Theology III

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Mari

So Coffeehouse, if I understand it correctly your problem is with the institution we call the Church and the Bible?

I believe that if one first wants a bond with a higher being, if having a religious faith feels right, something that acts as a positive force in one's life.. then make it free of the restrictions and monopoly of churches and books. An authority that says it enjoys monopoly on the interpretation of the relationship between human beings and a higher being needs to seriously examine its credentials.

You do not need cathedrals, and cardinals.
Take the path up to a cliff nearby,
a place with a view, and watch the forests or the fields or the skies or the cities or the seas or the oceans. The place where you stand is your temple, your church, your place of worship.
Care to witness a miracle? Visit your favorite place(!) and stand there in silence and view the beauty. Without the holy processions of the church, the goldcoloured cloths or the sound of the organ.

Worship the message, not the creeds.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

As for my view of the world, it's clear, and honest.

I'm glad it is .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In my view the world is exactly what it appears to be, based on everything my senses tell me, and everyway nature interacts with us, that there is no hocus pocus, no fairy tale magical beings floating here and there, always hidden, never being especially constructive.

I have a couple criticisms of this view. The first is that you don't actually believe in the world as your senses tell you, for your immediate bodily senses could tell you nothing about electrons or quarks. Many of the things you believe about nature are your beliefs because of advanced technology, not the senses.

Also, you actually disbelieve the senses on many occasions. All kinds of people have had visions or seen miracles. I've talked with people who have seen ouija boards levitate into the air all on their own, or have seen people with disabilities have limbs grow longer or shorter in answer to prayers, etc. etc. Miracles and visions are a part of the experience of humanity throughout time, and they are part of the experience of the senses.

Your claim that these fairy beings never do anything constructive is also based purely on conjecture, as you don't have any idea to what extent they have influenced "natural" events.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I believe the reason humans believe in gods and ghosts is multi-layered, but it is only a figment of the imagination. It's a device and it's a solution. The idea of a God is comforting, an all-powerful God that watches over us for all eternity. A God that can welcome us to heaven when we die. It's a comfort, and a clinging on.

Non-Christians, atheists and others have had spiritual experiences too. Sometimes they try to reexplain them- other times they have become religious, and other times they don't try to explain them and just file that weird memory.

Many people don't believe in God because they find the idea comforting but because they interactively experience a powerful, awe-striking Lover in their lives.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Nobody wants things to end completely, the last ending. In my opinion, because nothing whatsoever seems to point in any other direction, death is the end. After it, there is nothing. The body is dead, the brain is dead, it's decomposing and millions of tiny creatures use the leftovers from the body, and the earth swallows whole the body and so it continues. Death spurs life.

Have you ever heard of Near Death Experiences? Many people have been pronounced clinically dead, and no electrical activity shows up on their MIG, but they are resusitated (how do you spell that?) using modern medical technology. They have frequently recounted having had amazingly vivid spiritual experiences after death, and they describe paranormal phenomenon too that can't be explained. For instance, many of them have been able to describe clearly what their doctors were doing and where different people were, and even what people said, while the patients were clinically dead. The spiritual experiences people have after death tend to fall into two categories: Experiences very much like heaven, and experiences very much like hell. They see angels and brilliant light, or they see darkness and hear screams and sometimes see demons tormenting people.

Not all NDE accounts parallel Christian theology perfectly. Some people have come back believing in reincarnation, and describing being met by Buddha or Muhammad. However, some people describe their experience having started out with brilliant light but then having turned into a hellish experience afterward, so it is perfectly possible that those influenced by these eroneous beliefs could have ended up in a hell-like experience if they'd had an opportunity to "go further."

Anyway, there is a good deal of evidence of life after death. There are NDE's, but there also are loads of spiritual experiences the living have which provide evidence supporting life after death.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

And it's a mind-opening choice to make, not to believe in afterlife, because it's nod to the fact that someday it'll all end and my own body will just lie there, until it is completely gone, and that after the light goes out it will stay dark.

Not really, of course, for there couldn't logically be any "dark" according to your view. You couldn't possibly experience anything prior to your conception, so you couldn't possibly experience anything after death either, according to your view. So there'd be no dark.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But that is why life is so fantastic, so unique, because it's a one-timer and enjoying the finite amount of time you have to live gives you every reason to really enjoy it, to cherish it, because you know that it will end one day. And this is not only a feeling, but embedded in all humans subconsciously. From we grow up we are curious, we want to learn more, we want to experience new things, we want to do so many things before the lights go out.

You want to do that anyway, as a Christian. I know that my lifespan here on Earth is limited and the universe is an astounding part of God's creation which I'll only enjoy in this form in a very temporary way. So I want to appreciate it as much as I can and do God's will in it as much as I can while I have this chance in the flesh!

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

When I walk out the door on a very cool winter's day and the sky is lightblue, and the stars are up in the fresh night, it's not the wonder of God that strikes me, but the feeling of luck, of being able to feel a simple joy when looking at a very complex piece of machinery. The stars, galaxies, millions of miles away, the moon, the winter season, it's a ballad of complexity and life cycles, and here I stand looking at it all and it all just looks very beautiful, and simple.
It's unique, not because a god made it, but because it came here through incredible chance and incredible if's and buts, and that our species have grown out from the nature of the world and developed so far that we can look at it and reflect on it, enjoy it and fear it.

I'm glad you acknowledge how amazingly small the probability is that the universe come to exist in such a way that life could exist in it. That's actually one of the arguments used to support the case for God's hand in it.

There's more than one way to find great appreciation in the smallness of that "chance" .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But I understand the need for religious belief. It's a comfort for many.

If that's what you "understand," then you don't understand the religious belief of many. Sure, there's a comfort about the afterlife, but how much do I think about my afterlife? A few minutes a month? And how much do I think about God? A few hours each day. God is here NOW doing things in our lives now, pouring out his love into us in ways so deeply intimate that many can't even talk about their spiritual lives comfortably. It's like talking about their sex lives or something, because their experiences of God, their Lover, are so penetrating, so extremely intimate and powerful. God pours out his love to his followers here on Earth in ways that make people burn with devotion for him throughout their lives. People die for Christ not for their afterlives, most of the time, but because they love Christ. Jesus said, "Love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." We love God. He's not an abstract belief but a person who speaks to us all day long!!!

If we listen.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

When you see poor people with nothing it's understandable that the churches and temples and mosques in their towns always fill up, that prayer rings through every home. Painful experiences seem to put humans close to a higher being, a hope.

True, pain does seem to draw people toward God. That's largely because he's a source of enormous joy in their lives, and he is the source of their love and virtues, and of the strength they need to get by day after day. Thoughts about the afterlife also can bring people to God, it's true, but that's only one variety of faith. You're basically looking at a slope covered with rocks and seeing only one rock rather than the entire cliff. Religious life is so much more than the one rock-one's own afterlife-and that one rock in fact is not that big a focus for many people. The experience of Christianity is the whole cliff of boulders and stones, not the one rock you're staring at!

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's curious that the parts of the world where people are the most well off, living standards being high and general education being high, are also the very same parts where the belief in something supernatural is dimishing and low.

That's not so odd. Jesus said in his time, "how hard it is for the rich man to come to the kingdom of God!" Because they feel like they don't need God as much, so they focus inward on themselves.

This is the story of Israel throughout the Old Testament. They start to do well, then they get corrupt and idolatrous, so God punishes them, so they repent, so they are forgiven and blessed again, so they go back to being idolatrous, so God punishes them again, and so on.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

And so it's a very simple question that comes to mind. When I look at the world, when I experience my life, why would I turn to something that is only seen and understood in a book?

Because you're one very small human with very limited knowledge, like the rest of humanity, and like the rest of humanity, you are very prone to making errors in judgment. That book offers you what you need most from life: Unity with God.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In a book where most of the authors remain obscure, unknown,

I could get into the authors issue easily enough. It's sufficient to know, however, for the purposes of argument, that the New Testament Gospels were accepted as completely true throughout the Early Church from a very, very early date. They had the support of the Early Church leaders who passed on (and died for their belief in) the teachings of the apostles, so it's basically certain that they reflect the original teachings of the disciples.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

a book that can show me nothing in this world any better than I can understand them from books of science, experience of life and interaction with other people.

That's an assumption. If you assume it isn't divinely inspired, then you find it's just one more human opinion and you can agree with parts you like and disagree with parts you don't like. On the other hand, if it represents a perfectly righteous standard, then conforming to it will unify your will with the divine will and with the perfect rather than with the humanly flawed moral center. Which would prove an incredible blessing, as hundreds of millions of people find it to be today.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why would I trust a belief in something supernatural, whos entire existence is based on a single book,

It isn't. Many believers experience God all the time, hearing his voice in countless ways outside of the Bible as well as within, and having powerful spiritual experiences that confirm their faith and deepen their love for God. Praise the Lord, dear Christ .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

which I have never felt present in this world?

The answer to this is simple. Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you." Seek God and tell him you'll devote your life to him if he reveals himself to you, and seek God persistently, and he will reveal himself to you in a way that makes sense to your reason and fills your heart with a fountain of new love and joy.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The world comes out as truly remarkable when one acknowledges that the chance of it being this way is infinitely small, and that one is lucky enough to be born. With a belief in gods and ghosts, for me, comes layers of mystery and simplicity, a degrading of the beauty of it and a dumbing down of the complexity of it.

That's how I feel when you insist that you have an answer to every one of your questions about God's behavior in the world before you convert. If everything was easy to understand and every question had an obvious answer, God would be no more complex than we are.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Rather a life and then a final death, then a life lived on the premise that there will be another life after it, last eternally. The former life gives reason to enjoy life like nothing else!

I know . . . and license to pervert oneself and harm others like nothing else. For if no one is going to last anyway and no one has any intrinsic value beyond that of another animal, why not just speed up the process for someone if he's bothering me? This perspective can create hideously self-centered behavior in some people. There is no certainty that there will be a Final Judgment, so there is license for destructive acts.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Well you see, Christianity is a very small religion in China, and most Chinese to do not believe in God. So it does not need saying really.

In fact, it is interesting that China's present economic boom is corresponding to a flourishing underground spread of Christianity in the country. I read about this in Christian magazines. It's common knowledge if one keeps up to date on church activity.

China's big economic downturn in the 19th century occurred after its leaders had been offered Christian teaching for a few hundred years already, and had consistently rejected it. Then the Europeans clobbered the country (Enlightenment imperialism), and they became viciously anti-Christian. During that anti-Christian period, some of their worst atrocities occurred and many of their biggest wars, the nightmares of the 20th century.

Now, Christianity is making big strides in the country, though it still has to operate largely underground because of the risk of persecution. The economic expansion of China is occurring simultaneously.

All this is pretty interesting from a spiritual perspective, for historically, the rejection of God's Word correlates China's disasters and the acceptance of it correlates with its greater prosperity and success.

Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The point is that good things happen all the time without any interference by any higher being (a claim of invisible and secret messages of divine truth is not something I am ready to believe in. Highly suspect)

As Mari pointed out and I said earlier, that is entirely guesswork.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

A society where the word of a God, that can neither be seen or heard by all peoples of the world, is the highest word, is not a healthy society.

I think you may have ignored a good deal of what I said in previous posts to you. I've repeatedly said that there are all kinds of ways God speaks to people, not just the Bible.

And that God's Word, if it is God's Word, is the highest word is only logical and good.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Where all sorts of actions and misdeeds can be carried out under the pretense of having the ear of God. Luckily, the reason of economics steers people out of poverty in China, and not converts or attendance in church or blind faith in a man in Rome.

That is entirely guesswork on your part. You have no idea what kind of a role God might have played. This point has been made repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

If being close to a God brings humanity happiness, why is heavily Christian southern Sudan so desolately poor? So desolately unfortunate?

There could be all kinds of reasons. That's the same kind of question you've asked repeatedly, and I've given answers to. If we don't know something about God's ways, that doesn't mean that they don't make sense. In fact, it wouldn't make sense if we did understand everything about God's ways, because then we'd be as intelligent as God, and he wouldn't really be God because he'd have no more knowledge than we do.

Also, I'll add that the abundance of people's wealth doesn't determine their happiness at all. I've met impoverished Christian families in Mexico whose lives are overflowing with joy, and some of the people that I've met who are most in pain are overflowing with the most love. Happiness comes from the love of God and the experience of his love for us. Economic factors are definitely secondary. In fact, economic hardship can sometimes bring people more strongly toward God, which can increase the joy of many rather than decreasing it.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Luckily I have a reflecting mind that cherishes reason.

Of all the progress these lasts hundreds of years that has brought so much of humanity from poverty and into a living where time for reflection and time for enjoyment is a substantial time. None of this progress has been due to any divine messages of truth or revelations of enlightenment in the Bible or in any other religious script. The Bible had its chance, it had the many centuries leading up to the Enlightenment.

In fact, we should not have the economic prosperity we have now. The Enlightenment's economic "contributions" came at an incalculable moral cost. No one should do evil to produce good. No one should produce materialistic gains through moral evil, and our modern economies required some terribly evil actions to come about. You shouldn't praise mankind for shrugging off the moral principles of the Church in order to achieve this economy. It did shrug off the Church's principles to build the economy, and here is how it did it:

1) Slavery. In order to build a successful modern economy, the development of Mercantilism and the TransAtlantic Slave Trade were necessary. Slavery had existed sporadically throughout the Medieval Ages, in the form of the enslavement of prisoners of war (they were trying to destroy our nation, so why shouldn't they be made to build it up as penalty?) or the temporary enslavement of workers who couldn't pay their debts, until they could settle. Most workers had a contract with their lords during the Medieval Ages, which involved each gaining some profit. The common serfs or vassals could expect a steady supply of food and protection, as well as homes and land, from their lord. They, in turn, spent half of their time working on their own property and half working on their lord's fields, they paid his taxes and did odd-jobs for him. There was mutual benefit in the contract.

This kind of labor system broke down a lot with the Black Death, because fewer workers existed in the pool, so they were able to demand higher wages. Because normal laborers toward the end of the Medieval Ages demanded more income, people in charge felt the need to move to cheaper sources of income.

To develop a modern economy, the nations of the Enlightenment felt the need for slavery as never before. Previously, slavery had only been seen as justified in cases where the person was born into slavery (if they don't pay the debt they owe their master for providing for them throughout their youth, masters have no incentive to look after them and the children would have to be separated from parents, living in dependency on the Church or charities, or dying in the streets), prisoners of war and temporary enslavement of debtors. The Enlightenment changed all that. They needed to justify mass-enslavement and mass-exploitation to fuel their economies, so they advanced and justified racism enormously at that time, a view that contradicted the views of the Church, as it had had ministers and congregations in Africa since the very first centuries of Christianity's existence, and they hadn't had a racist mentality.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, justified by racism as well as some reinterpretation of Christianity (This was post-Protestant Reformation now, remember, so Tradition doesn't matter), played a crucial role in the development of our economies into the form they are now. Millions of African and Native American slaves paid the brutal price for the greed the development of our system was originally based on.

2) Colonialism. This and point 3, as well as point 1, are all closely linked. To develop a modern economy, the industrial giants needed raw resources. The Industrial Revolution had swiftly stripped Europe bare. So they created colonies that often brutalized and enslaved native populations, justifying their conduct on racist principles, in order to produce the modern resources the West needed to fuel its modern economy.

3) Imperialism. To secure strategic economic points, the European nations began swiftly competing with one another to get as much as they could of the rest of the world.

These three, Imperialism, Colonialism and Slavery built the new economy of Europe on an ocean of blood of millions of innocent people. Imperialism and colonialism did not exist in Medieval Europe. There were battles between different nations over territory, especially in the Late Medieval Ages, but there was nothing like the imperialism of the new era. Post-imperialism nations today are still fighting wars with one another in many parts of the globe, and even genocides have resulted from European powers clamping together tribes or nations that had no historical commonalities between them. Colonialism did not exist in the Medieval Ages. Slavery was a much rarer practice and was more rational and more just. Christian masters also felt more responsibility for their slaves in that time, because of protective laws established by the Emperor in the East and promoted by the Church in the West. The Enlightenment built a new economy through savagery. It was indeed an escape from Christian morality in many senses.

But there were other devastating methods used to develop this economy that I haven't mentioned yet.

4) The expansion of inequalities and ruthless exploitation of the common worker. In the Medieval Ages, there was a social contract between lords and their workers that provided their workers with a generally pretty good life. In fact, throughout most of the Medieval Ages, the average worker was about as tall as Westerners of the 21st century are. That is an indication of good economic conditions, a healthy diet, etc. They began to get shorter in the Late Medieval Ages because the Little Ice Age devastated a lot of harvests, but economic conditions for the average worker became the worst they'd ever been during the Enlightenment. The skeletons of average workers from that time period are shorter than they'd ever been before in post-Christian Western history, because workers were so brutally treated in factories, were starved and given squalor to live in. Owners had no compassion for them in the capitalist free market. This is a useful article showing the transition from economic conditions in the Medieval Ages to economic conditions of the Enlightenment: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

According to the author, skeletal height also is sensitive to inequalities in populations, and inequalities between the rich and poor actually became far greater in the modern era than they'd been in the Medieval Ages, because of the inhumanity and lack of social, moral responsibility felt by big businesses. To achieve our great economies of today, the common worker for centuries was ground into the filth under an iron foot. It was a very, very savage time in the Enlightenment to be a worker, more so than at any other time in Western history. And inequalities between the rich and poor are actually still much greater in our modern societies than they were in the Medieval Ages- it's just that now in the West, because the brutal practices of the past produced so much more money to go around, both the rich and the poor are monetarily better off than they were in the past.

5) The destruction of the environment. This could have the longest lasting and most cataclysmic impact of all, on humanity. The Bible calls us to be good stewards of creation. However, to develop our modern economy, humans in the Enlightenment destroyed many of the world's ecosystems and most of its natural environment.
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/jo...cal_Crisis.htm
According to this source, “the fact that the present ecological crisis began developing since the Industrial Revolution is indisputable now.”

There was always cutting down of trees to build buildings or crafts before the modern era, but the Industrial Revolution stepped up the process in a vast way through its factory system. They essentially perpetrated an environmental holocaust in their production of our modern benefits, destroying hundreds of species, ruining the air, forests and seas. We have continued in their footsteps in our age, and this kind of environmental rape is necessary to produce a modern economy of the kind we've got.

The environmental catastrophe our economic development required could literally end up wiping out the human race, in a few hundred years.

So don't be proud of this economic development. The shrugging off of Christian moral safeguards on society was nightmarish in its consequences for hundreds of millions of people in the past, for many people fighting wars in formerly colonized nations of the present, and it could easily be for all humanity in the future.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The Torah, the Koran, they've all been around, had their chance. The progress experienced in the ages since the Dutch Benedict Spinoza in the mid-1600s up to today, with all the thinkers of the Enlightenment, the 19th century father of evolution, Darwin, the strides made in the 20th and 21st century, all this progress has happened despite the authoritarianism of the Church, the rigidity of the Bible.

Most of these strides of intellectual thought were strides into evil and away from what was pure. Things like sexual license that were taught by many of these thinkers have caused the proliferation of STDS that have proved an economic burden for nations and death for millions. AIDS alone is expected to kill 1.8 million Ethiopians this year.

Some of these thinkers advanced Social Darwinism, which spawned Imperialism. Others supported Racism or Eugenics. The new political philosophies were perverted as well. Atheistic Communism has become responsible for repeated genocides, as have democracies (the destruction of Native Americans, and now abortion). There were no Christian genocides in the Medieval Ages, and there were no major rebellions in the Early and Middle Medieval Ages- only a few local rebellions against lords. The modern era is born on rebellion and replete with genocides.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The progress of science happened despite a cultural and traditional ironhold by religious belief and thought and way of life, not because of it.

In the past, the Church was actually at the forefront of scientific research. It only opposed Galileo because he insisted on teaching his new theory as fact rather than hypothesis, when a good deal of his evidence was faulty (scientists of the time were able to disprove his erroneous claims that the sun caused Earth's tidal motions) and most scientists disagreed with him. Also, the Catholic Church did not condemn Darwin's teachings.

Originally Posted by catholic.net

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science. F.J. Sheed writes in his classic Theology and Sanity that the creation account in Genesis,

... tells us of the fact but not of the process: there was an assembling of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous, or spread over a considerable space of time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved-not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God-to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God then created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so....

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why was an empowerment of everyday people, my forefathers and your forefathers, only a reality after the rigidity of religious thought was put aside with all its choking of reason and inequality of women?

Answering this would open a whole 'nother can of worms, a very big one, and I'd rather not right now. There's a LOT of bad in this too, for women, for "everyday people," and nations in general. I don't think that the overall development was a good one. Maybe I'll do this issue later.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why was this only a reality when the belief in reason, the healthy sharing of knowledge and the unrelenting drive towards a better future not because of divine teachings, but because it was right?

It deviated humanity from divine teachings to humanity's own destruction, as I've already pointed out.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I would embrace the existance of a higher being, because it would mean I could have an afterlife (a very encouraging thought!), but reason was given to me, like any other human being, and I intend to follow it and decide that the reality of the world is the reality that we can see, touch, smell, measure and experience alone and together, not a reality dictated by an outdated book..

Well, we can experience God too, and not only through reading the Bible. So if you believe in the world we experience, you should believe in the supernatural. The vast majority of humans throughout history, even including in our own day, believe in a God or gods and the accounts of supernatural experience (and the evidence to support them) are too numerous to list. If you are going to reason in a consistent fashion, you should accept this because of the vast expansiveness of its presence in human experience.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I was unaare that the Bible was a deity all it's own, with messages on economy. I thought this had been covered.

I agree that the Bible doesn't tell people how to develop their economy. However, I do think that when nations are following God faithfully, because he works through the people in them, he can and does develop good economies or political arrangements through his human servants on Earth.

And the methods by which our modern economies were developed were heinous at best. That these greedy and ruthless techniques came at the end of the Christian era is not surprising.

I describe them in more depth in my post above . . . my longest yet in this thread, in all probability .

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Firstly, the impoverished speech is done with. Tessar covered it, I reiterated a little, and I'm sure Lief will pounce on it.

Just finished pouncing! It was fun. Perhaps a little too time-consuming, though . . . Answering such massive questions thoroughly is a very long process.

*Gets thoughtful.* Maybe I should do it less thoroughly.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I believe God had a hand in the rest. I do not have any ties with, and little respect for, the Pope and the ungodly power he weilds. It seems like the papacy was more a power-grab than anything.

I personally don't. There were only a handful of popes who were really corrupt, and none of them changed the Church's doctrines. They simply didn't adhere to them in their private lives- there are failed Christians all over the world. Also, the existence of a pope and authority structure at the top of the Church preserved doctrinal order and unity. That's why Catholicism was the almost the only Church up to the Reformation. There were the Orthodox and Coptic splits, but these churches retained an authority structure and maintained almost exactly the same doctrines as Catholicism, so they aren't considered heretical. The Orthodox are called by Catholics the "sister church" of Catholicism, because they are united in faith at nearly every point. The existence of these hierarchies, including the Catholic Pope, helps to preserve that unity.

It was one Church, one belief, teaching the same doctrines that (if you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers) Christians believed from the very beginnings of our faith. The pope's office and authority on matters of doctrine helps to ensure that this unity around the original teachings remains intact.

When the Protestant Reformation began, there were only a handful of denominations. Now, Protestantism includes tens of thousands of denominations because the split is fragmenting more and more and more. Without any authority at the top, people often interpret the Bible the way they want and Christianity's message becomes less and less coherent and more and more contradictory. So I think that this office is a very important and valuable one.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Does this mean I am not human, because I didnt follow your "reason"? Poor choice of words, perhaps. What you call "reason" I call secular, and a lure.

True.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

But the Bible is far from outdated, especially seeing the many people who still use its teachings and parables to illustrate truths today.

Indeed.

I like your points .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

God can, and will, work through anyone. Who knows, maybe you're strengthening someone's faith by them readin through all these passages.



In my faith, everyone has the "ear of God". No one person hears it, but when someone does we should listen, with a spirit of discernment.



I believe Tessar covered this. Christians arent necessarily promised a better life on Earth, in any way. Just a better life after this one.

Good points, IMO .

[BeardofPants]

On near death experience & spirituality, you may want to read Persinger (Your brain on God), or anything of that ilk.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

On near death experience & spirituality, you may want to read Persinger (Your brain on God), or anything of that ilk.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

This link isn't about NDE's but about experiences of sensing spirits.

On the other hand:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/vmary.htm

[BeardofPants]

"or anything of that ilk". Sheesh.

From my link:

Persinger goes one step further. His work practically constitutes a Grand Unified Theory of the Otherworldly: He believes cerebral fritzing is responsible for almost anything one might describe as paranormal - aliens, heavenly apparitions, past-life sensations, near-death experiences, awareness of the soul, you name it.

[Tessar]

It's alright, dear. We understood what you meant. Even if you did use 'ilk'.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

"or anything of that ilk". Sheesh.

From my link:

Persinger goes one step further. His work practically constitutes a Grand Unified Theory of the Otherworldly: He believes cerebral fritzing is responsible for almost anything one might describe as paranormal - aliens, heavenly apparitions, past-life sensations, near-death experiences, awareness of the soul, you name it.

I am glad you brought this up because it's interesting stuff, concerning Near-Death Experiences.

Lief, you write so long! But I will read it and answer you since you spent so many words

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Lief, you write so long! But I will read it and answer you since you spent so many words

Thanks . . . it's because you ask such massive questions!!! Really, the questions you ask are huge, things requiring explanation, not little things I can pop off one-liners to. So I'm taking a lot of time.

[Curufin]

Hmm, while this is an interesting discussion, I suppose I'm in a sort of 'middle-ground' between you two. I am not an atheist, but neither am I a devout Christian (of any sort). So I thought I'd just throw in some observations - take it as you will.

It seems to me that both of you are basing your beliefs on faith. Here's what I see: - Coffeehouse - you are indeed using 'faith' as Lief said - science, while based on emperical evidence and observation, cannot always be observed by the senses, so your claim that you believe only what you can see or feel is not purely correct. Lief - you have already stated that faith is important to your beliefs, so I don't need to elaborate there.

I think the most important thing for both sides to see is that we don't know everything. Whether from a Christian perspective or a scientific perspective, there is so much in this world (or universe) that we simply don't understand, and to completely discount the beliefs of the other (as Coffeehouse in particular seems to be doing) is a dangerous thing. Science thrives on being open minded, and I think that as human beings with imperfect minds in an amazingly complex world that Christians and atheists alike should keep an open mind.

Christians - you believe you have the word of God in the bible, and who knows, I'm not going to say that it isn't true beause I don't know. But do you truly believe that the human mind is advanced enough to truly understand all the nuances and connotations of the words of God? The Mind of God is so far above us that we could appear as children reading 'Animal Farm' and seeing it as a cute little barnyard story while completely missing the greater meaning.

Atheists: Not to believe in God requires just as much of a leap of faith as does believing in God. While there may be no empirical evidence that God does exist, there is also no empirical evidence that he does not exist. Why not simply answer this question with an open-minded 'I don't know' instead of labling a good portion of the world's population as foolish?

Wow, that's really rambling. Ah well.

[Lief Erikson]

Cool post, Curufin .

Originally Posted by Curufin

Hmm, while this is an interesting discussion, I suppose I'm in a sort of 'middle-ground' between you two. I am not an atheist, but neither am I a devout Christian (of any sort). So I thought I'd just throw in some observations - take it as you will.

It seems to me that both of you are basing your beliefs on faith. Here's what I see: - Coffeehouse - you are indeed using 'faith' as Lief said - science, while based on emperical evidence and observation, cannot always be observed by the senses, so your claim that you believe only what you can see or feel is not purely correct. Lief - you have already stated that faith is important to your beliefs, so I don't need to elaborate there.

Good points, IMO.

Originally Posted by Curufin

I think the most important thing for both sides to see is that we don't know everything. Whether from a Christian perspective or a scientific perspective, there is so much in this world (or universe) that we simply don't understand, and to completely discount the beliefs of the other (as Coffeehouse in particular seems to be doing) is a dangerous thing. Science thrives on being open minded, and I think that as human beings with imperfect minds in an amazingly complex world that Christians and atheists alike should keep an open mind.

Agreed.

Before rejecting any belief, I need to have a very good reason for doing so, whether logical or evidence-based. The world is also indeed extremely complex, and there is a great deal to know, both about science and about God, that we don't yet. The Bible actually says this explicitly in the Epistles . Paul wrote, "Now we see through a mirror, darkly, but soon we will see face to face. Now I know only partially; but then I shall know fully, as I am fully known."

Originally Posted by Curufin

Christians - you believe you have the word of God in the bible, and who knows, I'm not going to say that it isn't true beause I don't know. But do you truly believe that the human mind is advanced enough to truly understand all the nuances and connotations of the words of God?

Not necessarily all, and even if it is possible (beats me whether it is or not), we never will, because God is infinite and we are finite.

Originally Posted by Curufin

The Mind of God is so far above us that we could appear as children reading 'Animal Farm' and seeing it as a cute little barnyard story while completely missing the greater meaning.

Well, I think God also is great enough to make understandable to us the things he wants us to understand . At least in a basic, general way. He knew just how sophisticated and limited we would be when he made us, and he reaches us where we are, with what we can receive right now. Obviously we can't understand all of God's truth from such a limited vantage point as that which we have right now. And we never will be omniscient.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Atheists: Not to believe in God requires just as much of a leap of faith as does believing in God. While there may be no empirical evidence that God does exist, there is also no empirical evidence that he does not exist. Why not simply answer this question with an open-minded 'I don't know' instead of labling a good portion of the world's population as foolish?

That makes a good deal of sense, except that I'd argue that there is a great deal of evidence that God does exist. I could cite several important points, but this is a really cool one I found in the last two or three weeks, and so am particularly excited about right now:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/vmary.htm

Originally Posted by Curufin

Wow, that's really rambling. Ah well.

It was nice . Well said!

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

When I walk out the door on a very cool winter's day and the sky is lightblue, and the stars are up in the fresh night, it's not the wonder of God that strikes me, but the feeling of luck, of being able to feel a simple joy when looking at a very complex piece of machinery. The stars, galaxies, millions of miles away, the moon, the winter season, it's a ballad of complexity and life cycles, and here I stand looking at it all and it all just looks very beautiful, and simple.
It's unique, not because a god made it, but because it came here through incredible chance and incredible if's and buts, and that our species have grown out from the nature of the world and developed so far that we can look at it and reflect on it, enjoy it and fear it.

A Norwegian poet wrote a poem called "To one nameless", beginning with the words "Whom should I give thanks to?" (my translation. Original: "Til ein namnlaus" by Tor Jonsson, beginning "Kven skal eg takke?").

He ponders all the things he wants to give thanks for, like his ability to see the world, and I think he would have agreed with you about the beauty and the simpleness and the uniqueness.

I don't know whether he regarded himself an atheist or an agnostic, but he seems to feel a certain sadness that he hasn't got anyone to give thanks to. He asks the giver, "Who are you? Why do you keep quiet?" ("Kven er du gjevar? Kvi teier du still?")

And he ends up by giving thanks to someone whom I interpret to be the woman that he loves.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

A Norwegian poet wrote a poem called "To one nameless", beginning with the words "Whom should I give thanks to?" (my translation. Original: "Til ein namnlaus" by Tor Jonsson, beginning "Kven skal eg takke?").

He ponders all the things he wants to give thanks for, like his ability to see the world, and I think he would have agreed with you about the beauty and the simpleness and the uniqueness.

I don't know whether he regarded himself an atheist or an agnostic, but he seems to feel a certain sadness that he hasn't got anyone to give thanks to. He asks the giver, "Who are you? Why do you keep quiet?" ("Kven er du gjevar? Kvi teier du still?")

And he ends up by giving thanks to someone whom I interpret to be the woman that he loves.

*Sighs.* That's very sad.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I personally don't. There were only a handful of popes who were really corrupt, and none of them changed the Church's doctrines. They simply didn't adhere to them in their private lives- there are failed Christians all over the world. Also, the existence of a pope and authority structure at the top of the Church preserved doctrinal order and unity. That's why Catholicism was the almost the only Church up to the Reformation. There were the Orthodox and Coptic splits, but these churches retained an authority structure and maintained almost exactly the same doctrines as Catholicism, so they aren't considered heretical. The Orthodox are called by Catholics the "sister church" of Catholicism, because they are united in faith at nearly every point. The existence of these hierarchies, including the Catholic Pope, helps to preserve that unity.

Since you're Catholic now, I feel I can nitpick a bit more.

There were also the Nestorians, a while before the Copts. There were also some other groups that died out.

Technically, the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are heretical. Even if the Orientals don't really seem to adhere today to the Christological heresies which confused terminology imputed to them, and even if most Orthodox today are willing to accept some understanding of the Filioque, these bodies still reject, practically as a homogeneous whole (and the few exceptions are obviously just confused ), the doctrine of Papal infallibility. The rejection of this one defined dogma is enough to render someone technically a heretic.

As regards "sister churches", I suppose you could say that believing nearly all the same things is an indirect cause of it. Most directly, though, it's because we recognize their orders as valid (as opposed to, say, Episcopalians).

The pope's office and authority on matters of doctrine helps to ensure that this unity around the original teachings remains intact.

And the Fathers affirmed this.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Since you're Catholic now, I feel I can nitpick a bit more.

Feel free!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There were also the Nestorians, a while before the Copts. There were also some other groups that died out.

Yes, I wasn't counting the splinter heresies of the first three centuries. They aren't even considered "Christian" by most.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Technically, the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are heretical. Even if the Orientals don't really seem to adhere today to the Christological heresies which confused terminology imputed to them, and even if most Orthodox today are willing to accept some understanding of the Filioque, these bodies still reject, practically as a homogeneous whole (and the few exceptions are obviously just confused ), the doctrine of Papal infallibility. The rejection of this one defined dogma is enough to render someone technically a heretic.

Okay. Thanks for clearing me up on this.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As regards "sister churches", I suppose you could say that believing nearly all the same things is an indirect cause of it. Most directly, though, it's because we recognize their orders as valid (as opposed to, say, Episcopalians).

Yes, and their Sacraments.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And the Fathers affirmed this.

Indeed, I read the affirmations of this from Clement of Rome, Iranaeus and others, as well as the Biblical evidence supporting it, and it is all very neat. I already went through it all more than once, both when I was coming to Catholicism in the first place and a couple weeks or so ago, when I was debating with an Orthodox Christian on the Catholic Answers site.

I just didn't want to give Nautipus an exhaustive reply . At least not at that point- I might have mentioned the other things later.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Feel free!

Yes, I wasn't counting the splinter heresies of the first three centuries. They aren't even considered "Christian" by most.

No, the Nestorians are not some of those demi-Gnostic folk from the early times; they were post-Nicaea, and are considered to be Christian. Look.

Okay. Thanks for clearing me up on this.

No problem. I remember when I converted, I had a lot of questions, so I thought you might appreciate a few answers.

Yes, and their Sacraments.

Yes, that would follow.

Indeed, I read the affirmations of this from Clement of Rome, Iranaeus and others, as well as the Biblical evidence supporting it, and it is all very neat. I already went through it all more than once, both when I was coming to Catholicism in the first place and a couple weeks or so ago, when I was debating with an Orthodox Christian on the Catholic Answers site.

I figured you would have; I just wanted to get that on the record.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, the Nestorians are not some of those demi-Gnostic folk from the early times; they were post-Nicaea, and are considered to be Christian. Look.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No problem. I remember when I converted, I had a lot of questions, so I thought you might appreciate a few answers.

Yup yup.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I figured you would have; I just wanted to get that on the record.

Yeah.


Y'know, Gwaimir, when I saw you enter Catholicism, I really never thought that one day I'd be following you.

[Coffeehouse]

Lief, you discuss many things.
The senses. Near Death Experiences. Morality. China. Slavery, Colonialism and Imperialism. The downturns of economic development.

While it shows an okay display of knowledge of the general timeline of world history, the analysis is contradictory and incomplete. And sometimes, it seems completely made up as you go along.

We'll just have to agree that we disagree completely in our worldview.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have a couple criticisms of this view. The first is that you don't actually believe in the world as your senses tell you, for your immediate bodily senses could tell you nothing about electrons or quarks.

Also, you actually disbelieve the senses on many occasions. All kinds of people have had visions or seen miracles. I've talked with people who have seen ouija boards levitate into the air all on their own, or have seen people with disabilities have limbs grow longer or shorter in answer to prayers, etc. etc. Miracles and visions are a part of the experience of humanity throughout time, and they are part of the experience of the senses.

Your claim that these fairy beings never do anything constructive is also based purely on conjecture, as you don't have any idea to what extent they have influenced "natural" events.

The existance of electrons and quarks is obviously not known on the basis of smelling them or touching them. The reason we do know there are electrons is because it has been observed through scientific method. By reading science I can learn of this method and how the said scientists document their theory that electrons do exist. I therefore know of these electrons through reading.
Eyes - Evidence - Evaluation - Experience - Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Have you ever heard of Near Death Experiences? Many people have been pronounced clinically dead, and no electrical activity shows up on their MIG, but they are resusitated (how do you spell that?) using modern medical technology. They have frequently recounted having had amazingly vivid spiritual experiences after death, and they describe paranormal phenomenon too that can't be explained. For instance, many of them have been able to describe clearly what their doctors were doing and where different people were, and even what people said, while the patients were clinically dead. The spiritual experiences people have after death tend to fall into two categories: Experiences very much like heaven, and experiences very much like hell. They see angels and brilliant light, or they see darkness and hear screams and sometimes see demons tormenting people.

This part was referenced to by BeardofPants.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not really, of course, for there couldn't logically be any "dark" according to your view. You couldn't possibly experience anything prior to your conception, so you couldn't possibly experience anything after death either, according to your view. So there'd be no dark.

I rephrase my words, (although I suspect you know exactly what I meant), to say that there is no after, after we die.


From the passage above to the passage below there was nothing but talk of God and the ways of God. Things I can't respond to without simply calling it made-up. Which would be rude of me But I don't find it at all convincing.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Because you're one very small human with very limited knowledge, like the rest of humanity, and like the rest of humanity, you are very prone to making errors in judgment. That book offers you what you need most from life: Unity with God.

I disagree very, very much with this line of thought and the concluding remark.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The answer to this is simple. Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you." Seek God and tell him you'll devote your life to him if he reveals himself to you, and seek God persistently, and he will reveal himself to you in a way that makes sense to your reason and fills your heart with a fountain of new love and joy.

That's how I feel when you insist that you have an answer to every one of your questions about God's behavior in the world before you convert. If everything was easy to understand and every question had an obvious answer, God would be no more complex than we are.

Lief, this is all you and no concrete evidence from the world outside. What exacty are you basing this on? The Bible? Tell me why I should believe this over the existance of Santa Claus? I could as well be listening to a person ranting on about a Blue Bunny that lived in Egypt 3,000 years ago and that came down to Earth to Redeem all of Mankind. All based on the Teachings of some Leaves made of Stone, lying on the bottom of the Mediterranean.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know . . . and license to pervert oneself and harm others like nothing else. For if no one is going to last anyway and no one has any intrinsic value beyond that of another animal, why not just speed up the process for someone if he's bothering me? This perspective can create hideously self-centered behavior in some people. There is no certainty that there will be a Final Judgment, so there is license for destructive acts.

Is this your view of people that do not share your faith?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In fact, it is interesting that China's present economic boom is corresponding to a flourishing underground spread of Christianity in the country. I read about this in Christian magazines. It's common knowledge if one keeps up to date on church activity.

China's big economic downturn in the 19th century occurred after its leaders had been offered Christian teaching for a few hundred years already, and had consistently rejected it. Then the Europeans clobbered the country (Enlightenment imperialism), and they became viciously anti-Christian. During that anti-Christian period, some of their worst atrocities occurred and many of their biggest wars, the nightmares of the 20th century.

Now, Christianity is making big strides in the country, though it still has to operate largely underground because of the risk of persecution. The economic expansion of China is occurring simultaneously.

All this is pretty interesting from a spiritual perspective, for historically, the rejection of God's Word correlates China's disasters and the acceptance of it correlates with its greater prosperity and success.

Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance.

Lief, the current economic boom in China is not caused by an upsurge in religious activity. It is the, relative, increased freedom of movement and freedom of thought in China that has caused an upsurge in all types of societal activity, including Christianity. And Islam.

The reason that China experienced a colossal turn of events for the worse in the 19th century was because the nations of Europe violently imposed trade agreements and, from the mid-19th century and into the 20th century, along with Japan, broke down the intricate relationship China had with all its neighbours. The era of the Sinocentric Tributary System was replaced by an era of Treaties and Western economics an statehood.
China is the oldest country in the world. It is the most successful civilization over the last 4,000 years, and it is not Christian. It is also the least imperialist nation in the entire world history of great powers. It was through trade relations and non-interference, not violence, that China became the economic powerhouse of Asia. And it is happening again, today, only interrupted by a 150 year period where the nations of Europe, the USA, and Japan, colonialized, fought, took, and exploited, including Great Britains colonial rule of Hong Kong until 1997. The era of exploitation in the 19th century is seared into the conscience of the Chinese, as is the invasion by the Japanese. This started with Christian Europeans coming not only as trademen, but as missionaries, without respect for the Chinese culture, for the Chinese way of living.
Yes, there are Christians in China today, several million in fact out of a population of 1.3 billion. There is an equal amount of Muslims. They are experiencing an upsurge, but freedom of religion exists in China, and I have visited a church in the Sichuan province in China, run by a few Norwegians.

But this Lief:
"Prior to the coming of Christianity to China, I think God was very merciful to them in spite of the wickedness of many accepted customs and practices, because of their ignorance."
This is very rude. I hope you don't mean this.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That is entirely guesswork on your part.

Everything you've told me about God is guesswork. So when I respon to this elaborate exercise of guessing, I have no choice but to guess back.
Wouldn't life be easier if the issue of God was just put aside? If until we really saw the guy sitting up there, we really shouldn't concern ourselves about it? Isn't that more healthy? Isn't it more healthy to concentrate on our worldly problems and employ worldy solutions, for the betterment of mankind (we keep doing it with our human rights charters, with our internationalization)?

I don't believe in God because to me it is pure guesswork. Thus, it is not up to me to prove that there is a God or no God, because I find it completely irrelevant. Until I am presented with evidence that there is a God, there is as much possibility in my view that there is a holy Coca Cola bottle in our neighbouring galaxy, as there is the possibility of a God. It's irrelevant, because no one has ever shown me anything remotely holy. And I used to believe in God. Why? Because I did not know better (no pun intended).

You present a very, very long explanation of the Enlightenment. I find it an impossible to answer that adequately as we speak, with an even longer answer. The analysis you present of the Enlightenment I believe to be very faulty and incomplete, and since I argue this I will have to back it up, very thoroughly, because there is so much to say about this! I could answer you now, but since I think your're so dead wrong on so many things I'd rather have the evidence ready. So forgive me for that. Maybe (I'm completely serious) I'll work on an answer over the summer, if not I may not answer your history part before in August But that's the beauty of Entmoot.

But I have a very short answer for you until that time. Since you show a great disliking for the Enlightenment (which isn't even entirely consistent with the Vatican Church's position today), I would gladly ship you back to early 1300, when life was easier and the authority of the Church was near total. Au revoir!