the idea should be taken seriously.

Let me guess: you were also against interracial marriage before you were for it. :lolz:

You need to stop calling anyone who disagrees with you uneducated -- it makes you seem uneducated.

 

[calitennis127]

But there lies another issue: Who determines what the "intended meaning " is? I have heard tens of different interpretations of it. What makes you so sure you have the right answer?

Wait.....didn't you just compliment science and scientists for never thinking that they have the whole truth at any one time, but rather debating and conversing and sharing ideas over a long duration? Didn't you say that it's great how scientists evolve their thought as new theories are considered or proved?

But when it comes to understanding the Bible, you want everything to be handed to you on a platter with easy answers. I love your double standards.

When it comes to Genesis, what I can tell you definitively is that within the Church tradition, the leading thinkers and greatest theologians have always seen Genesis as a spiritual and figurative text, as opposed to a literal scientific account of events. This perspective is both rational and well-developed over a long period of time.

What makes me sure that I have the right answer about Genesis? Well, as a rational human, of all the opinions and views I have heard, the high-minded Christian explanation I just referred to appears to be the most convincing. Aside from that, I believe in the overarching Divine guidance of the Church's doctrines and interpretations of Scripture. Considering that St. Augustine was more right about evolution than most 21st century scientists and preachers, one can be quite confident in this Tradition with a capital T.

If it was proven tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god, would you go around killing people, raping kids?

The question is irrelevant, because the case for God is not a scientific one.

But - just for the sake of conversation - I will answer "no".

I would not, and I do not believe in god. I believe in human decency, being a good person and I never needed a higher being to tell me those things.

No one in the Christian tradition ever said that Christian Baptism and devotion were required to lead a "moral" life on the most rudimentary level. However, Christianity does maintain that leading such a life becomes easier if you are in a state of spiritual cleanliness and work to maintain that state through participation in the Sacraments. That is the principle.

As for your basic human decency - God instilled that in you, since you were made in His image. And that moral character is so powerful that you don't even have to worship him as part of a religious institution to be heavily impacted by it.

There was morality before christianity.

There was indeed. If you had ever read any of Joseph Ratzinger's erudite works, you would know that this is something he readily acknowledges. There is some truth in all religions. However, the significance of Catholic Christianity is that it is unique for containing the entire truth in its moral teaching, and not just part of it.

Moreover, the fact that there was morality before Christianity simply means that God had created a morally ordered world well before revealing His own ideal perfection to mankind in the form of the Incarnation. It does not invalidate Christianity in any form or fashion.

Furthermore, the gradual embrace of atheism over the last 50 years and the growing hostility to Christianity has clearly caused a substantial collapse in moral standards. For instance, the problem in the United States of single-parent homes and children born out of wedlock is a serious issue of social dissolution, and it is a direct product of the anti-Christian revolt of the 60s.

You want an example of cruelty? How about a child born in inner-city Chicago to a drug-addicted mother without a father anywhere in sight? The poor child is helpless and probably hopeless, born into chaos. That is a cruel reality. Now are you going to blame God for that? Or are you going to blame the anti-Christian leftists who have promoted everything that is anti-family and anti-Christian for 50 years, leading so many people to lead morally degraded lives that are almost beyond repair?

Yes, I agree with you Murat. That poor child is in a horrible situation. And it makes me shake my head too. But maybe we should blame the wicked human decisions that were made to lead to that outcome. Maybe we should blame evil supernatural forces. Maybe it isn't God's fault for allowing it to happen.

In fact if you know your religion, you will see it is a copy of hundred other religions that came before it. From virgin birth to self sacrifice. Do you only believe the latest version of the story?

This quote only shows that you have a reflexive antipathy toward religion, and don't know much about its history. This topic is way too deep to get in to at the moment.

You say god rewards hard workers and people who make sacrifices. There are millions of those who live in poverty and pain and they work hard, make enormous sacrifices.

Yes, they do. But they also have many gifts in their lives, not all of them material. It is silly to look at everything that is wrong or imperfect in the world and to blame God for it. What's good for the goose should be for the gander. Look at all the good things, and all the blessings that are out there. Do you ever think to praise God for that, or do you look simply at what is wrong and blame God for it?

If you have a cold for 7 days in the year, why do you have to blame God for that without thanking him for the other 358 days that were great?

You say he does not answer all prayers, meaning you believe he answers some. I will ask you a very simple question: Is there not ONE amputee in this world that was worthy of a new limb?

Okay, so God has created a world with moral and physical laws that should be followed by human beings (such as don't use a machine gun to blow off someone's leg), but you want God to rectify each and every situation that goes awry to make you feel warm inside?

I have seen amputees myself. It is terrible. I feel very compassionately for them. However, why do we blame God and not the devil for this? Better yet, why don't we blame the human decisions that lead to these kinds of terrible results?

Maybe if Washington politicians were forced to study the Classics and the ancient Christian texts in college - instead of doing nothing but smoking pot and sexually "experimenting" during the 60s/70s - they wouldn't have fecklessly begun multiple pointless and stupid wars in the Middle East. Then those amputees wouldn't be so plentiful, would they?

Maybe when things go terribly wrong in human affairs, it has to do with metaphysical decisions made by humans, with impact far beyond the immediate. Maybe an amputee is suffering from the wickedness of people who irresponsibly and ignorantly manage positions of power. Ever thought of that?

So, not one amputee who believed, prayed, lived a decent life , made sacrifices that was worthy of a new limb by an all powerful god? How mean is that?

There are many harsh realities. But there are also many uplifting and happy ones. To not focus on those at all - and to simply look at the worse situations - in evaluating God's creation is shear hypocrisy on your end. Yes, there are people who suffer physically. But what about all of the people who have illnesses cured and injuries healed? Why not credit God for those good things?

As for your example of the amputee, again, I feel terribly for that person, but I don't see why God must suspend physical laws every time someone suffers to relieve them of it in order to be considered a good God. Maybe when someone loses a limb in war, we should reflect on the human decisions that led to that war. Maybe we should see immense significance in the responsibility we have when we make crucial decisions.

Specifically - maybe when it comes to educating the brightest young people, we should make sure that their characters are formed in such a manner that they are thoughtful and considerate in their use of power, and that they are aware of the manner in which their decisions affect much more than their own image.

In the 60s and 70s, this kind of thinking was rejected outright. And then when the likes of John Kerry and George Bush failed to grow up at age 60, somehow Christianity takes the blame for limbless war vets from Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[calitennis127]

Let me guess: you were also against interracial marriage before you were for it. :lolz:

I wasn't yet alive at the time that it was an issue, so I can't speak to that.

However, I will not let your silly little jab go without a response.

First of all - from a Christian perspective, there is no comparison between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. The former is rooted strictly in cultural traditions and common norms, while the latter is a violation of natural law, which is universal for all human beings. Lumping interracial marriage with homosexual marriage is preposterous. It is a lie of the modern Left, one that it only gets away with because it has destroyed the curricula that use to create intelligent citizens.

What's interesting, as well, about your invocation of race in this context (completely predictable) is that in many contexts I explicitly defend black people on racial grounds. When it comes to the most controversial black athletes, who are maligned by whites of all political persuasions for supposedly deformed and immature character, I routinely defend them and their mentality. I have spent many, many hours defending the likes of Terrell Owens, Allen Iverson, Michael Vick, JR Smith, Randy Moss, and others - all of whom are lampooned by whites across the board. I do this not just because I like their playing style, but I see much deeper cultural issues at work in how they are judged.

Furthermore, I am someone who does defend and praise aspects of black music to a very significant degree.

It is preposterous to throw that lame little dig my way, given my perspective on so many other issues.

I should also add that the silly conviction of white leftists such as yourself that the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s was a great success is utterly silly. Yes, a couple things got better, but race relations in the United States are still a total mess. Black America is plagued by crime, family breakdown, welfare dependence, dysfunctional schools, mass incarceration, and a slew of dangerous neighborhoods in dangerous cities. Most white people are tacitly very resentful of the fact that they fund this mayhem, but they don't say anything because they don't want reality-disconnected media leftists to label them as racists.

Somehow, this ugly and depressing state of affairs is spun off as a great success story. "See, the Civil Rights Movement went so well! Let's follow it with a gay rights movement to boot!" Well, considering how poorly the Civil Rights Movement has worked out in so many significant ways, let's hope the gay rights movement doesn't go as poorly. 300 homicides a year in Philadelphia and Chicago with everyone on welfare and surrounding white communities despising their black countrymen is not success, tented. Maybe you should look that reality in the face.

You need to stop calling anyone who disagrees with you uneducated -- it makes you seem uneducated.

I call a spade a spade. When people have no idea what they are talking about - and especially when they are arrogant about it - I have no problem calling them on it.

Hence - why I dismiss Richard Dawkins as a philosopher or historian.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

But there lies another issue: Who determines what the "intended meaning " is? I have heard tens of different interpretations of it. What makes you so sure you have the right answer?

Wait.....didn't you just compliment science and scientists for never thinking that they have the whole truth at any one time, but rather debating and conversing and sharing ideas over a long duration? Didn't you say that it's great how scientists evolve their thought as new theories are considered or proved?

But when it comes to understanding the Bible, you want everything to be handed to you on a platter with easy answers. I love your double standards.

When it comes to Genesis, what I can tell you definitively is that within the Church tradition, the leading thinkers and greatest theologians have always seen Genesis as a spiritual and figurative text, as opposed to a literal scientific account of events. This perspective is both rational and well-developed over a long period of time.

What makes me sure that I have the right answer about Genesis? Well, as a rational human, of all the opinions and views I have heard, the high-minded Christian explanation I just referred to appears to be the most convincing. Aside from that, I believe in the overarching Divine guidance of the Church's doctrines and interpretations of Scripture. Considering that St. Augustine was more right about evolution than most 21st century scientists and preachers, one can be quite confident in this Tradition with a capital T.

If it was proven tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god, would you go around killing people, raping kids?

The question is irrelevant, because the case for God is not a scientific one.

But - just for the sake of conversation - I will answer "no".

I would not, and I do not believe in god. I believe in human decency, being a good person and I never needed a higher being to tell me those things.

No one in the Christian tradition ever said that Christian Baptism and devotion were required to lead a "moral" life on the most rudimentary level. However, Christianity does maintain that leading such a life becomes easier if you are in a state of spiritual cleanliness and work to maintain that state through participation in the Sacraments. That is the principle.

As for your basic human decency - God instilled that in you, since you were made in His image. And that moral character is so powerful that you don't even have to worship him as part of a religious institution to be heavily impacted by it.

There was morality before christianity.

There was indeed. If you had ever read any of Joseph Ratzinger's erudite works, you would know that this is something he readily acknowledges. There is some truth in all religions. However, the significance of Catholic Christianity is that it is unique for containing the entire truth in its moral teaching, and not just part of it.

Moreover, the fact that there was morality before Christianity simply means that God had created a morally ordered world well before revealing His own ideal perfection to mankind in the form of the Incarnation. It does not invalidate Christianity in any form or fashion.

Furthermore, the gradual embrace of atheism over the last 50 years and the growing hostility to Christianity has clearly caused a substantial collapse in moral standards. For instance, the problem in the United States of single-parent homes and children born out of wedlock is a serious issue of social dissolution, and it is a direct product of the anti-Christian revolt of the 60s.

You want an example of cruelty? How about a child born in inner-city Chicago to a drug-addicted mother without a father anywhere in sight? The poor child is helpless and probably hopeless, born into chaos. That is a cruel reality. Now are you going to blame God for that? Or are you going to blame the anti-Christian leftists who have promoted everything that is anti-family and anti-Christian for 50 years, leading so many people to lead morally degraded lives that are almost beyond repair?

Yes, I agree with you Murat. That poor child is in a horrible situation. And it makes me shake my head too. But maybe we should blame the wicked human decisions that were made to lead to that outcome. Maybe we should blame evil supernatural forces. Maybe it isn't God's fault for allowing it to happen.

In fact if you know your religion, you will see it is a copy of hundred other religions that came before it. From virgin birth to self sacrifice. Do you only believe the latest version of the story?

This quote only shows that you have a reflexive antipathy toward religion, and don't know much about its history. This topic is way too deep to get in to at the moment.

You say god rewards hard workers and people who make sacrifices. There are millions of those who live in poverty and pain and they work hard, make enormous sacrifices.

Yes, they do. But they also have many gifts in their lives, not all of them material. It is silly to look at everything that is wrong or imperfect in the world and to blame God for it. What's good for the goose should be for the gander. Look at all the good things, and all the blessings that are out there. Do you ever think to praise God for that, or do you look simply at what is wrong and blame God for it?

If you have a cold for 7 days in the year, why do you have to blame God for that without thanking him for the other 358 days that were great?

You say he does not answer all prayers, meaning you believe he answers some. I will ask you a very simple question: Is there not ONE amputee in this world that was worthy of a new limb?

Okay, so God has created a world with moral and physical laws that should be followed by human beings (such as don't use a machine gun to blow off someone's leg), but you want God to rectify each and every situation that goes awry to make you feel warm inside?

I have seen amputees myself. It is terrible. I feel very compassionately for them. However, why do we blame God and not the devil for this? Better yet, why don't we blame the human decisions that lead to these kinds of terrible results?

Maybe if Washington politicians were forced to study the Classics and the ancient Christian texts in college - instead of doing nothing but smoking pot and sexually "experimenting" during the 60s/70s - they wouldn't have fecklessly begun multiple pointless and stupid wars in the Middle East. Then those amputees wouldn't be so plentiful, would they?

Maybe when things go terribly wrong in human affairs, it has to do with metaphysical decisions made by humans, with impact far beyond the immediate. Maybe an amputee is suffering from the wickedness of people who irresponsibly and ignorantly manage positions of power. Ever thought of that?

So, not one amputee who believed, prayed, lived a decent life , made sacrifices that was worthy of a new limb by an all powerful god? How mean is that?

There are many harsh realities. But there are also many uplifting and happy ones. To not focus on those at all - and to simply look at the worse situations - in evaluating God's creation is shear hypocrisy on your end. Yes, there are people who suffer physically. But what about all of the people who have illnesses cured and injuries healed? Why not credit God for those good things?

As for your example of the amputee, again, I feel terribly for that person, but I don't see why God must suspend physical laws every time someone suffers to relieve them of it in order to be considered a good God. Maybe when someone loses a limb in war, we should reflect on the human decisions that led to that war. Maybe we should see immense significance in the responsibility we have when we make crucial decisions.

Specifically - maybe when it comes to educating the brightest young people, we should make sure that their characters are formed in such a manner that they are thoughtful and considerate in their use of power, and that they are aware of the manner in which their decisions affect much more than their own image.

In the 60s and 70s, this kind of thinking was rejected outright. And then when the likes of John Kerry and George Bush failed to grow up at age 60, somehow Christianity takes the blame for limbless war vets from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am going to concentrate once again on the parts that I have bolded because they are crucial. By the way it surprises me how much I agree with you regarding social issues, but that is not the question.

The problem is people DO credit god when they beat cancer, heal from a disease, survive a car crash. What do all those things have in common? They can never totally be proven HOW the healing happened. When someone say god made him better, the poor doctor who fixed the person can say nothing against that. BUT, there is one situation that can totally be black or white as to if god can help fix someone or not:The case of the amputee...If you believe god heals, why is there not ONE EXAMPLE in the history of christianity that a god fearing, praying , self sacrificing person who got his limb back? Not one deserving christian soul? Put all the social reasons aside, answer the question. "lord works in mysterious ways" is NOT an acceptable answer.

About suspending physical laws, really? Since when religion had problem with that? Bible is full of stories that are based on suspended physical laws. Curiously, none of these events have left any evidence behind, but I guess we have to accept those on faith.

Here is the problem: Something that is so open to interpretation like religion can never help any society in the long run. Take Exodus 35:2 for example where God basically demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day. YOU might say you are not for it. Some might disagree. Take Deuteronomy 22:13-21 , where god demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry. What is the consensus on that? What parts do you take, what parts do you discard? And who decides whose way is correct. And I am not even talking juts Christianity. How about the poor muslim dude who blows himself up because his interpretation of islam promised him heaven and a bunch of virgins ( I never get that part...what if the virgins are guys? He would REALLY be screwed...Also, how can something that is forbidden in life can be a reward in the afterlife? Isn't there something ethically wrong there)

Anyways bro, we can do this till the cows come home. I will leave it here and I will apologize if I used harsh words. It was all about the initial video that got my blood boiling. Whenever religion demands proof from others where it is totally exempt from it itself, I take it personally.:s

 

[calitennis127]

I am going to concentrate once again on the parts that I have bolded because they are crucial. By the way it surprises me how much I agree with you regarding social issues, but that is not the question.

The problem is people DO credit god when they beat cancer, heal from a disease, survive a car crash. What do all those things have in common? They can never totally be proven HOW the healing happened. When someone say god made him better, the poor doctor who fixed the person can say nothing against that. BUT, there is one situation that can totally be black or white as to if god can help fix someone or not:The case of the amputee...If you believe god heals, why is there not ONE EXAMPLE in the history of christianity that a god fearing, praying , self sacrificing person who got his limb back?

I don't know of such an example, but why do you need to see it in order to believe that God is good?

About suspending physical laws, really? Since when religion had problem with that? Bible is full of stories that are based on suspended physical laws. Curiously, none of these events have left any evidence behind, but I guess we have to accept those on faith.

Actually, there is a huge amount of archaeological evidence for the veracity of many Biblical stories. You are apparently totally unaware of this.

Also, while there are stories that suspend physical laws in the Bible, there is also an immense amount of theology in Christian tradition that speaks of an ordered universe. This is what Tom Woods explains in the video I posted about how the Catholic Church laid a theoretical foundation for the scientific revolution. I encourage you to watch it.

Here is the problem: Something that is so open to interpretation like religion can never help any society in the long run. Take Exodus 35:2 for example where God basically demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day. YOU might say you are not for it. Some might disagree. Take Deuteronomy 22:13-21 , where god demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry. What is the consensus on that? What parts do you take, what parts do you discard? And who decides whose way is correct.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decides.

You are speaking of a problem that was anticipated long ago by the Catholic Church, and by Christ himself. Of course the Bible is open to an immense range of interpretation. Of course we can all take different meanings from different passages. This is why God founded a single institution to guide people's understanding, and to have the final say on what we should draw from Scripture.

Many of your questions are rooted in the unfortunate Protestant Reformation.

Whenever religion demands proof from others where it is totally exempt from it, I take it personally.:s

Tom Woods was looking at Galileo from an historical angle. He uses the same criteria to judge Galileo as he does anyone else. All he was saying was that Galileo couldn't prove his own scientific theory in his time, yet he tried to shove it down everyone's throat as a big professional ego trip. This resulted in clashing with Church authorities.

That narrative completely contradicts the usual historical lesson that the Church suppressed Galileo for pursuing science. As Woods explains, that couldn't be further from the truth. His clash with the Church was more so his fault than anyone else's, and it was a personal feud more than a philosophical one.

Woods' video was not at all a matter of "religion demanding proof from others where it is totally exempt from it".

 

[calitennis127]

The problem is people DO credit god when they beat cancer, heal from a disease, survive a car crash. What do all those things have in common? They can never totally be proven HOW the healing happened. When someone say god made him better, the poor doctor who fixed the person can say nothing against that.

Also - about this. Why are you focusing strictly on the healing process and not prior processes that could lead to the healing?

One can make an argument that God helped the doctor perform his job well when he "beat cancer", or that the patient was fortunate to be in a situation where they could be treated.

People invoking God when they overcome disease is partially sentimental, but it is not poisonous either, as you are implying.