Theology III

[Glóin the Dark]

I just realised that I'm 31 years old.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

*bows down*

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

[smartarse]Do you mean Pi?[/smartarse]

Reminds me of the old Bill Cosby routine about trying to get the college football player through math class.

Math Profesor " Explain Pi r square"
Football player: "Ha, you can't fool me. Pie are round."

[GrayMouser]

Old Zen story:

An Insolent Wayfarer
In ancient times it was customary for a traveling monk seeking lodging at a Zen monastery to engage in dharma combat with the abbot or head monk. If the wayfarer won the debate, he could stay; if not, he had to seek quarters elsewhere.
Once a master who was ill assigned his attendant to engage in such an encounter with a traveling monk, who challenged him to a silent debate. It so happened that this attendant, who was a crude and ignorant fellow, had but one eye.

Soon the wayfarer returned to the master, saying, "Your man is too good for me. I must journey on. I held up one finger to symbolize the Buddha. But he held up two fingers for the Buddha and the Dharma. So I held up three fingers for the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. But then he held up a clenched fist to indicate they were all one - so I ran to indicate I am no match for him."

When the traveler who spoke these words left, the attendant arrived - angry and out of breath. "Where is that rascal?" he demanded. "First, he insulted me by holding up one finger to indicate I had only one eye. Determined to be polite in spite of that, I held up two fingers to indicate that, on the other hand, he was blessed with two eyes. But he just kept rubbing it in, for next he held up three fingers to indicate that all together there were only three eyes among us. So I made a fist and went to hit him and he ran off! Where is he hiding?"

[Coffeehouse]

Funny

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Evidence outside of the Bible convinces me that the common human consensus since the origin of our species, that witchcraft has real power, and the conservative Christian consensus, that witchcraft is dangerous, is correct.

Is there a common human concensus that witchcraft has real power?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Christians, just like anyone else, can be murdered, or stolen from, or can die by accidental causes. Or can be killed by witchcraft. God protects us from any of the above things when we pray, and sometimes he protects us from them even when we don't pray. The power of prayer plays a significant role in our protection, though.

Why does God choose to protect us sometimes when we pray? But then also protect us when we don't pray?
Why does God sometimes not protect us at all even when we do pray?

Of demons, witchcraft and dark energies, why is there no scientific explanation to this?
Why, when under the lense of science, does the natural world appear so beautiful and symmetrical, but why does the supernatural, the sights, visions and experiences that can not be explained by science, appear so assymetrical, so illogical, so inconsistent?
Why would God create a world based on several unshakeable pillars of what we collectively define as laws of science, with symmetry and beauty down to the tiniest particle, and then let supernatural freaks of nature occur every now and then, obscure, without logic or explanation, impossible to validate?

Isn't it blasphemy to believe in witchcraft, the supernatural, things that cannot be explained by the laws of nature?
Isn't it blasphemy to believe in miracles, prophecies and magic, when that would mean that God would be breaking way with the very laws of nature that he himself made?
Isn't that blasphemy?... unlike some of the fantastic charges of blasphemy so many Christians seem content to throw at fellow believers and non-believers?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

"Factoring from 10" isn't easier for someone working in base thirty-three. I would maintain that base ten has no inherent significance which makes it logically preferable to any other base; it is simply a cultural "accident" that our civilisation has developed the decimal system for denoting numbers.

*Shrugs.* Sure, go ahead and see it that way. I tend to look at it differently, that numbers are a universal language for all mankind, and as he does through the rest of nature, God reveals the truth through them.

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

If you are suggesting that use in the Bible of certain powers of 10 as metaphors for eternity (although I'm wracking my brains to think of what the resemblance might be!) implies that there is a god who has a special penchant for decimal notation, then the connection is has a tiny iota more substance, but is still extremely tenuous.

I think that to some extent we're talking over one another's heads. I'm not trying to say that this connection between scripture and pi proves the truth of Christianity or any other religion. There are some extremely good reasons to believe that, very powerful evidences that I've gone into at Entmoot several times.

The decimal notation of pi is just one of the ways God speaks through nature. I'm sure he speaks through math in many other ways too, that other people have observed. St. Augustine didn't know about this thing with pi and yet he said that number was one of God's voices to humanity.

There are symbolic parallels to God's higher truths in heaven all over the place in nature. If one looks at nature more carefully, there is plenty of powerful evidence there implying many things about the nature of God. I'm not saying that pi alone should convince you. I'm just saying I personally find it one of many beautiful images of God's nature, and I thought other Christians here might appreciate it too .

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

The alleged deity could have made his mark on mathematics more convincingly by arranging the universe so that pi would be precisely 3, yielding a neat depiction of the Trinity-Unity set-up in the simple expression "3 : 1" - the ratio of the length of the circumference of a circle to that of its radius* - thereby avoiding the need for us to get lucky in our choice of base. It would also eliminate the extra digits "415926..."

The presence of those digits are by no means a problem. God is three and he is one, and he is infinite, as the numbers and order of this transcendental number are. It shows more about his character this way, not less. Also, no one can calculate circles without pi, as no one can reach eternal life without the Son.

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

whose role we haven't been able to suss out, and which might just be random junk after all, in which case pi could have been any one of infinitely many numbers (those less than three-and-a-fifth but not three-and-a-tenth) and still achieved the same theological significance.

Doesn't it seem a trifle presumptuous to you, to think that you're in a position that you should be able to expect to understand everything God means spiritually or symbolically, when you as an individual can scarcely begin to understand how everything works scientifically?

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

Similarly, the first three digits are first, so your assertion awards them more immediate significance. 3, 1, 4. What does this mean? Okay, perhaps theology can't or doesn't feel the need to stretch as far as three digits. Or, on the other hand, perhaps it's just a pure coincidence that the first two digits match up with a pair of numbers regarded as significant in certain aspects of Christian theology. Indeed, a randomly picked number has a one in forty-five chance that the first two digits of its decimal representation will be "1" and "3".

I'm not saying this neat bit of symbolism couldn't be pure coincidence. I wouldn't argue based on this alone that God is real and Christian. I didn't mention it on this thread for that reason either- just to point out a neat bit of symbolism for those who are interested, particularly Christians. It's one little pointer toward God among many. There are many other parallels one could cite of nature's reflection of the deity, some far more dramatic. I could point out a few, and I know that other believers know a ton more about it than I do. I prefer to argue off of what I know, though, so I tend to like pointing toward the historical, archaeological, documentary and other evidence dating back to the first centuries of Christianity, and some of the centuries before it, to demonstrate its truth.

But . . . *yawns* I haven't found anyone here who will really be convinced by it yet. You know, much of what one thinks depends on what one comes into the piece of knowledge with. If one comes into it with serious biases, one won't be able to accept perfectly logical conclusions. If one moves into it with those biases shaken, dismantled, or reversed, one might behave very differently. So debate is almost pointless, except as a way of following up an impact that has already been made by other means.

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

I'd like to know what precisely you mean by this. As grittily as you like!

Well, Jesus said he's the Beginning, the Alpha and the First and the 3.1 beginning for Pi is the "beginning" of that infinite number.

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

The symbolism of what? We were talking about pi, not just numbers in general. Say I've got another number called "pizza" which starts "3.17255042638..." and continues forever without discernible pattern. Does it also symbolise the notion that nobody can reach eternity without the assistance of some mindbendingly coalesced trio?

Who cares whether you call it pi or pizza? Makes no difference. The point is that it's the number necessary to calculate circles, which are the symbol of eternity.

And it doesn't concern me if the nature of God is in some ways "mindbending" to you. It would concern me if our God was simple enough for you to easily understand. In some ways, he can be understood relatively easily, because we are made in his image and thus have parallels to his nature. In other ways, he is very hard to understand, because he is so much greater and wiser than us, and therefore does things differently than we would at times. That's actually logically necessary. If God did things the same as we would do them all the time, he would be no wiser than us .

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

The norm to us. But what about the twenty-one fingered inhabitants of a far off planet for whom the normal representation of pi begins "3.2..."? Are their theologians muttering that it's a pity there wasn't a "1" there because that would be nice and symbolic? Or have they modified their outlook to postulate a deity consisting of "Three Persons in Two Gods"?

Edit: *Er, I meant diameter...

We're the only ones that matter in this discussion, as the scripture says that we are made in the image of God, not that some human-invented alien is.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Is there a common human concensus that witchcraft has real power?

I know there was. Today, I'm not sure. I wish I could see some good statistics for it, especially for countries like China or India. I know there is enormous belief in the power of witchcraft in Africa.

There is certainly a common human consensus that God(s) exists, that the supernatural exists, and the major religions acknowledge that it can intervene in human affairs. The pre-Christian religions believed in vast pantheons of gods, just as Christians believe in a vast array of demons and angels, and Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism concur, though again, naming these beings differently. Each sect includes its own religious practitioners of these powers, and in the monotheistic religions, those who wield these powers outside of the orthodox belief system will often be seen as practicing witchcraft. So there often is an acknowledgement of the real power of witchcraft, there.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why does God choose to protect us sometimes when we pray? But then also protect us when we don't pray?
Why does God sometimes not protect us at all even when we do pray?

First, I'd like to point out that God, obviously, being a great deal wiser than us, won't always do what we'd do. Next, I'd like to point to some scripture passages about this.

1) Prov 3:11-12 (NIV) My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in.

There are times when we are disciplined for things we do wrong. There are also times when we don't seem to have done anything wrong by any normal human standards, and aren't aware at the moment of any personal sins, but things have been just going really badly in our lives no matter how we pray against it.

In the scripture, God's process of purifying us is called a "refining fire." It can be searingly painful, but Christians who have suffered greatly often are some of the most loving people of all. Suffering tends to bring out the true character of a person. If that person is Christ, the person will rise to new heights of purity through the experience. With other people, suffering will bring out vengefulness, unforgiveness, hate, and other evils. One starving man will snatch food from another and kill him for it. Another starving man will give his last loaf of bread to his family and then die himself.

God can use pain to bring people to godliness, which ultimately brings them greater happiness. He can also use pain for other good causes which are mysteries to us, such as Jesus' crucifixion- a terrible mystery to his disciples until he rose from the dead and revealed the great purposes of his grace for which he suffered so deeply. Suddenly, "by his wounds, we are healed," and the one completely innocent man on Earth, who deserved suffering least, revealed that his suffering was a good thing for everyone. Yet God answered Jesus' prayers, providing miracles to keep him alive when attacked on more than one occasion, to keep his foes at bay until his ministry was done and the time had come for his final sacrifice.

God also told St. Paul in visions how much he would suffer, even though he saved Paul's life with miracles from time to time too, and Jesus predicted to Peter how he would die for Christ (crucified upside down) long before it happened. Peter later went to prison and was saved from prison by an angel, because his time had not yet come according to God's plan. And when the time did come, he was martyred. According to human plans, his time had come a long time ago in prison, but this had not been true according to God's plan. God had much more to do with Peter on Earth before allowing him to endure the purifying fire of martyrdom, the horrific experience which creates liquid love in the devoted soul.

God has a plan for when and how we will die, and there is a purpose for it. People who are united with his will very closely might pray more successfully in accordance with that will, thus fleeing martyrdom or resisting it with miracles when they know their time has not come, and humbly submitting to it when God calls them to their eternal home.

And then there are accidental deaths, car crashes, logging accidents, etc. These too can be used to God's glory in his own mysterious ways. He has a will for each human, and the more we become united with it by following God, the better we will understand it, the more we will pray in accord with it, and the more our prayers will be answered.

Usually we aren't in sufficient unity with God's will to know when he wants someone to die. So we just pray for their safety, and then death happens.

Much of the time, God's will is not for the person to die yet, so our prayers are answered. Other times, it may not be God's will that the person die, but it might not be our will either and we might have prayed, and there might be another factor at work, like prayer or lack of faith, or flippancy, or who knows what else. There are lots of factors at play- it's a complex world and God is a complex God. The best thing we can do is seek God and by so doing gain greater unity with his will, that we might serve him better and pray more effectively, and become as loving and good people as we possibly can be.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Of demons, witchcraft and dark energies, why is there no scientific explanation to this?

That's perfectly natural. Science deals with the material world, not the spiritual world. Spiritual tools are most effectively used to reach the spiritual world.

However, the world is so vast and complex and there is so much in it that we don't know that it seems absurd to reject a spiritual layer's existence in it too.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why, when under the lense of science, does the natural world appear so beautiful and symmetrical, but why does the supernatural, the sights, visions and experiences that can not be explained by science, appear so assymetrical, so illogical, so inconsistent?

I'd say that's a matter of perspective. To you, an outsider looking in, this is how it looks. To me, an insider looking out, what is inside looks "beautiful and symmetrical," including the sights, visions and experiences. And like science, there is a lot that takes place in it that still is not yet fully understood.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why would God create a world based on several unshakeable pillars of what we collectively define as laws of science, with symmetry and beauty down to the tiniest particle, and then let supernatural freaks of nature occur every now and then, obscure, without logic or explanation, impossible to validate?

Actually, we received the Laws of God before we came to understand the laws of science, and the Laws of God governing and explaining morality are eternal. The revelations of science are beautiful because the physical world reflects God's higher kingdom in heaven and his own personality. The supernatural realities that occasionally become manifest are by no means "freaks of nature." Does something occurring only rarely become a freak of nature because of its rare appearance?

But in fact, spiritual experiences are very common to humanity, not freaks of nature, but a part of nature that has been an observed and recognized part of reality for humanity from our origins all the way to the present. It's only the nonsense nowadays of a philosophy that only accepts material things because they can be verified by material means, but won't accept spiritual things because they can't be verified by material means, that is weakening this general acknowledgement in parts of the West. When spiritual means are used to expose spiritual realities, results are forthcoming, and they can be accompanied by powerful evidence for the person they reveal themselves to.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Isn't it blasphemy to believe in witchcraft, the supernatural, things that cannot be explained by the laws of nature?

Hardly. God said that witchcraft can have real power in the Bible. It would be blasphemous to call God a liar.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Isn't it blasphemy to believe in miracles, prophecies and magic, when that would mean that God would be breaking way with the very laws of nature that he himself made?

No, for two reasons. One is that miracles, prophecies and magic aren't outside of the laws of nature. The spiritual world is a part of nature. It exists "naturally," created by God, just as the physical world was, and probably around the same time. Miracles and prophecies therefore do not break the laws of nature. Magic does, as it opposes God's Law, but any evil thing anyone does in the world opposes God's Law and is therefore "unnatural" by the same token. All evil is unnatural. To believe in the reality of evil is not blasphemous, though. In fact, to deny its existence would be blasphemous, for this would deny the truth revealed by God's Word and thus would become an insult against the nature of God.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Isn't that blasphemy?... unlike some of the fantastic charges of blasphemy so many Christians seem content to throw at fellow believers and non-believers?

The appearance of these charges as fantastic only comes from a point of view that denies the faith from which these charges spring. Deny the fundamental beliefs, and obviously the logical following forms of reasoning that follow from those beliefs look off-track. Even crazy. On the other hand, denial of those fundamental beliefs might itself appear crazy to someone with a different initial vantage point. You would look crazy to many believers, just as they might look crazy to you. That's a matter of perspective.

[Lief Erikson]

I thought of one more point about science and the spiritual world that I wanted to call to your attention, Coffeehouse, before I go to bed.

I don't know what your major is, what your expertise is, but there is no mathematician who knows everything that all other humans know about mathematics. Some know some things that mathematician X doesn't know, no matter how good he is, because there are so many different fields of math or different ways of applying math that X can't be familiar with them all. The same is true with physicists and biologists. Sociologists and psychiatrists, doctors and engineers, people of all kinds of expertise are limited in their knowledge of their own expertise, and VERY limited in their knowledge of many other major subjects. Some doctors are far from expert physicists. Some neurosurgeons are far from expert skyscraper engineers. We take it on faith that other humans are making accurate assessments in those fields, because we don't know enough to make those judgments ourselves. These "pillars of science" are in fact primarily believed on because of faith. That faith is based on multitudes of physical evidence, but any individual is only expert enough to analyze and offer educated approval of a handful of those evidences, so one is always relying, in faith, on the expert analysis of loads of other people.

Our lives are based on faith. We turn on the car without more than a few faint clues (if that) as to how it works inside, and an engineer assembles the car in the first place without more than a few faint clues as to how the metal producers and factories produced those pieces in the first place.

The natural world is full of faith-based relationships, based on various evidence. The spiritual world is similar. There are superb truths, massive Laws of God, like there are laws of science, which are acknowledged as true amongst all the faithful. Countless different believers have enormous reason to believe that various parts of it are true, have a keen logical understanding of that truth, and often have various evidences to draw from with which to demonstrate that truth. No one sees the whole picture. There are many things that are mysteries.

Christians can admit the existence of those mysteries, while acknowledging that other believers have greater insight on many matters, while various errors are made too. Secularists too can admit the existence of scientific mysteries (How in the world is it that cars work?), and while they have a little bit of knowledge about science, as each Christian has a little bit of knowledge about God, they admit that other people might know more about cars. They admit the existence of the mystery, believe that this is only a mystery to himself and not a mystery without any answer, and then they turn the key and drive the car. You only know the car works for sure because you turn the ignition in faith and then drive it, even though you don't know all the answers, just as you only know God exists for sure because you come to him in faith and then follow him, even if you don't know all the spiritual answers you have questions for.

I use the words "for sure," a little loosely, for in truth, no one knows anything "for sure." You believe your car works because you've experienced driving it. I believe the Christian God is real because I've experienced knowing him and have experienced a great deal of personal, experiential intimacy with him (along with a lot of other reasons, as it happens).

It would be futile for me to throw my ignorance at Christianity to try to disprove it, just as it would be futile for me to throw my ignorance of car-construction at my car to try to disprove it. God is far higher above me than all the combined knowledge that went into making the car is beyond me.

And just as it would be vain to think that because I don't have the answer about the car, no one has the answer about the car, it would be vain for a person to think that because he or she has no answer about some particular Christian mystery, no one has that answer.

[Coffeehouse]

I think you're car analogy is a moot point. Here's why:

A car isn't some mystery object with inner workings that only a few individuals have access to. If you want to find out how a certain car works or want to know what the inside of a car's engine looks like, you need only look it up and all the information is available (on the Internet for example).

Turning the ignition key on a car and expecting it to start is natural, because the car always started, just as pulling the leverage on your toilet is done in expectance of a subsequent flushing of the said toilet. This isn't faith per se, but an expectancy that things should work the way they are built to work, and if they don't work, there is a trust issue. That does not stand in remote comparison to religious faith.

Will be sure to post a longer answer to the rest of your arguments, later today perhaps

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

See, this is the scary part, for me. Lief believes that his "faith" that when you turn the key the car will start is the same kind of "faith" that is a religious thing.

As the descendant of many generations of religious activists (all different branches of my family came to this country for its religious freedom) I would say that whole business with the bread and the wine was 'witchcraft" and represntations of Jesus on the cross was 'idolatry'.Those were two big no-nos, last I checked. But I'm okay with it. God sorts it out, not me.

For myself, man's imperfect understanding of God says nothing about God. I don't share Lief's prejudice that makes his one copy of one sacred book the only source of information about God's nature (because that strikes me as silly.) and it fascinates me how he cherry-picks among other cultures. (Some "African's" believe in witchcraft, therefore there is really witchcraft, but their belief in water spirits means nothing about the existence of water spirits.)

This persistant Fundamentalist equivalence of faith and science is really EVIL in my experience, however. They do bad things with it.

[Nautipus]

See, this is the scary part, for me. Lief believes that his "faith" that when you turn the key the car will start is the same kind of "faith" that is a religious thing.

Turning the ignition key on a car and expecting it to start is natural, because the car always started, just as pulling the leverage on your toilet is done in expectance of a subsequent flushing of the said toilet. This isn't faith per se, but an expectancy that things should work the way they are built to work, and if they don't work, there is a trust issue. That does not stand in remote comparison to religious faith.

It seems to me that Lief already adressed this point, albeit with no elaboration, in the post you guys are referring to.

Isn't it blasphemy to believe in witchcraft, the supernatural, things that cannot be explained by the laws of nature?
Isn't it blasphemy to believe in miracles, prophecies and magic, when that would mean that God would be breaking way with the very laws of nature that he himself made?
Isn't that blasphemy?... unlike some of the fantastic charges of blasphemy so many Christians seem content to throw at fellow believers and non-believers?

Coffeehouse- I dont mean to come across as rude in any way, so please forgive me if I do. But this is a very weak argument. Lief pretty much covered why, but I feel I need to point out that all of the above things (with the exeption of "magic" and "witchcraft") are used by God, and were created by God to use.

Sis- Excellent point about the "pick and choose" attitude f many in the religious comunity.

[Tessar]

I appreciate that everyone is being polite, but lets be careful about how we refer to other people's beliefs . I see a few comments that are edging the borderline of being flameworthy, even if only a matchstick instead of a flame thrower .


Carry on. o(>.<)O

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

It seems to me that Lief already adressed this point, albeit with no elaboration, in the post you guys are referring to.






Coffeehouse- I dont mean to come across as rude in any way, so please forgive me if I do. But this is a very weak argument. Lief pretty much covered why, but I feel I need to point out that all of the above things (with the exeption of "magic" and "witchcraft") are used by God, and were created by God to use.

Sis- Excellent point about the "pick and choose" attitude f many in the religious comunity.

One hears that the world is created by God, perfectly one would have to assume, yet the entire range of absurd events that bear no relation to anything a human being can physically sense are affecting people always out of sight, out of sound. Striking how secretive the spiritual world is!

People are called blasphemic when they question the the script of the Bible, question the authoritarian voice (like the Vatican) and it's interpretation. Blasphemy is called all around, albeit the word blasphemy isn't the choice of word these days (not politically correct!).
I question then: isn't it more blasphemic to believe that one has a special ear to God, the almight God who loves us all equally?
Isn't it then blasphemy to speak of witchcraft and demons when it would neccessitate that God isn't at all in control of his universe?
Isn't it blasphemic to judge that the laws of nature (that means EVERYTHING, don't read nature too literally. It's everything) Let's say the Laws of our Solar System just to be sure. And these laws, God-created, can somehow be bent? They can be twisted? Spirits can pop up here and there, demons can take hold of peoples? Isn't beliefs in supernatural things like this an aggressive kick in the groin to God's perfectly crafted world? A planet, a solar system, that can be explained by pure mathematics. Symmetrical, beautiful, complete.

It should not be blasphemy to see the world, take it for what it is and use its tools, but blasphemy to add on supernaturals that can't be explained and can't be assessed by all. Blasphemy to assume certain peoples have a bette understanding of God than others.

Why would God pick a person? Why not tell everyone! It's God!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I think you're car analogy is a moot point. Here's why:

A car isn't some mystery object with inner workings that only a few individuals have access to.

Neither is God. He reveals his inner workings beautifully through the Scripture, Church and Sacred Tradition, and he proves their truth through the symbolism of the universe around us, through stupendous miraculous signs, wonders and prophecies littered throughout history, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and through personal relationships that he is eager to form with every single human being if they'd only seek him. Each of these evidences is extremely strong on its own, but together they form an invincible case establishing the identity and nature of God.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

If you want to find out how a certain car works or want to know what the inside of a car's engine looks like, you need only look it up and all the information is available (on the Internet for example).

Same with Christianity.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Turning the ignition key on a car and expecting it to start is natural, because the car always started,

What if you'd never started a car before? You'd have seen other people driving cars around, so you'd still have an expectation that it would work. Similarly, a non-Christian can see the reality of Christ transforming other people's lives, turning hardened criminals into saints, and consequently they come to believe, or they see miracles and come to believe when they never had before, etc.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Will be sure to post a longer answer to the rest of your arguments, later today perhaps

I'll look forward to that .

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

As the descendant of many generations of religious activists (all different branches of my family came to this country for its religious freedom) I would say that whole business with the bread and the wine was 'witchcraft" and represntations of Jesus on the cross was 'idolatry'.Those were two big no-nos, last I checked.

True, many Protestants believe these things about crucifixes and the Eucharist at one time, and some still do. They are in error.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't share Lief's prejudice that makes his one copy of one sacred book the only source of information about God's nature (because that strikes me as silly.)

I believe that God speaks through Sacred Tradition, the Sacred Magesterium and the Sacred Scripture, foremost and most importantly. He also can speak to people through other people, through the world he made, through seemingly random events, through pretty much any of his creation, as well as through special spiritual experiences. His most stunning revelation of himself that we can receive is in his Eucharist. His voice is everywhere, not just in the Bible. Praise be to God for the Bible, though, Amen!

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

and it fascinates me how he cherry-picks among other cultures. (Some "African's" believe in witchcraft, therefore there is really witchcraft, but their belief in water spirits means nothing about the existence of water spirits.)

I was talking about a general worldwide belief. Water spirits can't claim that status.

As it happens, the Bible, Church and Tradition have little to say about water spirits . That doesn't mean they don't exist. Consequently, I keep an open mind about them. Besides, the Book of Revelation actually talks about four angels in the River Euphrates, as it happens. Which is interesting.

I don't come from the view that if it's not in the Bible, it's not real. Otherwise I'd have to say electric computers and computers aren't real, since they aren't in the Bible. The Bible never claims to be an encyclopedia of everything that exists in the universe.

However, because the Bible is God's perfect and sacred Word, I will say that anything that contradicts the Bible isn't true.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Neither is God. He reveals his inner workings beautifully through the Scripture, Church and Sacred Tradition, and he proves their truth through the symbolism of the universe around us, through stupendous miraculous signs, wonders and prophecies littered throughout history, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and through personal relationships that he is eager to form with every single human being if they'd only seek him. Each of these evidences is extremely strong on its own, but together they form an invincible case establishing the identity and nature of God.

Same with Christianity.

What if you'd never started a car before? You'd have seen other people driving cars around, so you'd still have an expectation that it would work. Similarly, a non-Christian can see the reality of Christ transforming other people's lives, turning hardened criminals into saints, and consequently they come to believe, or they see miracles and come to believe when they never had before, etc.

I'll look forward to that .

True, many Protestants believe these things about crucifixes and the Eucharist at one time, and some still do. They are in error.

I believe that God speaks through Sacred Tradition, the Sacred Magesterium and the Sacred Scripture, foremost and most importantly. He also can speak to people through other people, through the world he made, through seemingly random events, through pretty much any of his creation, as well as through special spiritual experiences. His most stunning revelation of himself that we can receive is in his Eucharist. His voice is everywhere, not just in the Bible. Praise be to God for the Bible, though, Amen!

I was talking about a general worldwide belief. Water spirits can't claim that status.

As it happens, the Bible, Church and Tradition have little to say about water spirits . That doesn't mean they don't exist. Consequently, I keep an open mind about them. Besides, the Book of Revelation actually talks about four angels in the River Euphrates, as it happens. Which is interesting.

I don't come from the view that if it's not in the Bible, it's not real. Otherwise I'd have to say electric computers and computers aren't real, since they aren't in the Bible. The Bible never claims to be an encyclopedia of everything that exists in the universe.

However, because the Bible is God's perfect and sacred Word, I will say that anything that contradicts the Bible isn't true.

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Impossible.. the Earth is a sphere. A contradiction of the Bible.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

One hears that the world is created by God, perfectly one would have to assume, yet the entire range of absurd events that bear no relation to anything a human being can physically sense are affecting people always out of sight, out of sound. Striking how secretive the spiritual world is!

People are called blasphemic when they question the the script of the Bible, question the authoritarian voice (like the Vatican) and it's interpretation. Blasphemy is called all around, albeit the word blasphemy isn't the choice of word these days (not politically correct!).
I question then: isn't it more blasphemic to believe that one has a special ear to God, the almight God who loves us all equally?
Isn't it then blasphemy to speak of witchcraft and demons when it would neccessitate that God isn't at all in control of his universe?
Isn't it blasphemic to judge that the laws of nature (that means EVERYTHING, don't read nature too literally. It's everything) Let's say the Laws of our Solar System just to be sure. And these laws, God-created, can somehow be bent? They can be twisted? Spirits can pop up here and there, demons can take hold of peoples? Isn't beliefs in supernatural things like this an aggressive kick in the groin to God's perfectly crafted world? A planet, a solar system, that can be explained by pure mathematics. Symmetrical, beautiful, complete.

It should not be blasphemy to see the world, take it for what it is and use its tools, but blasphemy to add on supernaturals that can't be explained and can't be assessed by all. Blasphemy to assume certain peoples have a bette understanding of God than others.

Why would God pick a person? Why not tell everyone! It's God!

My responses to this are posts 608 and 615.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Impossible.. the Earth is a sphere. A contradiction of the Bible.

That only responds to the last sentence of that post, not to any of the rest of it. I still wait for your responses to my other points, there (except the ones relating to Sis).

Even in the time of Jesus, everyone knew that no mountain could show the entirety of the world. They knew about the Mediterranean Sea, about the Roman Empire, etc. So we know that they weren't trying to say that because of the mountain's height, he was able to see all the kingdoms. It makes more sense to say that he climbed up a mountain and saw all the kingdoms of the world in a vision. That probably is what they meant, in my view.

You have to prove a contradiction, not prove that there might be a contradiction, if you're going to invalidate my statement. Though even supposed evidence of a contradiction isn't likely to make error clear, as new things might turn up that show otherwise. Like it did with the Hittites. German skeptics said a long time that because there was no evidence of the Hittites, the Bible was false, but then their civilization turned up because they dug in the places the Bible said they were and they dug long enough to find them.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That only responds to the last sentence of that post, not to any of the rest of it. I still wait for your responses to my other points, there (except the ones relating to Sis).

Even in the time of Jesus, everyone knew that no mountain could show the entirety of the world. They knew about the Mediterranean Sea, about the Roman Empire, etc. So we know that they weren't trying to say that because of the mountain's height, he was able to see all the kingdoms. It makes more sense to say that he climbed up a mountain and saw all the kingdoms of the world in a vision.

You have to prove a contradiction, not prove that there might be a contradiction, if you're going to invalidate my statement.

It doesn't say he saw it in a vision. It says.. "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It doesn't say he saw it in a vision. It says.. "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"

It doesn't say how many times Jesus blinked while he was wandering in the wilderness either. That doesn't mean it's saying he never blinked.