Theology IV

[katya]

Oh noes! Not the problem of evil!!

There are a lot of really good explanations of why there has to be evil in the world. However, I agree with Ivan and Alyosha on this one:
Ivan: "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature-that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance-and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect of those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

Originally Posted by ElizabethAnnRoger

jeez poor ef is getting quoted to the limit...
so why do ppl think that their church is the right one when they all branched from the one church...roman catholic church! everyone makes up wat they want to believe and break off from this to this to this. has anyone notcied that the catholic church is the only church that has been around for 2000 yrs? and that ppl branch off from it? maybe?

need an answer here!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

No, it's not silly, at least from a non-religious point of view. Every religion may have myths of the very first gods' birth or the start of the universe. But everything has to start somewhere, everything has to come into being somehow, whether it's in a big bang or a wimpy whisper. I won't argue whether it indicates an misunderstanding on the concept of the Christian God, but that doesn't make it a silly question.

On the contrary, something must have always been, whether this thing be God or not. It is pure logic. Everything that comes to be, is caused by something else. If, then, everything comes to be, everything is caused by something else. But if everything is caused by something else, then the progression of causes will go back into infinity. A will be caused by B, B by C, C by D, and so on, in a procession without end. Which doesn't make sense.

This doesn't prove the existence of God per se, it merely proves the existence of an uncaused cause. One can say that the uncaused cause is God, that it is the universe, or that it is their Cousin Ted. But there must be something which is uncaused, and thus, has always been.

Originally Posted by CH

They possess properties that truly does appear as being both the alpha and omega.

By which you mean, Black Holes caused everything?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by ElizabethAnnRoger

need an answer here!

No, not really. The question has little to no relevance to the rest of the thread, and is simply Catholic Apologetics 101 coming into play. Apologetics and theology are two very, very different things.

[katya]

Oh I'm sorry EAR! I wrote a reply to that but I didn't post it because I realized there was still another page I hadn't read yet. Anyway I was going to say something like this...

It's true that at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church was pretty much the church, but there were a lot of different kinds of Christianity before that that all got more or less put together into one. The Catholic church is in a lot of ways different from early Christianity, and I think the reform was party about going back to it, so you could say Protestantism pre-dates Christianity (you could, it wouldn't be accurate but in a way it makes sense). There were some things the Catholic church was doing that it seems to have invented, like purgatory and indulgences. Do you know about indulgences? I think it's one of the strangest ideas I've ever heard.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by katya

Oh I'm sorry EAR! I wrote a reply to that but I didn't post it because I realized there was still another page I hadn't read yet. Anyway I was going to say something like this...

It's true that at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church was pretty much the church, but there were a lot of different kinds of Christianity before that that all got more or less put together into one. The Catholic church is in a lot of ways different from early Christianity, and I think the reform was party about going back to it, so you could say Protestantism pre-dates Christianity (you could, it wouldn't be accurate but in a way it makes sense). There were some things the Catholic church was doing that it seems to have invented, like purgatory and indulgences. Do you know about indulgences? I think it's one of the strangest ideas I've ever heard.

The Catholic Church is much closer to early Christianity than you might think. (Also, just FYI, the Catholic Church was not the church at the time of the Reformation; there were the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Nestorians who had split earlier).

As for Purgatory, it can be found in one form or another throughout the history of the Church. By no means can it be considered a clerical invention of the middle ages. The belief in and use of indulgences is merely an application of that belief with the promises of Christ to St. Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and Whatever you loose on Earth, is loosed in heaven."

The only Protestant body which you could really make any sort of argument at all of its resembling early Christianity more than Catholicism is the

[katya]

I know, it wasn't the only church (that's why I said pretty much), but it existed and Protestantism didn't, anyway. As for purgatory, what I mean is is it in the scriptures? Did Christ mention it? My mistake on using "invented", that was just the impression I got. What I was trying to say was that the Catholic church wasn't the first and only (up until the Reformation), and that Luther and co. and anyone else who broke away from the Catholic church might well have good reason to do so.

[inked]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Ummm..inked, Gwai...I know you're usually deeply involved in your own theological niceties, but... a little help with Church history...

Or is it ignorance is cool, if it leads to the right beliefs?

GM, what sort of material would you like to know about. I could do generalizations all day and expatiate endlessly on lots of things but I would prefer to give you more direct answers.

Not that generalizations and expatiation are all bad, but I have a broken wrist and typing is a pain literally, so help........

[inked]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

No, it's not silly, at least from a non-religious point of view. Every religion may have myths of the very first gods' birth or the start of the universe. But everything has to start somewhere, everything has to come into being somehow, whether it's in a big bang or a wimpy whisper. I won't argue whether it indicates an misunderstanding on the concept of the Christian God, but that doesn't make it a silly question.

Earniel you are correct if by "non-religious point of view" a materialistic and deterministic approach to understanding limited to observation and empirical mindsets. But the religions of the world, even the ones with the types of myths you describe as origin myths do not view the world in that fashion. Those myths are used to point to and provide some explanation -however limited and non-materialistic- for the supranatural or numinous experience.

This is not to belabor the Christian or non-Christian point at all, more the religious approach versus the materialist approach. So, at the risk of being misunderstood, I think that what GW was pointing towards was the nature of religious belief which assumed a creator or creative process from *outside* the material world and that for such the question was regarded as nonsensical or silly.

Now there are religions which place matter first with the gods arising from this matter. But those religions do not ask where matter arises per se. I think they would have a great deal of difficulty with the big bang evidence since it would point to an obvious beginning of matter. I do not know how they reply to that data.

I'm not trying to quibble, just pointing out that we cannot make the assumption that all religions believe the same thing about the origin of the universe or beginnings as a matter of course. Then we need to distinguish that from the strictly materialistic world view. The latter is more popular at the moment in our Western postmodern culture but it is not at all the dominant paradigm for most humans and for most of history. Therefore the proof of the materialist viewpoint is required as it opposes the human experience as generally historically and currently reported. This viewpoint is every bit as religious in its foundational philosophical assumptions as the most primitive religion.

We sometimes forget these distinctions need to be made and it contributes to the somewhat confused discussions about these issues.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

On the contrary, something must have always been, whether this thing be God or not. It is pure logic. Everything that comes to be, is caused by something else. If, then, everything comes to be, everything is caused by something else. But if everything is caused by something else, then the progression of causes will go back into infinity. A will be caused by B, B by C, C by D, and so on, in a procession without end. Which doesn't make sense.

This doesn't prove the existence of God per se, it merely proves the existence of an uncaused cause. One can say that the uncaused cause is God, that it is the universe, or that it is their Cousin Ted. But there must be something which is uncaused, and thus, has always been.

But none of that implies that a question concerning the origin of God is a silly question. Can you tell me in absolute certainty that no theologist ever -not even for a minute- considered the origin of God himself? It seems quite possible to theorise about whether God is the 'uncaused cause' or merely a step inbetween. People are still looking for smaller building blocks of life, atoms, quarks, higgs-boson particles... People are also speculating about a time before the Big Bang when none of the laws of physics we know were active... Are those silly questions too?

[EDIT to add: missed your post the first time around, Inked, I see your point.]

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

Originally Posted by katya

I think it's one of the strangest ideas I've ever heard.

Oh yes, I know about it. We've been taught it at school for a long time. Unfortuantly, since the pope doesn't know everything, it was used for raising money. Send 100 dollars and you won't go to hell. Now its more prayers and getting yourself closer to Christ, which I believe, is the right way. It was indulgences that built some of the beautiful chruches in Rome. Sad, but true. I won't deny that my faith sometimes curves for the worse...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

EAR, Gwai posted the answer to your question. There are a number of churches besides the RC church that date back to the same time.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But none of that implies that a question concerning the origin of God is a silly question. Can you tell me in absolute certainty that no theologist ever -not even for a minute- considered the origin of God himself? It seems quite possible to theorise about whether God is the 'uncaused cause' or merely a step inbetween.

What do you mean by "a step in between"?

Gwaimir's logic makes sense.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

People are still looking for smaller building blocks of life, atoms, quarks, higgs-boson particles... People are also speculating about a time before the Big Bang when none of the laws of physics we know were active... Are those silly questions too?

They too require that there have been something prior to the Big Bang. If there was nothing prior to the Big Bang, there would have been no materials from which a Big Bang could spring. Let's allow that the laws of physics were different.

There still would have to be something, be it a law or energy or something of some kind, and for that something to exist, there would have to be something even earlier which caused it to exist (or a reason for its existence), and so on. You have to believe in some kind of eternal creating force (whether intelligent or otherwise).

Katya, Purgatory is in the Bible, and it also is in Early Church Tradition right from the beginning. It was a belief the Christians inherited from the Jews of Israel before them.

Here's a link with Early Church references to Purgatory:
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm

There also are several Biblical references to Purgatory, many implicit and some explicit. I don't have time at the moment to get them for you, but you can find a lot of them by googling online. 1 Peter 3 includes a reference to Jesus preaching to the dead- that's one instance. 2 Maccabees also has an explicit one. I can get you the material later.

[katya]

After a quick search, Lief, I found that there weren't really explicit references to purgatory, nor is it mentioned by name, but there are scriptures that point to it. That's pretty much what I thought. Is that right? Google definitely seems to indicate that it's a generally Catholic thing though. Whether it existed from the beginning of Christianity I'm not sure but I don't think indulgences did. Don't quote me though. (I mean, quote me in the Entmoot sense if you want... you know what I mean )

No one responded to my #301 post. :[ I'm curious what people think.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

After a quick search, Lief, I found that there weren't really explicit references to purgatory, nor is it mentioned by name, but there are scriptures that point to it. That's pretty much what I thought. Is that right? Google definitely seems to indicate that it's a generally Catholic thing though. Whether it existed from the beginning of Christianity I'm not sure but I don't think indulgences did. Don't quote me though. (I mean, quote me in the Entmoot sense if you want... you know what I mean )

1 Peter 3:18-20 and 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 are two of the most explicit scriptural references to Purgatory. The 1 Peter reference says that Jesus, after his death, preached to the souls in prison that had been held since the time of Noah. These souls were in "prison," not Heaven or Hell, and apparently preaching could do their souls good. Through preaching they could be purified. That condition of the soul is what Catholics call Purgatory- it's just the word isn't used (I don't know if the word was even invented at that point ). The 2 Maccabees reference describes the Jews praying for the souls of the dead. The only reason to pray for souls is if they're in neither heaven nor hell- Purgatory. That reference also points to a belief in Purgatory existing among Jews prior to the Christian era.

I provided a pack of quotations in that other link, which show that the Early Church believed in Purgatory.

The word "Purgatory" is not used in the scripture, but the concept is clearly present in the minds of the writers in several passages. Matthew 12:23 describes a sin that will neither be forgiven in this life nor in the age to come, which suggests that sins may be forgiven after death. Which is central to the concept of Purgatory. 1 Corinthians 15:29 refers to baptisms carried out on behalf of the dead. If it's on their behalf, they benefit from it. If they benefit from it, they aren't in Heaven or Hell- Purgatory is the logical explanation. These last two I mentioned are implicit references, passages that really make the best sense in the context of the belief in Purgatory. I think 2 Maccabees and 1 Peter are explicit, though.

There are other scripture passages also that refer to Purgatory, besides these.

In addition to Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox Christians offer prayers for the dead. The Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics combined are about 3/4 of the world's Christians, so a large majority of believers worldwide acknowledge the reality of Purgatory.

Indulgences, like Gwaimir said, were an application of Papal authority to give dispensation from penance. When Jesus gave Peter the keys over heaven and earth, he gave him and his successors the authority to make decisions about indulgences for the Church.

Also, there are various scriptures supporting the concept of indulgences, such as the Book of Sirach(or Tobit?)'s comment that charity avails much for the forgiveness of sins. The Book of James says something similar, if I recall correctly. There were scriptural precedents, though "indulgences" as such weren't applied in the Church before the Reformation era, to my knowledge.

Anyway, the Reformers' big objections at the time were largely centered on a few areas where the concept of indulgences was being abused. For instance, in one place, a bishop, I believe, supported an architect who was fundraising for a cathedral in his statements that indulgences could be used to reduce the time souls spent in Purgatory- an awful misrepresentation of the purpose of the practice. That was a money-making abuse. There were also times when clergy would pressure people to give to the Church. So there were abuses, and the big objections were often to the abuse of the practice of indulgences, not the concept itself or its normal application in Europe.

Originally Posted by katya

No one responded to my #301 post. :[ I'm curious what people think.

I agree with the view you expressed in that post.

My view is that God did not create evil, but rather he created the possibility of evil by creating free will.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

It's true that at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church was pretty much the church, but there were a lot of different kinds of Christianity before that that all got more or less put together into one. The Catholic church is in a lot of ways different from early Christianity, and I think the reform was party about going back to it, so you could say Protestantism pre-dates Christianity (you could, it wouldn't be accurate but in a way it makes sense).

That's Protestantism's argument, but if you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, it's not hard to see that it is completely bogus. That's one of the things that drew me to Catholicism in the first place: the discovery, through research, that the Early Church was Catholic!

The Protestant removal of Catholic "additions" tend to be the removal of ancient Early Church doctrines and interpretations of Scripture.

I read in a book a while ago about 200 Protestant evangelical leaders who all joined the Eastern Orthodox Church simultaneously. They did that because they were seeking hard after Early Church's doctrine, and through careful research into the writings of the Early Church, they became convinced that the Orthodox were fully practicing the beliefs of the Early Church.

The serious difference between us Catholics and them is Papal authority- the main thing in their research that they seem to have gotten wrong. Also pretty much the only serious thing the Orthodox have gotten wrong, at least to my knowledge. Papal authority is the main difference between Catholics and the Orthodox.

Anyway, those 200 men were seeking the practice of the Early Church and it led them back to the truly ancient traditions the Protestant Reformers worked hard to dismantle.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief don't be ridiculous. I've written long-winded posts explaining every possible way that I disagree with your faith, and I've provided countless examples of why I believe this, the inconsistencies, the falsehoods, the hypocritical behaviour and so on.

When you write the stuff you write, some very weak (I'm being kind) analogies between evolutionary science which rests on decades of thorough research and some highly opinionated resemblences to a freak birth that has only been documented in your Bible, you should expect some pretty straight-forward, simple answers. Why? Because there's not much to debunk, it's pretty easy to do it!

I've given you loads of material in multiple other posts that supports the New Testament. That evidence I've given you establishes Jesus Christ's divinity beyond reasonable doubt. However, you don't need any of that evidence- all you have to do is pray sincerely that he will come to you and reveal himself to you, and he will. Pray and seek him, and you will find him. That is what he promised, and hundreds of millions of people have experienced firsthand the truth of those words. He could reveal himself to you too, but you have shut your mind to a broad range of possibilities about the state of reality (the religions in the world), and in so doing are actively working to shut out the possibility of hearing God's voice yourself and inheriting salvation.

What I said in the post you challenged was not intended to be a powerful case for Christianity. It was a few points of parallel between the world's development and the Incarnation of the world's fulfillment. If I was trying to prove, I'd rely on much stronger stuff. You still haven't responded effectively to my posts about Zeitoun or Fatima, or to the eyewitness testimony about Christ, or my material supporting the reliability of the New Testament, or the prophetic Old Testament evidence, or any of the scientifically verifiable miraculous signs I provided links to.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

That said Lief, in a post where you describe me as doing: "attack, mock and deride", I did nothing of the kind.

I considered the first and last sentences of that post to be mocking and derisive.
"Had the beloved Catholic Church had its way you wouldn't possibly know what outer space and the wider Universe looked like. Ironic!"
"Conclusion: We all exist for the pleasure of a God... How fulfilling"

The tone of those comments really didn't suggest to me you were after serious discussion. However, I do prefer your way of rephrasing them just now, so I'll respond.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Mate, I gave you four clear points
1. I pointed out how ironic it is that you on one side marvel at the beauty of the Universe (I agree with you!), yet you fail to see that the path which led us to the understanding we now have of it and the technology we use to watch it, are incompatible with what you have previously derided as unfortunate, nay, evil developments due to the Enligthenment, and which furthermore are developments in science that were ridiculed and attempted to purge by your Catholic Church. I find that ironic, but I don't judge you for it.

See Gwaimir's response about Copernicus.

Also, Galileo was brought to trial for asserting his views as certain fact rather than hypothesis. The technology of the time did not allow for strong verification of some of his assertions, and astronomers of his time were able to prove that portions of the evidence he drew upon to make his case (such as his argument that the sun caused the tides) were bogus. Institutions of that time had different methods from our current nations of trying to restrict misinformation.

Galileo was also brought to court because he wrote a work insulting the Pope very sharply.

Galileo was not tortured. Nor was he deemed a heretic. His writings about the Pope and asserting his hypotheses as fact were deemed dangerous. Galileo spent time under house arrest (a very nice house too), and he remained in full communion with the Church he loved. He too was a devout Catholic.

The principle funder of the sciences in that era was also the Church. They were far from anti-science and if it wasn't for their support of the sciences, and for the efforts of Catholic scientists, many of the current pillars of science would not have been discovered.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

2. My second point was: Who created your Christian God?

He is eternal and uncreated. We've actually been having a bit of a discussion of that recently with Eärniel.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

3. The third point was straight-forward: We don't know in fact how life first evolved. There are competing theories, and that doesn't really work for your analogy in my view.

Only if one of the other theories becomes so accepted that it shoves all others far into the realm of implausibility. At present, I'm seeing analogies between the Incarnation and one of the most respected theories about the origins of life.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

4. The 4th point is educational: You write quite wrongly, or should I say misleadingly, that "Life on Earth evolved into rational life". Of course, nothing of the sort happened. The development of living organisms has led to one species obtaining rational thought, while billions of other species can't be said to have that.

Well sure, but humanity rules the animals and holds in its hand the fate of practically all life on Earth, as well as all our ecosystems. We are the head of the animal species. As the most rational and sophisticated physical species on Planet Earth, I would say we are also in an important way the culmination of life on Earth.

This structure of life on Planet Earth could be compared to a human body. The human body is composed of living cells, primitive forms of life, yet the person we think of as the human is the culmination of these primitive identities and has a rational nature (or somewhat so) that rules all the primitive parts, living and nonliving, that make up its body.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You can spend your time however you want, but frankly I find it just a little creepy that you want to pray for me.

You find the idea that I want you to experience everlasting life and joy, as opposed to damnation, and am willing to take time to peacefully and privately do something about it, creepy?

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

All I can say is: Let it be. Release the ignorance. Open your mind. There's hope for you too

Would you mind if I prayed that for you?

[katya]

All I was trying to say is that Catholicism has changed since the beginning of Christianity, that Protestantism isn't trying to add things to it but trying to go back to the early Christianity, and that there were a lot of other types of Christianity floating around in the early days too. I'm not a Protestant, you know. If I had to chose one or the other it'd probably be Catholic. I'm not trying to argue against purgatory either, I just really don't think it's that explicit or clear-cut. So just forget I said anything.

Originally Posted by Lief

My view is that God did not create evil, but rather he created the possibility of evil by creating free will.

Which is pretty much the same thing in the end.

Sorry if I'm grumpy this morning. I am kind of stressed out and also I just woke up.

[Lief Erikson]

I hope you start feeling better soon .

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well sure, but humanity rules the animals and holds in its hand the fate of practically all life on Earth, as well as all our ecosystems. We are the head of the animal species. As the most rational and sophisticated physical species on Planet Earth, I would say we are also in an important way the culmination of life on Earth.

We are no such thing. Evolution doesnt work toward some ultimate purposeful higher life form. And it doesnt work toward self consciousness or awareness. Evolution is blind. It has no goal. Thats just how the chips have fallen for us. We have big brains. Which has worked out great in some ways but may prove to be the end of us in the long run.

Remember evolution just allows for traits that benefit an organism at a given time. Its not about trying to piece together a human... Evolution is a sieve that allows some few traits to pass through and accumulate while filtering out others. And the success of the traits is completely dependent on circumstances. And you will find that it is not the "mighty" human who is king of this world. We are in fact in total dependence on other much simpler creatures that have existed in the same form for MUCH longer than we have been around. Plants. Insects. Plankton. Microscopic one celled animals that create the necessary conditions for us to thrive. These are the creatures that dominate this world and call the shots. Just because bacteria cannot build a building or compose a sonnet does not mean they have not been enormously successful. They have existed in countless numbers for over a billion years on this planet. And there is nothing we can do to wipe them out whereas they could easily be the cause of our destruction.

Dont fall for the logic trap of thinking that humans are the crowning glory of the evolution of life on earth or the top of some misguided pyramid of life. We are a short link in the long complicated chain of evolutionary history of this planet. Its the little things that rule this world. And big creatures such as ourselves ride their coat tails toward success or failure as a species.