Catholic Church and other religions!

Has it? Awesome, can you tell me which bits are which? Or is there a guide or something, like Cliff Notes? Only, this seems to be a fairly big point of debate whenever there’s this kind of discussion. I had no idea it had been documented now, that’ll save a lot of arguments.

Yes, there s a guide, the Second Vatican Council and other doctrinal statements, no there are no Cliff Notes, but as i said earlier, if you don’t know anything about it, why are you arguing about it?

The was nothing, no time, no matter, nothing. Not even anything for there to be none of.then allof a sudden, for no reason at all, there was an almight boom and literally, out of nowhere, everthing there ever was and ever will be appeared.

I suspect, being honest, most of you would probably say you thought it was ridiculous nonsense.

Well, it is ridiculous nonsense. It’s a common misunderstanding / misrepresentation of The Big Bang Theory which is often trotted out by creationist types (who bizarrely have no issue with accepting it once they’ve crossed out “the universe” and written “god” instead.)

Oh really? What happened then?

CM – how about you answer the question, honestly? No thought not

No grum, you first.

the ‘sample’ you chose only only representedone viewpoint, why not show the other ones, or i fact look at some larger scale data.

So from those stats, most people are happy, and a statistically relevant percentage aren’t. The ones that aren’t circumcised can go and get it done, and the ones who are can… oh.

Still not answering the question I see.

Personally I’m not happy with the idea of a single child having their body permanently altered against their will. Crazy eh?

Right, but you can see that a large percentage are happy with it. So, it argues against the idea of mutlialtion

Grum, when your evidence is based on ‘I imagine’ you cannot expect it to be taken seriously

You really must be trolling.

Still not answering the question I see.

Personally I’m not happy with the idea of a single child having their body permanently altered against their will. Crazy eh?

Actaully, i was referring to the question about whether or not it seemed riduculous that everything all of a sudden came out of nowhere.

What was your question?

Cougar – yes, I mean the free will to choose whether to believe in God or not.
If you have “proof” there is no such thing as faith. I think that’s a pretty easy thing to understand. My faith is not based on my parents’ influence – they are not Orthodox, nor a priest saying “trust me”. I could write a lot about how my faith developed but I’m not sure I want something so personal being derided and shot down in public, which I am afraid it would be.
By the way, I don’t think “disingenuous” is the word you’re after.

Yes, there s a guide, the Second Vatican Council and other doctrinal statements, no there are no Cliff Notes, but as i said earlier, if you don’t know anything about it, why are you arguing about it?

Not knowing everything about it != not knowing everything about it.

Who’s arguing? Don’t judge everyone by your own standards, I’m having a discussion. People often learn things in discussions, you should try it sometime. I’ve learnt something from this one, I’d never heard of the Second Vatican Council Its scope would appear to be beyond ‘a quick google’ so I might have to take a rain-check on this unless you can give me a summary.

Faith would not exist if we were simply presented with facts. Just because there are no facts does not mean that God does not exist

its not a great system to generally accept things which have no facts to support them. Everyone knows you cannot prove a negative hence science makes no attempt to do this but seeks evidence for a view rather than have a view and ignore the evidence.

You know what, I think that some (not all, obviously) people find it easy to reject religion because they are only comfortable in life if they have hard facts, and it’s easy to say that the events describe in the Bible are not facts and therefore religion has no basis.

i was rather more interested in why a scientist would ignore the absence of facts and opt to believe without evidence – do you have faith in homeopathy then and pass it off as truth ? you can if you wish but it makes no sense.
I know the biblical definition of faith and its rather neat you need it because lets be honest, as you accept, there are no facts- which is another way of saying you have no evidence to support your view.

Similarly, science is not all about facts, actually.

if there were no facts we would still think/have faith there are only the four elements , the sun orbits us and god made everything. Unfortunately there are “facts” * and they refute religious “facts”**

* evidence to support a view
** its in a book and I believe it.

EDIT: last comment before it appears to be personal
they dpeth of your faith, the manifestation of it is and how much you believe it has no affect on whether the belief is true. No matter how much I choose to believe in the four elements or homeopathy they wont be true. The issue is not whether you have faith, I believe you and you have, it is whether that faith is accurate in explaining existence.

If you have “proof” there is no such thing as faith. I think that’s a pretty easy thing to understand.

I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive actually. For instance, I could have faith that a proof is correct, could I not?

I’m not sure I want something so personal being derided and shot down in public, which I am afraid it would be.

Understandable. I’m afraid it would be too, but mostly on religion threads these days we just ignore Woppit and things go a lot more smoothly. (-:

I don’t think “disingenuous” is the word you’re after.

How do you mean?

A word about allegory in the Bible: it is not about people picking and choosing what they want to take literally. The Orthodox tradition is pretty much unchanged from how it was in the origins of Christianity and we believe that to understand the Bible you need to follow the tradition passed down from the apostles and study the Bible within that tradition.
Anyway, I’m not a theologist so probably should shut up and go to bed!

Not knowing everything about it != not knowing everything about it.

😕

Ok, sorry,it gets confusing with who is discussing and who is arguing but yes, if you want to know about the doctrine of the church, then V2 is a good place to start.

Just the request for a guide or Cliff Notes, felt a bit more mocking than discussing, so i figured you weren’t really discussing. Mea culpa

In these debate folks are often making statments about what ‘Christian say or believe’ . Often, they have not taken the time to find out what they do or donot believe.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Cougar I think this is what Vicky means- its accepted it is not known [proven] so pointing this out has no impact on faith as they know this.

Just the request for a guide or Cliff Notes, felt a bit more mocking than discussing, so i figured you weren’t really discussing. Mea culpa

‘s cool. I try not to write too seriously and perhaps tend to think I’m funnier than I am, I guess it’s easy to take the wrong way.

As a rule of thumb, if something I write can be taken two ways, and one of those ways sounds like I’m being a complete dick(*), I probably meant the other one.

(* – ie, uncircumcised?)

Cougar I think this is what Vicky means

Ah, ok. I wasn’t exactly sure when I replied (hence the question mark) and, TBH, I’m still not sure I completely understand.

‘s cool. I try not to write too seriously and perhaps tend to think I’m funnier than I am, ‘s easy to take the wrong way.

If it is any consolation, I think you are a bit funny.

I get that a lot.

If you have “proof” there is no such thing as faith. I think that’s a pretty easy thing to understand.
I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive actually. For instance, I could have faith that a proof is correct, could I not?

If it helps, in this case the things that you have faith about and have proof for, are different things. Once it was proved to you that the proof was correct, your faith that it was correct would disappear.

Sorry, one more thing!
Just wanted to explain why I may sound a bit defensive and unwilling to go into detail. Several years ago, I was once a member of an all -female “mums” internet forum where a discussion about religion started, and it got extremely nasty within a couple of pages and I experienced really vicious religious hatred from about 3 or 4 women. I have to say, it’s great that we’ve reached 16 pages and it’s still pretty good-natured!
🙂

I know the biblical definition of faith and its rather neat you need it because lets be honest, as you accept, there are no facts

Boys and girls, be careful when stating that the bible has “no facts”. Don’t forget that the Jewish people and the Romans kept many records which back up some of the life events written in the bible. I’m trying to choose my words carefully as I don’t want to offend anyone here.

be careful when stating that the bible has “no facts”.

I was quoting theviews of a person of faith
Within the context here i assume it means the central claims re being given 10 commandments, Noah and the flood, and the nature of god. There is no “fact” [proof]. I think we all know some of the people lived but it is not a hoistorical record in that sense

King Arthur lived so there is some truth in the Merlin myth but no “facts”

It’s difficult isn’t it, when you’re in a Mosque and everyone’s praying and you really enjoy leapfrog.

– Milton Jones

I was once a member of an all -female “mums” internet forum

STW is fairly familiar with that forum.

this is why “debating” with you is a relatively tedious semantic excrcise. you are clearly bright but your talents are wasted, IMHO, doing thi ssort of stuff.

Conversely, debating with you Junkyard is frustrating because you DON’T pay attention to detail, you just deal in sweeping statements!

Me: Oh dear

This is “not playing nicely”?

It’s called being passive-aggressive isn’t it?

so we all evolved from a common ancestor and god made us all as well

It’s not that hard. A baker makes a cake by putting all the ingredients together and creating the right conditions for the cake to appear (ie putting it in a hot oven). The baker still MADE the cake. Likewise God could set up the big bang, knowing humans would appear. Seems quite reasonable to me. Genesis could be considered just a parable.

As far as I know, biblical literalism and creationism are fringe beliefs within Christianity in this country.

However, I don’t believe it’s worth entering into a debate without mutual respect on both sides.

Excellently put – I hope junkyard doens’t exclude an excellent contributer by being disrespectful or dare I say it – offensive…. (reading on catch-up is like following a little story, what happens next?)

the lack knowledge about religion which i find wearing

Agreed, and I’ve been trying to say that, but my knowledge on religion is not good enough to argue as well as you have been CM. And you just get accused of nit picking…

I dont see how you can take the “facts” in the bible and acientfic knowlegde and combine them coherently.

She already explained that – Genesis is allegorical – simple.

its not a great system to generally accept things which have no facts to support them.

Many would disagree. This is like trying to describe Beethoven to a dog. If you believe that, then your mind is closed to the concepts of religion. So you might as well leave it there. You can’t argue about religion on the basis of known scientific facts about the physical world – that’s not really the point. It might’ve been 500 years ago.

Your arguments therefore are circular, self referential. I would suggest you don’t bother debating religion, I’m not sure you’re capable of understanding the idea of faith.

I have to say, it’s great that we’ve reached 16 pages and it’s still pretty good-natured!

That’s why STW is such a great forum!

Within the context here i assume it means the central claims re being given 10 commandments, Noah and the flood, and the nature of god. There is no “fact” [proof]. I think we all know some of the people lived but it is not a hoistorical record in that sense

As i understand it, within RC, theologians can trace the 10 commandments to the code of Hammurabi, if not earlier. There is no claim that Noah etc. was real, though historicaly, there was evidence of a severe case of the annual flooding which took place in the region and at least one merchant who but all his stuff on a big raft or boat, it was on the telly!
The nature of God is a strange one i think folks claim to know one or two things about God, e.g. Loving, forgiving etc. but not many more. I hink hey accept there is lots about God which they do not know. The Muslims say you cannot attribute human characteristics to God, i think some of the legacy of wherever that came from contiues today in other ibrahamic faiths

Likewise God could set up the big bang, knowing humans would appear. Seems quite reasonable to me. Genesis could be considered just a parable.

That seems reasonable to you – Really – Its completely wrong but still broadly accurate 🙄

biblical literalism

So it is both the word of god and not literally the word of god – this is what i mean about the fudges to rational thought that believers make.

She already explained that – Genesis is allegorical – simple.

Which means factually innacurate and nothing but a creation myth. Is this meant to make me take the bible more seriously seeing as the opening is , by all accounts, wrong?

Many would disagree.

Your right they would think you can hold opinions that have no fact nor evidence to support them [ conspiracists. homeopathists , alternative medicine fans etc]but it is still not a wise move as the list of things you will believe is limited only by your immmagination rather than pesky things like reality ,facts or evidence [ he writes to the degree educated physicist]

This is like trying to describe Beethoven to a dog. If you believe that, then your mind is closed to the concepts of religion.

Careful now you are getting intolerant and apparently only militant aethists do this.

You can’t argue about religion on the basis of known scientific facts about the physical world – that’s not really the point.

So we accept that they have no physical basis for their belief system but its unfair to argue about this – why is it unfair to point out they have no evidence to support a view- the extent of your faith has no bearing on whether your argument is true or false so why would we debate that? What do you suggest we debate then if not the evidence?

Your arguments therefore are circular, self referential.

What are you on about? Science is circular and self referential – their argument is i have no proof but i have faith [ in something i know there is no evidence of]and that is all I need. I fail to uderstand why you would claim it is my position that is circular and self referential when that is nothing but a closed loop. I know i dont know but i dont care as i have faith- can you get more circular?

I would suggest you don’t bother debating religion, I’m not sure you’re capable of understanding the idea of faith.

Ad hom/insults again

I am capabale of understanding its a belief in something that has no evidence[ i quoted the bible up there molly] – i have suggested for all the reasona above that this is unwise – you dont do this either so i dont know why you attack me for this – do you believe in things that have no evidence molly ? Do you have faith in a graviton particle? – you are an aethist you think and believe as i do on this and follow the evidence

CM the phrase you are probably looking for is

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

corinithians 13:12

So we have a position where we all accept the following
1. The bible has aspects that are not true
2. We dont seem to know which bits are true and which are false or allegories- i guess this one is debatable to be fair.
3. We know their is no proof of god and faith has no factual basis
3. We cannot actually explain what god is or know god

and yet some still wonder why folk have an issue with this position and scientist molly calls my argument for evidence circular.

Oooh lots!

That seems reasonable to you – Really – Its completely wrong but still broadly accurate

Well, you mean you think it’s wrong unless of course you know what is right. If so do tell, or even a best guess will do.

CM please feel free to defend creationism as accurate rather than troll so lazily.
Do you believe in creationsim? You must or why bother to ask etc
yes you first etc YAWN 🙄

CM please feel free to defend creationism as accurate rather than troll so lazily.
Do you believe in creationsim? You must or why bother to ask etc
yes you first etc YAWN

No, i don’t believe in creationism. But that’s me. My turn now, JY what triggered the big bang?

You must or why bother to ask etc

Don’t get this bit. Can you clarify?

JY what triggered the big bang?

If I may?

The answer to this question (repetition number 14,000,053) is:

We don’t know.

means factually innacurate and nothing but a creation myth.

Dunno about the ‘nothing but a creation myth’ bit. But yes, it dodn’t happen like that.

Is this meant to make me take the bible more seriously seeing as the opening is , by all accounts, wrong?

No, i’m not sure who you think expects you to take it more seriously as a result.

Wrong seems a strange word to use in thsi context. It didn’t happen, it is allegorical. That doesn’t really make it wrong.
Unless you think Harry Potter is wrong, Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea is wrong, Shakespeare is wrong. When Munch painted the Scream, that wasn’t a real person, so he was wrong. Picasso’s Guernica did not happen literally as depicted. So he too was wrong. However, wrong as they are,all these things help us to know more about ourselves and the human condition. Would you dismiss them?

The answer to this question (repetition number 14,000,053) is:

We don’t know.

Really? No idea at all?

Except you know it wasn’t God, or a spaghetti monster, because neither of those exist?

Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion

So we accept that they have no physical basis for their belief system but its unfair to argue about this – why is it unfair to point out they have no evidence to support a view

I don’t think anyone is saying it is unfair. My understanding can’t is that they are ‘non overlapping magisteria’ so it makes no sense to argue about it in that way. NOMA from Stephen Jay Gould.

Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion

That information is currently unavailable, caller.

Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion
That information is currently unavailable, caller.

Excellent! So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.

they are ‘non overlapping magisteria’ so it makes no sense to argue about it in that way.

That used to be the (convenient for religion) position.

However, sometime around the publication of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, the position changed to “Everything is open to scientific enquiry, including deistic belief systems and their claims.”

I think this was as a response to the increasingly vocal demands of superstitions generally following Islamic violence and Christian political encroachment into the Republican Party and civil life in the USA…

So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.

I don’t have a suggestion.

Puzzled why you didn’t get that.

I don’t have a suggestion.

Puzzled why you didn’t get that.

I get it now, just couldn’t quite believe it. Seems you have a few things you know it could not be but no idea at all what it could be.

Seems you have a few things you know it could not be

Not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.