Moving Towards Rome.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

It is also pretty offensive to effectively tar all Catholics, schools, youth clubs, etc etc etc with the same brush, suggesting that everyone - from grass roots to hierarchy - is complicit, which is clearly untrue.

I'm not sure that anybody in this thread has tarred all Catholics etc with the same brush.

But there is most definitely a clear principle, found in the accounts of the prophets in what christians call the "old" testament, that if it's rotten at the top; then it's rotten all the way through. This doesn't mean that there are not good people in the Catholic church - but neither does it mean that the Catholic church is not dysfunctional.

Neither do I accept the rather generalised sweeping statement that it's rotten at the top.

JWM
You seem to have chosen to place your own absurd interpretation on what I wrote, but it is clearly a false one. I don't condemn "all" of any group, religious or otherwise.
Ken

George,

Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior ?



US

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
Neither do I accept the rather generalised sweeping statement that it's rotten at the top.

How on earth was the widespread sexual crime of priests covered up for so long then?

quote:

Originally posted by Unstoppable:
George, Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour? US

Dear US,

I am sure that is the propper thing. It would be a bit rich to avoid that and expect to partake in the comfort, worship, and ritual of the Church without that particular act of faith, even if one may reasonably have some doubts about the actual time accuracy of certain aspects such as the actually timing of the Creation itself, for example.

Strange as it may sound that part would never quite leave me in the doubting last twenty five years, though as I have already said, rationality does not really come into faith. What is crucial is how it enables one to have the strength to face life and attempt daily to be a good person.

______________

To cover the issue of sins being done by members of any Church, it is cetainly true that the members of any Church are human, and thus unless they are Saints, hardly free of human frailty. Surely it is right to divide the aims of the Church from the acts of certain all too human members of it? To conflate the two aspects is simply an excuse to denagrate the whole for the sins of some. That seems unreasonale and unfair to me, though the world is certainly not an inherently fair place. Making it fairer seems an admirable aim to me.

______________


ATB from George

Hi George

You've made the point a couple of times that logic and rationality does not really come into faith.

May I encourage you not to dismiss the possibility?

For me, the start of my journey was to think long and hard about the facts surrounding the historical figure of Jesus. Did I find the evidence for his existence, and most importantly, for his resurrection convincing? Fundamentally, was it true?

If you conclude that it's true, a lot of things flow from that and a foundation built on reason and logic stands up well to testing.

I hope that helps, Milo

Historical figure of Jesus? - I'm no expert, but I believe the evidence for this is strong, if not overwhelming.

Resurrection? - No, this is ruled out by science.

Remember - there are no supernatural facts!

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Historical figure of Jesus? - I'm no expert, but I believe the evidence for this is strong, if not overwhelming.

Resurrection? - No, this is ruled out by science.

Remember - there are no supernatural facts!

Hi Droodzilla

As someone with a strong scientific education, this was my original position too.

However, two lines of argument have changed my mind.

First is the lack of a body. The uproar created by the resurrection claims was a political threat to the authority of both the Roman and Jewish authorities. The production of the body would have destroyed the claims instantly and permanently. Evidently they didn’t have the body.

It’s been argued that the followers of Jesus hid the body. But you have to ask why when they had no expectation of a resurrection, and this leads to the second line of argument.

It’s equally well documented that most of the 12 apostles were executed for proclaiming the resurrection. Not many people are prepared to die for what they know to be a lie.

Most remarkable was Paul. He was a highly educated scribe and member of the Sanhedrin. His initial response to the resurrection claims was to lead the drive to eliminate the political threat by executing those making them. He was personally responsible for ordering the deaths of many. As a Roman citizen there is ample independent evidence for this.

Something very powerful indeed clearly happened on the road to Damascus because he went on to become the most influential supporter of these claims in history, and indeed died for them himself.

To me these are very powerful lines of reason, but each has to make his own judgement of that.

All the very best, Milo

Dear Droo, and Milo,

This is one that could go round the Mulberry Bush and back! I am actually thinking of something even more significant than the actual historical facts. If facts they irrefutably be, then there is no question of [irrational?] faith.

My view is based on the possibility and actual fact of the Christian ethos being a force for good through the acts and lives of individuals. Hence also my ability to look beyond the falibity of individual members of the Church in looking for the good that can and does come from it. It is populated by humans in all the tattered and fabilible glory or lack of it on occasion.

The idea of an easy Church without a certain amount of challenge as well as comfort does not appeal at all to me. The very stern quality of the Romans appeals to me in the sense that very little good seems to come from the easy course.

The Stoney Path, less trodden, has much to commend it in my view, and the truth is that I cannot explain what it is that motivates the pure good found in some peoples' actions. I believe that the Church may well assist me in striving to be a better person, and that seems justification enough for me.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
being a force for good through the acts and lives of individuals. ATB from George

Goodness only comes through individuals - whilst groups/religions can accomplish good, it is only through the "collective" good of the individuals in the group.

I, as I presume most all do, try to do the best I can everyday - whether it be in honesty, kindness, benevolence, love, caring, or any other matter of the day.

Through unskilled amateur athletics in my past, I learned of a simple Greek word - "arete", loosely translated to be "attempting to be the best you possible, not comparing yourself to others, but to your own potential" (and if you are being honest with yourself, you do know what that potential is).

The best interpretation of arete I ever heard was: "the utter insignificance of everything you do, but the supreme importance of how you do it"

I chose to tatoo "arete" on my shoulder, I carry it with me everyday, as a reminder of what I must try to be. Some days are better than others.

You are a good man, George - I am so pleased I know of you through this group. Best wishes in whatever path you choose.

Jeff A

Hi Milo

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I find David Hume's argument against the rationality of belief in miracles persuasive - crudely, the vast weight of evidence from the scientific tradition will always outweigh the testimony of a small number of individuals. Your comments about the disciples being willing to die for the cause are pertinent, but simply don't weigh heavily enough in the balance of evidence to convince me. I would need to see it with my own eyes - and even then I probably wouldn't believe it, if you see what I mean. Call me a doubting Thomas!

However, I hope it's clear from my posts elsewhere that I am not a hard-nosed sceptic. I replied to your original post out of a desire to protect religion from waging a war it cannot win - fighting science on the battleground of empirical evidence. Religion has already suffered notable defeats in the realms of cosmology and biology - all but the fundamentalists concede this. Much better, in my view, to highlight what is unique and valuable about the religious orientation - something I attempt to do in this thread, which I started after reading the first two chapters of Dawkins' "The God Delusion":
Religion in a Scientific Age

Hi George

You'll see from my reply to Milo that I've decided not to go round the mulberry bush! I agree that the issues you appear to be focusing on - what is the good life? how can I be a better person? etc. - are much nearer to the heart of religion than claims about the existence of miracles or supernatural beings. Good luck in your explorations!

Jeff - Arete is often translated as virtue. It's a good word because it encourages us to think that living a good life is a skill (akin to learning to play football, or becoming a good software engineer), and is therefore something it is possible to learn, and to get better at. A message of hope, in other words.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Hi Milo

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I find David Hume's argument against the rationality of belief in miracles persuasive - crudely, the vast weight of evidence from the scientific tradition will always outweigh the testimony of a small number of individuals. Your comments about the disciples being willing to die for the cause are pertinent, but simply don't weigh heavily enough in the balance of evidence to convince me. I would need to see it with my own eyes - and even then I probably wouldn't believe it, if you see what I mean. Call me a doubting Thomas!

However, I hope it's clear from my posts elsewhere that I am not a hard-nosed sceptic. I replied to your original post out of a desire to protect religion from waging a war it cannot win - fighting science on the battleground of empirical evidence. Religion has already suffered notable defeats in the realms of cosmology and biology - all but the fundamentalists concede this. Much better, in my view, to highlight what is unique and valuable about the religious orientation - something I attempt to do in this thread, which I started after reading the first two chapters of Dawkins' "The God Delusion":
Religion in a Scientific Age

For a balance to Dawkins' polemic, which is not thoroughly based on good science, might I suggest you also have a go at the mainstream book 'The Dawkins Delusion'?

A general comment. It does seem amazing to me that people go on about having been very thorough in their scientific process in the dismissal of religion, yet seem prepared to swallow Dawkins hook, line and sinker without a quibble!

Many of the so-called 'scientific' approaches adopt a thoroughly unscientific methodology, setting out by asking the wrong questions, which are guaranteed to get the sort of results the questioner wants.

They also set out to deliberately polarise the debate into a simplistic 'either/or' question.

Why should faith and science be mutually exclusive? In centuries past right up until the modern day many of the most eminent scientists were in fact theologians exploring the wonders of divine creation. Asking the 'how?' rather than the 'why?' ('why' being a question I have yet to find a secular scientist give a satisfactory answer to).

The most famous of these scientific men of faith is probably Sir Isaac Newton, who famously said (in a letter to fellow scientist Robert Hooke), "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

In saying this he draws upon a much older tradition, from the C12th theologian John of Salisbury,

"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."

The creation accounts in Genesis nowhere speak of seven '24hr' period. Christians, certainly, are called to looking at Scripture as a whole; and there some parts that will comment on others, or allow a greater understanding. In the Psalms and again in the letters of Peter we find '1000 years are but a moment in your sight, O God'. So how long does that make a 'day'...?

The creation stories in Genesis in written form are at least 3000-3500 years old, and come from an oral tradition older than that. They are amongst the earliest writings of human history.

To me, one of the most amazing things about them is just how sophisticated, not primative they in fact are. At a time when most human beings were speaking of creation in terms of rows amongst between gods with throwing down of thunderbolts and the consequent up-coming mountains etc, those who passed-on orally and then wrote down the creation stories as we know them in Genesis instead discerned creation ex nihilo, by discernable stages, with continuity of purpose, from nothing to now. Each 'stage' is described as a 'day', and these are in pretty good order, from the original 'void' to finally the human race coming on the scene.

Discerning all of this, at least 3000 years ago (and probably more), without the benefit of Hubble Telescope or modern science is blo*dy incredible, and a triumph of the most sophisticated thought.

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Indeed.

James

Hi James - just to be clear, I strongly dislike Dawkins' triumphalism, and believe that he has a tin ear when it comes to matters of faith. In my view, he mistakes the heart of religion, and scores a (relatively) easy, but hollow, victory against a straw man. It's not clear if you're suggesting that I've swallowed Dawkins "hook, line and sinker", but let me reassure you that this is very far from the truth.

I agree with your comment that faith and science need not be mutually exclusive, but each needs to respect the territory of the other - hence, my strong insistence that religion should not make claims about the origins of the universe, or the evolution of life - or any other empirical matter. I'm convinced that religion is doomed if it persists in getting into fights like this that it simply cannot win. George has the right idea - look to religion for guidance about how we should live, and similar questions about our place in the world that, to varying degrees, trouble us all.

Interesting comment about the Genesis myth. I agree that it is sophisticated stuff - but, for the above reasons, still prefer to view it as a powerfully resonant myth, rather than as a (proto) scientific theory.

Hi droodzilla

Thanks for your link to your earlier thread; hence the delay in responding!

I agree that going round the mulberry bush trying to prove one's position in relation to religion is likely to be fruitless. My main purpose in putting forward the argument that I did was to illustrate that reason and logic can have a place in supporting a position of faith and that the two were not mutually exclusive.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
I agree with your comment that faith and science need not be mutually exclusive, but each needs to respect the territory of the other - hence, my strong insistence that religion should not make claims about the origins of the universe, or the evolution of life - or any other empirical matter. I'm convinced that religion is doomed if it persists in getting into fights like this that it simply cannot win. George has the right idea - look to religion for guidance about how we should live, and similar questions about our place in the world that, to varying degrees, trouble us all.

Unfortunately, the neat division of territories is exactly where we run into problems. In all three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, who fundamentally recognise the same God, the God of Abraham) God lays claim to have created the world. No way round that.

There’s an interesting passage in the book of Job, where Job is arguing with God about his suffering. God responds saying, amongst other things:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Do you know how its dimensions were determined and who did the surveying? What supports its foundations and who laid its cornerstone ... Do you know the laws of the universe ...?”

This suggests that God created the world according to a set of rules. The fact that science is uncovering these rules is in no way contradictory in my mind.

Dear Friends,

This was almost an accident of a thread. Plainly stated at the start, I wrote exactly what was my thought on the subject.

As ever with the Forum at its best, [and this is a very nice thread in my view] I am learning - clarifying.

My point overall is that no man is an island, capable of coming to all the right conclusions, even for himself, without the the thinking of generations.

The world can seem a very gloomy and doom laden place on the big picture, and yet the spark of individual kindness is what prevents complete despair.

My view, for the very little it is worth, is that I personally would draw much comfort from once again joining in formal Christian Worship, though it will never be a positon of simply proclaiming my chosen Church as being perfect or beyond criticism. That kind of thing is truly not sensible.

I am not even worried about the exact requirements of Faith. As James persuasively points out for example, the Genisis Creation Story has a lot of Wisdom going for it, and the length of God's day is indeed open to a braod understanding, but since this is hardly relevant to what I am seeking I will leave such an issue to be considered at length by those who want to! To me if the Church gives me the freedom to be true to myself, and try to be honest, loving, fair, and kindly [as music seems to, and which my good friendships have allowed for as well] then I shall be grateful.

The word comfort, has a wealth of meaning, and if the Church gives me Spiritual comfort that is all I ask. If that comfort makes me for once and for all better person than I might otherwise have been, then the result will be good.

Sometimes to do the right thing is to be brave. Sometimes the comfort of an outside influence can provide that momentary strength to allow for the best outcome. This is what I mean by the goodness of the Church, rather than any specifics, or even Dogma.

To some extent it may been seen that the odder elements of Dogma tend to be man-made, and actually made for a different time than ours. The central tenets are immutable and timeless. These are what I want to form a close link with again. It is tiring doing ALL the thinking for myself. Time is too short for it actually.

Sincerely, George

quote:

God lays claim to have created the world. No way round that.

Hello Milo. I'm afraid that we part company at this point. For me, the notion that God *literally* created the world/universe is not credible. Above all, it does not solve the original problem - what, after all, created God? if God is self-creating, why can't the universe be self-creating? These are familiar arguments, that I don't wish to get into here. I am open to metaphorical readings of the creation claim - God, is, in some sense, the ground of all being, but I don't think this is what you're after. The passage from Job you refer to is a wonderful, awe-inspiring tour-de-force - a powerful expression of the utter mystery of the divine, even - but I am not tempted to read it as natural science.

George, I respect your choice, and your reasons appear sound. I wish you well.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

God lays claim to have created the world. No way round that.

Hello Milo. I'm afraid that we part company at this point. For me, the notion that God *literally* created the world/universe is not credible. Above all, it does not solve the original problem - what, after all, created God? if God is self-creating, why can't the universe be self-creating? These are familiar arguments, that I don't wish to get into here. I am open to metaphorical readings of the creation claim - God, is, in some sense, the ground of all being, but I don't think this is what you're after. The passage from Job you refer to is a wonderful, awe-inspiring tour-de-force - a powerful expression of the utter mystery of the divine, even - but I am not tempted to read it as natural science.

George, I respect your choice, and your reasons appear sound. I wish you well.

No problem droodzilla, I respect your position, a position I held myself before changing my view.

George, my experience is that God meets us where we are. I was met via reason and logic, but I am in the minority. If you go looking for him, he will meet you at your point of need.

Dear Milo,

I do suspect so. I think He allows us the choice to go off the rails - hence the question of evil - and still find the way back given time. A gift not offered to everyone, of course.

Sincerely, G

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
It's not clear if you're suggesting that I've swallowed Dawkins "hook, line and sinker",

The 'Dawkins hook line and sinker' comment was a general comment, which is why I deliberately prefaced it with 'A general comment'.

quote:

I'm convinced that religion is doomed if it persists in getting into fights like this that it simply cannot win. George has the right idea - look to religion for guidance about how we should live, and similar questions about our place in the world that, to varying degrees, trouble us all.

I'm not sure the Church is seeking the fight. Creationism is not the majority Christian view! Because I believe the Genesis account(s) is(are) sophisticated stuff that will be understood by different ages in evolving (arf) ways, I do believe that this whole creation arguing is a bit of a red herring, which is easy for people (often who have gone no further in the Bible) to latch onto.

I rather agree with Milo:

quote:

Milo said: "George, my experience is that God meets us where we are. I was met via reason and logic, but I am in the minority. If you go looking for him, he will meet you at your point of need."

quote:

Interesting comment about the Genesis myth. I agree that it is sophisticated stuff - but, for the above reasons, still prefer to view it as a powerfully resonant myth, rather than as a (proto) scientific theory.

I am not sure that I have suggested that it is a scientific theory. But I have commented that these truth-conveying stories (myth), from 3000+ years ago, have been remarkably close in terms of order and continuity.

As George is thinking about the RC Church (the largest/majority Christian body in the world), I think it would be good for him to see what the Church's line on this is (certainly not so-called 'creationism'!) and also on intelligence as a gift from God [to those created in his image and likeness], the nature of revelation, and the development of human thought and understanding.

Good wishes all,
James

Personally I think everyone has a right to belive in anything they want.

Unfortunately the problems arise when you start preaching to others and expect them to agree with you and fall out when you dont. As long as when I tell the JW's that I dont want to be saved as there is no one to save me I dont mind, particularly if they say "Ok" and "have a nice day" and walk away.

When you think of all the trouble that strong belief in anything has caused over the years, with its requirement to "takeover" the world. Im talking Christian evangelism, Islam, communisim, fascism and now the new environmantalism. Its a shame that mankind feels the need to make others conform by force to any belief system.

Just as its wrong for others to take the mick out of those who want to have a strong belief.

My take on it is that the only truth in christainity is "dust to dust" the rest I take with a pinch of salt, but then that is my right.

Have a nice day y'all

Henners

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
The Pope last week said if R.C.s go to that pond in France they will spend less time in Purgatory.
What a load of bull that is.
Munch

I presume you mean Lourdes?

You go and explain the many healings then Munch, cos medical science can't - and it's always rolled in to try to find 'other explanations'.

James

JWM

quote:

You go and explain the many healings then Munch, cos medical science can't - and it's always rolled in to try to find 'other explanations'.

Faith has always seemed to me to be about belief, a deep seated and personal feeling, an innate and almost by definition inexpelicable conviction. A battle over miracles, healing and visions etc vs the explanations (or otherwise) of conventional science seems to me to reduce the argument. The convictions of your Faith cannot be proved or disproved in a scientifically acceptable logical way, just as the 'answers' provided by a science are always going to be patchy and incomplete.

The emphasis of the RC Church on these very supernatural events is one of the major things which reduces the institution, and makes it far less aproachable to a sceptical mind. The process leading to the fast-tracked sanctification of the last Pope is an example.

If only the RC Church placed more emphasis on the moral philosophy and less on the slightly tawdry 'witchcraft'. Lourdes for example is about hope, a community of prayer and care not the why's and wherefores of miraculous healing-which cannot be proved or disproved.


Bruce