Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So, in answer to my questions about "Source of information on early martyrdom" I get "Lief's current copy of his preferred Bible."

Plus early Church Tradition- you forgot to mention that.

Sis, whether my Bible copy is "preferred" or "current" is irrelevant. The same meaning can be found in these verses in any of the broadly accepted translations. You are only using these words to mock.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

In answer to my statement about 'Liars going to Hell", I get "Section of Lief's current copy of his preferred Bible written by someone who probably never met Jesus, (and may never have set foot in that area of the world,) decades after he died."

Good grief. You said that the disciples never taught this, and I found for you multiple verses from teachings attributed to them from an extremely early time period which show the opposite. You just responded with more mockery.

We know that the Early Church attributed the teachings of these epistles to the disciples and many of the Church Fathers who were instructed to pass on the disciples' teaching died for their belief in what they were doing, which shows that they were pretty well chosen and that they sincerely did their best to pass on these teachings accurately. We have their testimony to confirm the testimony of the Gospels. It is strong evidence.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You know, as far as 'Dying for their faith", the Jews still hold the title. Just for the record.
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is One."

If you're suggesting that the Early Christians weren't dying for their faith, this is absurd, for Jesus claimed to be God and then proved it by rising from the dead. So the belief in the Trinity became a part of Christian thought right from the beginning. Also, the Old Testament does predict that the Messiah will be called, "Everlasting Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace," and there are many other references to God in the Old Testament that imply the Trinity. Though I grant you there was debate over exactly how it worked, amongst the early Christians, and the Arians rejected the Trinity completely.

I think I'm finished responding to you on this thread, for quite a while at least, Sis. The sneering and sarcastic tone that permeates many of your posts makes it impossible for me to respond to them with any pleasure.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think I'm finished responding to you on this thread, for quite a while at least, Sis. The sneering and sarcastic tone that permeates many of your posts makes it impossible for me to respond to them with any pleasure.

You reap what you sow, I think is the phrase on the tip of my brain. Perhaps if you hadn't been so insufferable when sis first came on this site, she'd be nicer to you now, huh?

[Nautipus]

I'm actually a little saddened to see that this thread has come down to [edited] insults, rather than intelligent discussin.


(thought I'd clarify a bit, the word "base" is much too strong a word to use here, and I appologize for it's use.)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I'm actually a little saddened to see that this thread has come down to insults, rather than intelligent discussin.

I wouldn't say it's the entire thread. The conversations I was having with Mari, Eärniel, you and Coffeehouse didn't include any insults.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

You reap what you sow, I think is the phrase on the tip of my brain. Perhaps if you hadn't been so insufferable when sis first came on this site, she'd be nicer to you now, huh?

Did you read the entirety of that early conversation in the Gender Issues Thread?

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I wouldn't say it's the entire thread. The conversations I was having with Mari, Eärniel, you and Coffeehouse didn't include any insults.

Did you read the entirety of that early conversation in the Gender Issues Thread?

I didnt mean the entire thread either, just lately. Tonight I'll have plenty of sit-down time to reply to you in full on you're reply to me.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Mari

But I do agree with you Lief. Being poor doesn't necessarily equal being miserable. It's a mistake a lot of people make.

The mistake isn't assuming that being poor equals being miserable, because poverty is misery. The mistake is assuming that poor people are not capable of enjoying life, finding meaning to it, even though they remain poor all their lives.
The point I was making was that being poor is misery. It is not enjoyable.
It is a heavy burden, and I speak from experience of having been around poor people, talked and played football and had a few beers with many very poor people in both South America and Africa.
All display happiness and laughter and are as reflective as you and I, but there's the extra dimension of being poor, not having money, not being able to make the improvements in life, caring for family and friends, that they would like. It lingers on the mind and it reflects in a person.
This is a miserable situation which all poor people despair in, but you'll never hear much complaining. It's part of the dignity in human nature bar the small percentage that are so poor they see no alternative but to beg. Poor or rich, we do not want to expose our misery to others in fear of looking weak.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But each generation would have detested the changes that occurred in the next one or two centuries.

That is pure guesswork Lief. And that is actually a red lining in much of your arguments. You assume so much, yet when the assumptions come down to the facts on the ground they seem to fall through quite often.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If nations did not have religious freedom, but instead had a mandate to implement the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, between one and two billion people would not have been butchered as a result of deviating modern ideologies.

Another example. Pure speculation. How on earth would you know the faith of mankind if the Catholic Church had yet another 500 years of theocratic rule? Alternative history is a fine line to balance on and it needs backing up of evidence.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That is non-historical. The laws of the past were perfectly accepting of imperialism and slavery. They were completely legal. They just are illegal now. Back then, the laws were interpreted in a way that was accepting of these things. There is no stable, unchangeable, good interpretation.

Lief, the British banned slavery through the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Yet slavery continued, in all shapes and sizes, past the 2nd World War. It is, and I emphasize, not the laws, but the lack of enforcement that let slavery continue on such a massive scale.
Let's remember the insightful founding fathers of the USA decided that all men are created equal, just as the Dutch decided in similar, yet less eloquently put terms, in the Treaty of Münster of 1648 (little known treaty! Yet very influential). These words of justice, and of law, came around with the Enlightenment, but the enforcement was overlooked by executive branches and vested interests. With the advent of liberal democracy (not simply democracy which can exist in brutal forms) in Europe and in N. America, slavery has found its end.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I'm pointing out a number of things.

First, that all the "evidence" under discussion here is coming from a biased source. Neither Lief (nor anyone else here) has any direct knowledge (or supporting evidence) that "The Bible" is an historical account of the life and death of Jesus, or any apostles. That's actually a pretty big deal, since thousands of people have devoted their lives to finding some.

There IS such a field as biblical scholarship. People working in that field use various methods to date the texts known as the Bible. People also study the conflicts that resulted in certain texts being considered canonical, and others not. There is not widespread agreement even among Christians as to which books of the Bible are IN the Bible. Therefore, asking what version people are using is pretty elementary, in any debate. Lief cites his sources as "the Bible", and I have no idea whether he's looking at a Douay Bible, a Vulgate Bible, the King James version, or a Lutheran version. This really frustrates me, as his fall-back position is his own personal direct revelation, which is pretty independent of analysis.

This may sound stupid to some of you, but I actively worry about Lief. In fact, I pray for him daily. I think he is mired in a lot of Paulist who-shot john, and misses the essential message of the Good News, and it MATTERS to me that he appears to spend so much time with Acts, the Epistles and Revelation that listening to the Gospels is secondary. I would like him to consider whether his religion is actually about Jesus or about other guys. And I would LIKE everyone reading these threads to ask themselves "Is the Truth of the existence of God dependent on tradition, or understanding, or is it available to all, as a free gift?"

I have a strong personal faith, which I do not discuss here. Nonetheless, I can't walk away from so much error foisted on young people easily. I want everyone to be able to tap the strength that is available to all, and I don't want complicated and judgemental versions of faith to pose a barrier.

I'm very sorry that my eloquence is so often exceeded by my passion.

[Lief Erikson]

I responded to the points you just made about poverty in post 714, Coffeehouse. I await your response to that .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
But each generation would have detested the changes that occurred in the next one or two centuries.


That is pure guesswork Lief. And that is actually a red lining in much of your arguments. You assume so much, yet when the assumptions come down to the facts on the ground they seem to fall through quite often.

It's obvious, Coffeehouse. The earliest feminists were just trying to get education. They wrote-read Mary Astell-that women shouldn't be in the work place or politics and should submit to their husbands in the home. That view was prevalent still in the beginning of the 20th century. My own grandmother doesn't like the changes of women and men being equal in the home and women having an equal standing with men in the workplace and politics. She was raised in a different moral climate.

I can prove many of my other points too. Patrick Henry, for instance, said that the US Constitution was a "godless abomination" because it didn't include any state religion.

In the early 20th century, Catholics all over America were required to recite in church a decree that they would oppose moral licentiousness in the film industry. That ended up breaking down with time, but it shows how moral changes can be opposed.

Just look at the reactions of most parents to the behavior of their kids in the Sexual Revolution of the 60's!

I was taught in class about how China originally was extremely resistant to Communist ideology because of their traditional conservative base.

When people grew up assuming monarchy is right, the advent of Democracy, Fascism or Communism seemed horrible to many, which is part of the reason why there were so many civil wars. Many, many people vigorously opposed it.

Look at the efforts of Margaret Sanger and the birth control movement. They were a tiny, tiny minority among the US, universally opposed, in the beginning. But they won through a very slow, hard and vigorous process that included a lot of political maneuvering.

People back in the 17th century had laws against sexual immorality and vigorously opposed its practice. They would have been horrified to look forward into later centuries and see what has happened.

People today are horrified at the moral changes in homosexual marriage and abortion. Homosexuality was considered a deviant behavior in the Psychiatric Association until the mid-20th century, and it was only changed amidst enormous controversy.

Many people were dismayed when anti-witchcraft laws were repealed, just as many fought and died against those who tried to replace the monarchy with democracies or communism.

What I'm saying about each generation finding its moral changes to be an abomination at first, and the nations only coming to accept them as time goes on, is plain history. It's not anything radical. Each of the past generations would have looked forward two or three centuries and would have been horrified, because their own moral upbringings and points of view were so intensely different.

That's the result of upbringing. That's why it has taken centuries for the morals of our countries to develop to the point that they are now. People won't make huge leaps and most will despise smaller scale changes as they occur. If people grow up thinking one way, they'll tend to oppose big deviations from what they've grown up thinking.

This isn't guesswork. It's history. A quick examination of the writings of the people of past generations will quickly show how they supported vigorously concepts that directly opposed the moral "developments" of our age.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
If nations did not have religious freedom, but instead had a mandate to implement the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, between one and two billion people would not have been butchered as a result of deviating modern ideologies.


Another example. Pure speculation. How on earth would you know the faith of mankind if the Catholic Church had yet another 500 years of theocratic rule? Alternative history is a fine line to balance on and it needs backing up of evidence.

Sure, fine, one can suppose that some other faith might have supplanted that of the Catholic Church. But we can see from the thousand years of history in which the Catholic Church did rule that none of these horrors occurred, and that only as soon as its power fell did these things begin, and that the Vatican protested them as they occurred. If it had held political power still, its protests would have carried enormous weight and therefore the evils would almost undoubtedly have failed to occur. They implemented their beliefs with political force, back when they had power, and only the crumbling of their power opened the door for all of these "developments."

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
That is non-historical. The laws of the past were perfectly accepting of imperialism and slavery. They were completely legal. They just are illegal now. Back then, the laws were interpreted in a way that was accepting of these things. There is no stable, unchangeable, good interpretation.


Lief, the British banned slavery through the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Yet slavery continued, in all shapes and sizes, past the 2nd World War. It is, and I emphasize, not the laws, but the lack of enforcement that let slavery continue on such a massive scale.

Well sure, but prior to 1833 it was not illegal. And in the US, it was not illegal for longer than that (and after slavery was banned, slave-like conditions were still enforced on blacks throughout much of the South). I agree that after it was made illegal, slavery continued nonetheless, against the principles of Enlightened powers. But in the US, it was only legal in the first place because the Constitution was interpreted differently in the past than it is now. Which shows how its principles are not absolute but shift according to the interpretation that many want to spin on it.

Also, in Britain, for a long time slavery was not illegal, even though they had a Parliament and constitutional monarchy. This was not the pressure of the monarch that kept slavery legal, either. Parliament was perfectly accepting of slavery because it had such a strong economic benefit for the nation.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Let's remember the insightful founding fathers of the USA decided that all men are created equal, just as the Dutch decided in similar, yet less eloquently put terms, in the Treaty of Münster of 1648 (little known treaty! Yet very influential). These words of justice, and of law, came around with the Enlightenment, but the enforcement was overlooked by executive branches and vested interests. With the advent of liberal democracy (not simply democracy which can exist in brutal forms) in Europe and in N. America, slavery has found its end.

The words that "all men are created equal" were never originally interpreted to include blacks. Nor women, for that matter. They weren't interpreted to include the Indians, when we were exterminating them or putting them on reservations. They aren't interpreted to include babies within their mothers womb, today, even though in the past, they were. All men being made equal was originally never intended to include homosexual marriage. Interpretations change. Interpretation of this law is certainly not an absolute.

Liberal democracy existed a long time before slavery ended. English Parliament, America, and other European powers were all accepting of slavery. Liberal democracy didn't end it. Abolitionist movements within European countries, led by William Wilburforce, Abraham Lincoln and many others, can claim the credit for bringing about the end of this slavery. Power elites within the democratic structures had been able to maintain slavery through the laws for a long time before that. It was a battle within the system, and the hard work of the abolitionists, that created a victory for anti-slavery forces. It was not the system itself that created this victory (Remember Dred Scott).

[Curufin]

It's obvious, Coffeehouse. The earliest feminists were just trying to get education. They wrote-read Mary Astell-that women shouldn't be in the work place or politics and should submit to their husbands in the home. That view was prevalent still in the beginning of the 20th century.

Er...

I would say that you need to read Mary Wollstonecraft (18th century) and the ideas of American feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. They most certainly did not just want education and believe that women belonged out of politics and in the home.

In fact, here are the operative clauses of the Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls convention (1848):

# He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
# He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
# He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners.
# Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
# He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
# He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
# He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
# He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a woman, and giving all power into his hands.
# After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
# He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.
# He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
# He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.
# He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.
# He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.
# He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.
# He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life

[Lief Erikson]

Yes, but Curufin, I was saying that if someone from one generation was able to look ahead two or three centuries, they'd be horrified by what they saw. You're talking one century. However, I'll mention that Elizabeth Cady Stanton termed abortion "infanticide," and Susan B. Anthony called it, "child murder."

Mary Astell was an 18th century writer. Her writings show she would have opposed the feminism of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton, the 19th century feminists. Their writings, in turn, show how they would have opposed the feminist activists of the 20th century. Each century's feminists explicitly stated their vigorous opposition to important activities of feminists of the next century. So we can see from their own writings how each moral development would have been seen as an abomination to the people who came before.

It is not illogical, therefore, to suppose that the next century or two's moral developments would be seen as horrible by today's generation. That is a theme of modern history.

[Curufin]

Actually, I'm not talking just one century - that's why I posted Mary Wollstonecraft.

Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792):

To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character; or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by Providence to lead mankind to either virtue or happiness.

If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence? Men complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not keenly satirise our headstrong passions and grovelling vices. Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, everything else is needless, for at least twenty years of their lives.

I'm not disagreeing with you, however, that each generation moves on from the last. This is actually fairly simple. And I aslo agree that in, say, a hundred years, people are going to look upon, for example, homophobia and not allowing gays equal rights with straights as equally abominable as we now look on racism and sexism.

Of course history moves on - in fact, Marx claims that the prevailing beliefs of each age will be the obverse of the last - a theory known as dialectical materialism.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Actually, I'm not talking just one century - that's why I posted Mary Wollstonecraft.

Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792):

Yeah, and Mary Astell lived more toward the first part of that century. It may show the changing of the times.

Originally Posted by Curufin

I'm not disagreeing with you, however, that each generation moves on from the last. This is actually fairly simple.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Curufin

And I aslo agree that in, say, a hundred years, people are going to look upon, for example, homophobia and not allowing gays equal rights with straights as equally abominable as we now look on racism and sexism.

I'm forced to agree. Though I think there will still be a number of conservative Christians holding out, just as there are still a lot of Christians today who find sexual relationships outside of marriage to be immoral, even though the practice has been legal for a long time now.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Of course history moves on - in fact, Marx claims that the prevailing beliefs of each age will be the obverse of the last - a theory known as dialectical materialism.

Interesting. Yes, I would have to say that sounds like it has a freakish amount of truth in it, judging from the centuries since the Reformation (In the Medieval Ages, things seem to have been pretty uniform).


I find it very fascinating to think about John Dryden's 17th century "Absalom and Achitophel," when thinking about the changes of modern times. John Dryden was a brilliant political thinker. He said that democracy led to anarchy. While in our time it's easy to scoff at that, we need to think about what his perspective of anarchy would have been.

He grew up in a time when the monarchy was to be supported, when sexual immorality (hetero and homo) was illegal, when abortion was illegal, when women having equal rights with men was seen as absurd, when state religions were still enforced on society and the spread of all kinds of other religions was illegal, and when witchcraft was illegal. If he had looked forward into the future and seen where democracy has led us, he would have seen his view as utterly, completely confirmed. The difference is that elements he would have considered to be "anarchic," we accept as good and valid. To him, they would show the disintegration of law, and indeed, he has a point, for each of these developments constitutes a repealing of laws in favor of greater openness and freedom. He was right that democracy would lead to what in his view would have been the path into anarchy. All our freedoms and developments would, to him, have been elements of anarchy, people doing what they want without respect for what's right, etc. Democracy led and is leading to greater anarchy, according to his definition of the meaning of anarchy (the repealing of morally upright laws to open the gates to chaos and immorality). Greater and greater liberty allowing more and more immorality is of course a road to anarchy. Complete liberty is anarchy itself. And the changes that have occurred, the liberalizing that has developed, to his view would have been immoral and thus freedom to do hideous things increasing and increasing over time.

We just evaluate the changes differently than he did. He foresaw modern liberties (to him, they would have been part and parcel of anarchy), recognized them as a natural product of democracy, and vigorously opposed them. He was intelligent enough to see where democracy would lead. Almost all of our freedoms would have confirmed his view, from his perspective. He would have seen us as receiving greater and greater liberty allowing greater and greater immorality, and in his view, it will end with complete liberty, complete immorality, absolute anarchy. And a continuing thread of our civilizations has been a continuing progression toward that state of complete liberty. More and more liberties come to exist with each century. Who's to say where or if it will stop?

Even if it does stop, someday, it's fascinating the man's foresight of what to him would have all been anarchic changes of our history. He saw hundreds of years of history before they happened and was repelled by them because of the time when he grew up. The original proponents of democracy would never have believed the liberties they supported would turn into what they have, else they probably would never have supported them.

It's so interesting to think about history from the viewpoints of those living in it, to see how they would have seen its developments and what they did predict of it from their worldviews, how those predictions and viewpoints, true or false, weave together with what has been, is and is likely to come in a fascinating array of colors. It's quite amazing.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But freedom of religion is destructive. It's supposed to protect people, but it ends up destroying them. Here's why, according to my worldview.

The fact that you can be muslim, catholic, hindu, lutheran and what not without being prosecuted is destructive? I have to admit, that's a first. We're 180° apart in our view then, since I find religion itself far more destructive and globally seen, the opposite of the guidance it should give. But would you find freedom of religion destructive if it was all that saved you from prosecution for practising your own religion? Would you rather be a martyr than happy living believer?

The Christian God is altogether real, and he has revealed the true moral laws through the Catholic Church. Because the moral laws have been clearly revealed by God to the world, it is the responsibility of the world to obey them. God is just, so he does not allow wrongdoers to escape judgment unless they repent. If we are just, neither will we.

Opinion, I'd say. God has not been the most cristal-clear in communicating with us. Just look at all the different religions there are, look at all the varieties of christian faith. If the message was clear, all this diversity wouldn't be there. And if you can't trust an omnipotent being to make his word clear, well, I'd say we're in deep trouble. So since God hasn't been clear with us, how do you know that the interpretation of his words that you happen to follow are right? You don't. I'm sure you feel he has revealed it to you, but that's not observable to anyone else. It's no foundation for anyone except strictly for you. There is no objective basis.

Stem cell research threatens to kill millions more people.

Potentiality does not equal personhood. What I keep trying to say is: your religious view isn't shared by everyone, you can't use it as a basis to run a country made of different people with different beliefs.

All of these evils have run counter to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and emerged in spite of its teaching. None of them emerged in the thousand years in which the Catholic Church had a great deal of political power and religious laws ruled the Western nations and many Eastern (through Orthodoxy). Therefore it is improbable that they would have occurred in our day, if the Catholic Church had retained its power. Especially seeing as it vehemently opposed every one of these previously mentioned horrors when it emerged.

Please, as if the church didn't do enough evil of its own. There's a saying I often quote in that sort of debate: "Let other praise ancient times, I'm glad I live in these." Sometimes I think you seem to have a rather romanticised view of the past, Lief, especially concerning the church.

Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of souls have been damned to hell as a result of the dissemination of false doctrines.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But when anyone starts threatening with hellfire because I don't believe exactly what they do, I am always terribly tempted to reply: I'll save you a seat. Don't be too quick to do God's judgements before him.

Can't you see why those might be good reasons to oppose freedom of religion?

No, sorry, I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Reasons why we can believe the Bible is true:

By those same arguments, you can make a case for any holy script, for any belief, if you look hard enough. People have died for all sorts of belief, even for things they claimed to have witnessed. Christianity is not alone in this. People have personal experiences and miracles in all sort of faiths, not just with Jesus. The evidence is IMO not strong enough.

Well, saying that these questions are impossible assumes that God didn't choose to make clear answers available to humanity. I think he did make clear answers available to humanity, so I challenge your assumption.

As I said before, the wide variety of beliefs challenges the assumption that god's message is clear. Even you interpret the Bible when in debate. If it was crystal-clear, interpretation should not be necessary.

The absence of a religion in a person's life also can create a moral framework for an unbeliever, so in that case too, religion is at the center of the person's morality. All morality comes from religion and all wars are moral issues, so all wars are fought over differing moral perspectives, so all wars are fought over differing religious perspectives.

I disagree. The absence of religion does not equal religion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The fact that you can be muslim, catholic, hindu, lutheran and what not without being prosecuted is destructive? I have to admit, that's a first. We're 180° apart in our view then, since I find religion itself far more destructive and globally seen, the opposite of the guidance it should give. But would you find freedom of religion destructive if it was all that saved you from prosecution for practising your own religion? Would you rather be a martyr than happy living believer?

The best government is one that upholds just moral laws, legalizing the good and penalizing the bad. A bad government is one that has unjust laws, legalizing both the good and the bad. The worst government legalizes the bad and penalizes the good.

We're in the bad government, not the worst. Living in the best would be ideal, so I advocate it, but I'd prefer to live in the bad one than the worst- the one that makes the good illegal.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Opinion, I'd say. God has not been the most cristal-clear in communicating with us. Just look at all the different religions there are, look at all the varieties of christian faith. If the message was clear, all this diversity wouldn't be there. And if you can't trust an omnipotent being to make his word clear, well, I'd say we're in deep trouble.

Haven't you ever seen anyone close their eyes and ears to something that's right in front of their faces, because they don't want to believe it? Because they're biased against it? That's the case for most people. But some people don't know about any of the three evidences I cited, or the other many evidences that exist supporting Christianity, so they are less blameworthy. Which doesn't mean the truth hasn't been made clear- it just means they haven't been hanging out in the places where it's being made clear.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm sure you feel he has revealed it to you, but that's not observable to anyone else. It's no foundation for anyone except strictly for you. There is no objective basis.

Certainly not for anyone but me. I'm not arguing that people should believe because of my religious experience. But I did point out that if they seek God, they will find him and he will reveal himself to them personally, and that's all they'll need. He's done that for millions of seekers worldwide. Miracles also are occurring all around the world, and have occurred, a number of them stunningly open and obvious. Some of these have resulted in the conversion of thousands.

Also, I mentioned the resurrection evidence and the prophetic evidence. I'll get back to this later, I expect.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Potentiality does not equal personhood. What I keep trying to say is: your religious view isn't shared by everyone, you can't use it as a basis to run a country made of different people with different beliefs.

Well, drug addicts, thieves and murderers don't share our moral perspective either. What if their religion or moral outlook lead them to behave in the way they do? You're legislating against it anyway.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Please, as if the church didn't do enough evil of its own. There's a saying I often quote in that sort of debate: "Let other praise ancient times, I'm glad I live in these." Sometimes I think you seem to have a rather romanticised view of the past, Lief, especially concerning the church.

Care to elaborate? I'd need specifics to be able to respond.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm sorry you feel that way. But when anyone starts threatening with hellfire because I don't believe exactly what they do, I am always terribly tempted to reply: I'll save you a seat. Don't be too quick to do God's judgements before him.

Any good God would want existing nations to have just, good laws, for the sake of the people. If we aren't to do any of God's judgments before him, we'd have to legalize murder, theft and all drugs, and we'd have to ban charity, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, self-control and love. Because a good God would judge that the latter things be done, and that the former things not be done.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

No, sorry, I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

If the slaughter of 1-2 billion people isn't enough, I don't know what will.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

By those same arguments, you can make a case for any holy script, for any belief, if you look hard enough. People have died for all sorts of belief, even for things they claimed to have witnessed. Christianity is not alone in this. People have personal experiences and miracles in all sort of faiths, not just with Jesus. The evidence is IMO not strong enough.

That is not anywhere near good enough. You haven't looked at the prophecies of the Messiah, so you don't know how clear they were. You don't have examples of multiple people dying for their own eyewitness testimony when they know it's false. In fact, I think Christianity is alone in this.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

As I said before, the wide variety of beliefs challenges the assumption that god's message is clear. Even you interpret the Bible when in debate. If it was crystal-clear, interpretation should not be necessary.

God sent his Holy Spirit to help us to interpret individually, and he also gave an authoritative interpretive grace to the Magesterium of the Church. They do make the message clear for everyone through their teachings.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I disagree. The absence of religion does not equal religion.

If you have no religion, you might feel free to engage in homosexuality or something. The absence of religion in your life creates that moral perspective.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you have no religion, you might feel free to engage in homosexuality or something.

That neatly sums up your understanding of human nature. (Might I add that there are plenty of homosexual priests in the world..)

In any case, have you heard of the Divinely inspired, Holy Spirit guided man of the name Joseph Kony? I'd like you to Google him and read a bit about him. Might shock!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

That neatly sums up your understanding of human nature.

I'm just saying if you had homosexual instincts, and were an atheist, you might feel there was nothing wrong with following them. Or if you were a heterosexual, you might feel it's fine to get a divorce or sleep with a girlfriend or something. The person's religious point of view will influence what kinds of actions they'll take.

Was your sentence above intended to be your complete response to my last post? If so, okay. But I'd like to know.

(Might I add that there are plenty of homosexual priests in the world..)

Of course. Doesn't make it right or valid. The Catholic Church doesn't allow any priests to practice homosexuality, either.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In any case, have you heard of the Divinely inspired, Holy Spirit guided man of the name Joseph Kony? I'd like you to Google him and read a bit about him. Might shock!

He was a Catholic altar boy, but he is certainly no true Catholic now. More like a sorcerer. He practices and teaches witchcraft. And yes, I know about the numerous heinous atrocities he's committed. I've read a good deal about him in the past.

By the way, the first and last sentences of your post were condescending. I'd appreciate less of that. I have never treated your posts in that way.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We're in the bad government, not the worst. Living in the best would be ideal, so I advocate it, but I'd prefer to live in the bad one than the worst- the one that makes the good illegal.

Well, what would you prefer? The government that protects your right to practise your religion without fear of retribution, or the one that prosecutes you, beats you, locks you up or even kills you for practising another religion than the law-makers? I think I know what most prefer, unless you're into masochism of course...

Haven't you ever seen anyone close their eyes and ears to something that's right in front of their faces, because they don't want to believe it? Because they're biased against it? That's the case for most people. But some people don't know about any of the three evidences I cited, or the other many evidences that exist supporting Christianity, so they are less blameworthy. Which doesn't mean the truth hasn't been made clear- it just means they haven't been hanging out in the places where it's being made clear.

All the time, but what has this got to do with anything? If you're a god, shouldn't you be making it clear for everyone, regardless of where they are? If god has to be sought out first and only then reveals things, the message isn't exactly crystal-clear IMO. Again, no objective basis.

Well, drug addicts, thieves and murderers don't share our moral perspective either. What if their religion or moral outlook lead them to behave in the way they do? You're legislating against it anyway.

I was talking religion, not morality, which IMO are not necessarily connected.

But do you really think that among those people there aren't any who are against drug abuse, theft and murder and would support a legislation against them, regardless of what they did themselves? You've got to find a compromise for as many people as you can in the end. Not just between what people want, but what is good for people as well, and 'good' is far greater than morality alone. Obviously you can't please anyone. But things will be more workable if you don't base your laws on one single, arbitrarily chosen religion.

If the slaughter of 1-2 billion people isn't enough, I don't know what will.

It's not about the amount, it's about that I disagree to what you contribute them.

You don't have examples of multiple people dying for their own eyewitness testimony when they know it's false. In fact, I think Christianity is alone in this.

Er, I think this is not what you wanted to say, or I misunderstand you. It think it's best if you'd rephrase this?

If you have no religion, you might feel free to engage in homosexuality or something. The absence of religion in your life creates that moral perspective.

Going by what I see in the world, having religion doesn't mean I wouldn't feel free to engage in that oh-so-horrible homosexuality.

Or, if I had no religion, I just as well might start up an orphanage for war-orphans. What's stopping me? We-ell, aside from funding, that is.

Religion and morality are not the same thing. Religion is just a system of specific moral rules and rituals. The absence of religion does not equal an inmoral existance, it's just a different one.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Well, what would you prefer? The government that protects your right to practise your religion without fear of retribution, or the one that prosecutes you, beats you, locks you up or even kills you for practising another religion than the law-makers? I think I know what most prefer, unless you're into masochism of course...

I'd prefer the one we have now to the one that makes Catholicism illegal. That doesn't mean every religion deserves the same privilege. The Aztec faith, for instance, required human sacrifices of tens of thousands of people.
If religions other than Christianity damn people to hell, and freedom of religion kills hundreds and hundreds of millions of people, then these things too don't deserve the same privilege.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

All the time, but what has this got to do with anything? If you're a god, shouldn't you be making it clear for everyone, regardless of where they are? If god has to be sought out first and only then reveals things, the message isn't exactly crystal-clear IMO. Again, no objective basis.

God gives people the ability to cover their ears if we want to, to shut him out and ignore him if that is our choice. He won't force himself into people's hearts, for no one can make anyone else feel love. We cut ourselves off from God's voice.

Also, God did reveal himself in a crystal-clear way when he sent his Son to die and rise from the dead for us, and ascend into heaven, and the disciples witnessed it all and then died for their testimony, proving their sincerity. God didn't wait for humans to seek him out- he came to them in human form. And he revealed his truth all over the world so that you can hear his voice wherever you turn. He puts the hunger for God into each heart, the lacking of something, and he draws souls to himself by this means, speaking in their ears all the time, in many ways. He made his identity clear when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I was talking religion, not morality, which IMO are not necessarily connected.

I don't understand how this responds to what I said. Could you explain it?

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But do you really think that among those people there aren't any who are against drug abuse, theft and murder and would support a legislation against them, regardless of what they did themselves?

No, I don't think that. There are surely people who oppose the practice even as they participate it.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

You've got to find a compromise for as many people as you can in the end. Not just between what people want, but what is good for people as well, and 'good' is far greater than morality alone. Obviously you can't please anyone. But things will be more workable if you don't base your laws on one single, arbitrarily chosen religion.

So should Martin Luther King Jr. have compromised? Or Abraham Lincoln?

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It's not about the amount, it's about that I disagree to what you contribute them.

Could you explain this point more? I don't understand what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Er, I think this is not what you wanted to say, or I misunderstand you. It think it's best if you'd rephrase this?

Lol! Yeah, I'll rephrase.

"You don't have examples of multiple people dying for their own eyewitness testimony when they know it's false. In fact, I think Christianity is alone in [having eyewitnesses of its marvels who died for their testimony]."

Lol.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Going by what I see in the world, having religion doesn't mean I wouldn't feel free to engage in that oh-so-horrible homosexuality.

Yes, but that's because your religious outlook might not forbid it. Your religious outlook, or lack of a religious outlook, makes a big difference on what your moral decisions will be.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Or, if I had no religion, I just as well might start up an orphanage for war-orphans. What's stopping me? We-ell, aside from funding, that is.

If you had no religion and were starting an orphanage, your actions show that you feel human life has intrinsic value. Which is a religious perspective, even if you don't think about this connection. No one can quantify or calculate value through material methods.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Religion and morality are not the same thing. Religion is just a system of specific moral rules and rituals.

No, that's not all it is . Those are fragments of it. In no way are they the completeness.

Christianity creates unity with God. That is the most important factor of religion. For many people, it is experiential, a day to day experience of encountering God. They experience his love and joy, hear his voice, see their prayers answered and witness miracles. They know him intimately as a dear, dear friend. The dearest of all.

He brings our thoughts and actions into unification with him, which makes them increasingly loving and pure as we gain deeper intimacy with him. Morality springs naturally out of deep love for God, and out of unity with him. Rituals are simply ways of coming to hear his voice and come closer to him. Most of them are ways of communing with God, like having supper with a friend and chatting with them across the table.

The moral laws are ways to become united with God's love. All of them are expressions of his love. We unite with them because we want to be united with God, with Love. If we break these laws, we are stepping out of unity with God, which is destructive because God is Love, and all his will is love, and anything we do that is outside of his will is unloving.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The absence of religion does not equal an inmoral existance, it's just a different one.

The absence of religion creates a different moral framework for the person than a religious person might have. Morality springs from religion all the time, whether from its absence or its presence.

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd prefer the one we have now to the one that makes Catholicism illegal. That doesn't mean every religion deserves the same privilege. The Aztec faith, for instance, required human sacrifices of tens of thousands of people.

Just FYI, Aztecs were hardly popular among the other cultures of the region. That's why they were banished to the swamps around Tenochtitlan. Perhaps a bad example?

freedom of religion kills hundreds and hundreds of millions of people, then these things too don't deserve the same privilege

How on earth do you make the jump that freedom of religion 'kills hundreds and hundreds of millions of people'?

God gives people the ability to cover their ears if we want to, to shut him out and ignore him if that is our choice. He won't force himself into people's hearts, for no one can make anyone else feel love. We cut ourselves off from God's voice.

Hm. That's interesting. I spent years trying to hear this Christian God you speak of, and I never did. I listened and listened and listened and prayed and prayed and prayed and nothing ever happened. I sure as heck wasn't cutting myself off.

Also, God did reveal himself in a crystal-clear way when he sent his Son to die and rise from the dead for us, and ascend into heaven, and the disciples witnessed it all and then died for their testimony, proving their sincerity. God didn't wait for humans to seek him out- he came to them in human form. And he revealed his truth all over the world so that you can hear his voice wherever you turn. He puts the hunger for God into each heart, the lacking of something, and he draws souls to himself by this means, speaking in their ears all the time, in many ways. He made his identity clear when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Sorry, this argument requires a belief in Jesus being the Son of God as well as a belief that Jesus rose from the dead, neither of which I believe. So that renders the argument moot for me.

Yes, but that's because your religious outlook might not forbid it. Your religious outlook, or lack of a religious outlook, makes a big difference on what your moral decisions will be.

Not really. I'm not a religious person, but I am a moral person. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you had no religion and were starting an orphanage, your actions show that you feel human life has intrinsic value. Which is a religious perspective, even if you don't think about this connection. No one can quantify or calculate value through material methods.

Read J.S. Mill.

Christianity creates unity with God. That is the most important factor of religion. For many people, it is experiential, a day to day experience of encountering God. They experience his love and joy, hear his voice, see their prayers answered and witness miracles. They know him intimately as a dear, dear friend. The dearest of all.

He brings our thoughts and actions into unification with him, which makes them increasingly loving and pure as we gain deeper intimacy with him. Morality springs naturally out of deep love for God, and out of unity with him. Rituals are simply ways of coming to hear his voice and come closer to him. Most of them are ways of communing with God, like having supper with a friend and chatting with them across the table.

The moral laws are ways to become united with God's love. All of them are expressions of his love. We unite with them because we want to be united with God, with Love. If we break these laws, we are stepping out of unity with God, which is destructive because God is Love, and all his will is love, and anything we do that is outside of his will is unloving.

The absence of religion creates a different moral framework for the person than a religious person might have. Morality springs from religion all the time, whether from its absence or its presence.

I disagree. Morality springs from a person's upbringing, whether that upbringing is religious or not. It is from our parents and our early socialization that we learn what is right and what is wrong. For some, religion factors into that. For others, it doesn't. Both are equally valid.

[Lief Erikson]

Curufin, you said these things:

Originally Posted by Curufin

How on earth do you make the jump that freedom of religion 'kills hundreds and hundreds of millions of people'?

Originally Posted by Curufin

Sorry, this argument requires a belief in Jesus being the Son of God as well as a belief that Jesus rose from the dead, neither of which I believe. So that renders the argument moot for me.

The reason you said this is that you were responding to a post addressed to Eärniel that was based on several other very long posts of previous discussion. I'm absolutely fine with you responding to the post you did, obviously, and I'm going to give you another of my really really long responses, but I'd already responded to what you just said on post 720. So that explains the confusion. In post 720, I explained some of the most important evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven (so my statement about the resurrection wasn't unsupported), and I explained why I believe freedom of religion has killed 1-2 billion people.

I realize you might not buy my argument about the 1-2 billion deaths, as it's stated on post 720 (though that post summarizes it fairly well). I provided a lot more evidence and detail explaining my positions on it in posts 663, 702 and 704. Which are gigantic, because I went into so much depth. Sorry about that, though not really . I like to be thorough.

I don't plan on repeating all that again here, though . *Head spins at the thought.*

Originally Posted by Curufin

Just FYI, Aztecs were hardly popular among the other cultures of the region. That's why they were banished to the swamps around Tenochtitlan. Perhaps a bad example?

Actually, they chose the swamps of Tenochtitlan because those swamps were strategically placed between many powerful tribes.

I know they weren't popular. They were brutal conquerors, really savages, though technologically and culturally sophisticated.

But why should their popularity matter? My point was just that not all religions should receive equal status with all others, and they're a good example of why. If I have to pick on a popular one, though, I'd pick Islam. They were conquerors right from the start. Almost all of their empire was taken through conquest. According to historian William Durant, they killed about 80 million people when they conquered India. They attacked the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires simultaneously in the 7th century, and with time they defeated them all. They were superb warriors, terrifyingly efficient, and they launched wars of unprovoked religious aggression for centuries until Westerners gained vastly superior technology during the Age of Reason and overwhelmed them. Then Islam changed and became much more peaceful. But there is a resurgence in its violent elements today, for sure, and religion is one of their key motivators. It's one among several.

I'm only picking on Islam here because its shocking history of expansionist violence makes it such an obvious choice. Other major religions have their faults too.

Popularity isn't such a big deal, though, as regards my point. My point was simply that religions don't all deserve equal standing. The Aztec religion is a good enough example to make my case.

If you want to challenge my statement about the violence in Islam's history, let's do it in the Muslims thread, or one of those others.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Hm. That's interesting. I spent years trying to hear this Christian God you speak of, and I never did. I listened and listened and listened and prayed and prayed and prayed and nothing ever happened. I sure as heck wasn't cutting myself off.

I don't know anywhere near enough about you to comment on this effectively. I can say that I know what you mean. I spent six horrible months seeking God and not receiving, never hearing an answer, going through the hardest period in my life without help, before God came and released me from that time and changed my entire life. I was truly going through the darkest time of my life, and it seemed alone. And God wasn't answering.

I don't know why he sometimes takes a long time in responding. And I don't know if it's him or something else that causes that time gap. I know that occurs. I've talked to other people who spent years searching too.

Did you ever learn much about spiritual meditation? There are a number of Christian meditation practices that help. Quite different from Eastern meditation, but they can be useful over the long haul.

I really don't know enough about you or your circumstances or past to make any guesses or comments about the search you conducted, though. I admire you for making it, though.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Not really. I'm not a religious person, but I am a moral person. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You define morality through your non-religious point of view, though. The meaning of morality tends to differ some depending on whether or not you're religious.

Originally Posted by Curufin

I disagree. Morality springs from a person's upbringing, whether that upbringing is religious or not. It is from our parents and our early socialization that we learn what is right and what is wrong. For some, religion factors into that. For others, it doesn't. Both are equally valid.

I wasn't trying to argue there against that. I was just explaining how whether or not you're religious makes a difference on what your definitions of morality are.

Yes, parents and early socialization help to train us in our moral beliefs, as well as in our religious beliefs. I agree.