Bible conundrum hampsterwheel

[obgraham]

Listening to the Ban-The-Theist crowd here gives some credence to a statement from Chicago's Cardinal Francis George** some years back:

"I expect to die in my bed.
I expect my successor to die in prison
I expect His successor to die in the public square"

**I've met the Cardinal, he used to be "stationed" here -- and I don't personally like him!

[421dog]

I'm intrigued that no religionist has yet answered BabyBear's crucial and very reasonable question which he repeats above (post 416).

Ok, I'm gonna give you a concrete and, no doubt easily impeachable example:

In 1986 I flew a woman wh later became a dentist, along with her friend, who later became a nun to an airport near Fort Knox, Kentucky, from Illinois, in the middle of the night, in the dead of winter in an old Beech Bonanza.

We dropped off the dentist, and I proceeded to flood the engine and run the battery flat enough that the starter wouldn't even click.

I spent some time poking Around to see if there was a battery I could poach, periodically coming back to try and start the damned thing, to no avail. I explained to the future nun that we were stuck until such a time as additional electrons could be motivated, and she replied: "give me a couple minutes to discuss this with Mary"


Needless to say, the plane fired right up, and we were soon on our merry way.

Of course, the starter was just hot, the battery terminals were just dirty, or something else tangible was going on. I know that temporally, but I know just as well that the faith that Kris, the girl with me who went on to a different vocation, was absolute, and that the damned thing started without a problem.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Originally Posted by obgraham

I'll come to grips with BabyBear's supposed question, when he and his cohorts answer the question I've asked before, and you all have conveniently ignored:

Come on then, obgraham...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Certainly it is implausible that anyone at all would suggest that, having once been indoctrinated into their belief system, recanting said belief would be a crime punishable by death.

My wife had business dealings with the deputy head of the Inquisition - yes, that post still exists (the head being the Pope I gather), but they don't do quite so much in the way of torture and burnings at the stake as they used to.

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by 421dog

I've expounded at length about the advantages of the philosophy, regardless of the theology,

The above touches on what I see as an increasing trend towards religion (I had hoped the thread could have developed towards this discussion much sooner), and more importantly 'believing' in God. With the ever increasing empirical evidence and general evolution of the species I think it is becoming more and more difficult for individuals to unquestionably accept the existence of God and that he is our creator. Now, I think this creates a problem as it also appears that, generally, the species has a need to identify with something, a need for a direction to look in, if you like. See the conflict?

What I think is happening is that a compromise is being made; many, but clearly not all, are being selective in what they take from religion. Iv'e heard I believe in God, but not religion, but more often it's the other way. God's existence, Jesus (as God's son), humans coming back from the dead, virgin births are dismissed, but religion, the good parts, are retained. In short I think if you take any congregation you are likely to find that any number of individuals will have their very own 'religion', but for obvious reasons will "toe the party line" in certain company.

If this is the case then belief in the core literal Christian teachings is sparse and, surely, by definition these people (including yourself?) are not really true Christians, but declare themselves as Christians, attend church etc, etc.

Is this a fair assessment of your views?

Is it simply the evolution of religion?

Thoughts?

[421dog]

The usual line is: "I'm very spiritual, but not particularly religious"

I on the other hand, find myself becoming increasingly religious without being particularly spiritual....

I sort of think QE1 had it right when she said (and I paraphrase): " I don't really care what you believe, as long as you do it our way"

I mean, for God's sake, the Anglican "out" with regard to transubstantiation or the nature of the Trinity is appalling (and I'm an episcopalian),

But the fact remains that hymns at public schools and a unified tradition and ethos regardless of actual beliefs, went a long way toward advancing society in general.

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by obgraham

I'll come to grips with BabyBear's supposed question, when he and his cohorts answer the question I've asked before, and you all have conveniently ignored:

obgraham, I didn't ignore your question, I answered it back in post 304. I'm sorry you missed it. I repost below for your convenience.

Originally Posted by Babybear

It's a bigger question than it first appears. But yes, absolutely. It would be rather naive for me to claim we would be better off in every way, but I see no logical argument against us being generally better off without religion. Providing, of course, there was no other belief system.

To be honest, obgraham, I find it difficult to understand how you can see religion as such a necessity.

edited to add; there are huge numbers of decent people presently living without it.

[Bronx]

Shaggy

I had the bog-Irish Christian Brothers!

Were you abused by a Christian Brother whilst you were at school?
Or more than one?
You've posted 40+ times on this thread so far and I'm wondering what lies at the root of your obsession.
(Please excuse me asking such a personal question. I wouldn't if this wasn't an anonymous BB.)


B.

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by 421dog

But the fact remains that hymns at public schools and a unified tradition and ethos regardless of actual beliefs, went a long way toward advancing society in general.

I wonder if we are getting there?

Can we have unified tradition and ethos without (religious) beliefs?

Thanks for the response 421.

[421dog]

I say the creeds with honesty, but I have to also admit that the resurrection and assumptions, especially are matters of personal faith rather than logic.

I have no doubt that God exists, in whatever primitive, ephemeral form I am capable of conceiving of Him, but I am happy to be a part of the ongoing myth (remembering that just because something is a myth doesn't mean it's not true).

I would not trade my participation in the ongoing cyclic story for anything.

The more I experience the wonders of the world, and particularly the intricacies of medical science, the more I am convinced that there's a lot more going on.

[obgraham]

I'll have my go, then. (I accept that a good British Education imbues one with a much better grasp of the English language and its ability to express one's thoughts than my rather mediocre North American Education!)

I asked my fairly simple question, about the validity of a non-religious Western culture, and got this answer:

Given that our cultural, moral and social values principally come from the enlightenment the answer to your question is clearly yes.

and then

the answer to your question could only ever be supposition, no matter what the person who answers it believes. I think it's a resounding YES, by the way for the reasons perthsaint gives. But that can only ever be an opinion.

So by this thinking, Enlightened thought arose de novo, and the previous 1500 years or so were irrelevant to its development. I don't accept this -- all history is an outgrowth of what came before -- yet it is many of your opinions that only recent history counts. Hubris.

And then, the scientist-as-the-answer explanation followed: "Well science doesn't know everything yet, but someday it will, and that'll explain everything". Well, that, indeed is also only an opinion.

The never-ending search for the final truth can just as easily be replaced by a simple concept of "Faith". That in fact is what separates religious from nonreligious.

Even Hawking famously once said that to accept the Big Bang Theory and then ask "but what went before it" would be trying to explore the mind of God.

People of Faith do not require a scientific explanation to everything. It's the whole point.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Still waiting, obgraham (post 416 in case you've forgotten)....

Though there are others who posted here for the theists who I'd really like to answer that.

[Miserlou]

Quote,
"The Pope is the logical outgrowth of liberation theology, but I rest assured that he would never trade an innocent for a political end."

You're joking, right?

[perthsaint]

There's nothing hubristic about understanding history or the evolution of societies. During the enlightenment many previously held ideas were examined, found wanting and replaced. Those things from the previous 1700 years that stood up to scrutiny were retained.

[421dog]

You're joking, right?

Francis, the dude who thinks the Swiss Guards are too hardassed?

Yup.

Vatican II is gonna be a walk in the park for conservative Catholics compared to this guy.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Bronx - we're talking the catholic church here, of course pedophilia went on. Grown men, supposedly celebate for life... get real; that just ain't natural and un-natural stuff happens as a result.

Thankfully I was not a victim. Maybe they just didn't fancy me?

I'm posting a lot here (you've obviously counted the posts - not a stalker, are you?) because.. well, read what BabyBear has encapsulated in his twice-asked question. I'm fascinated that so many supposedly educated people believe in stuff that has no foundation whatever, and I want to know why. Yes, I know I never will know why, but it fascinates me nonetheless.

I do take comfort that the trend among educated folk is a decline in belief in the irrational, which is what one would expect - the light of knowledge illuminating and eliminating the darkness of superstition.

Long way to go, though.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And then, the scientist-as-the-answer explanation followed: "Well science doesn't know everything yet, but someday it will, and that'll explain everything".

I've never heard any scientist say that. I can't imagine any serious one doing so.

Even Hawking famously once said that to accept the Big Bang Theory and then ask "but what went before it" would be trying to explore the mind of God.

Er, not quite. For one thing, to ask "what went before" the beginning of time isn't a question that makes sense. The "beginning of time" bit is a sort-of hint that "before" it might not actually mean anything.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Grown men, supposedly celebate for life... get real; that just ain't natural and un-natural stuff happens as a result.

Well, let's be fair, some perfectly natural stuff goes on as well; some of them just have "housekeepers", grown-up women who can perfectly legitimately make their own lifestyle choices.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Gertrude - true, some do. The uncle of a friend was a catholic padre in the army. He had a lovely lady live with him, and they were very happy (maybe easier in a services environment than for a parish priest?). Those guys are the exceptions, though.

[421dog]

My wife had business dealings with the deputy head of the Inquisition - yes, that post still exists (the head being the Pope I gather), but they don't do quite so much in the way of torture and burnings at the stake as they used to.

As far as I know, The Inquisition is now known as "The Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith", and a Cardinal (currently Gerhard Ludwig Müller,) is in charge.

Back when he was still just a Cardinal, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (the Pope Emeritus) had the gig.