T
The Word
Guest
Christians with big imaginations can interpret the scriptures any way they want but the truth.
Why do people try to change Christianity?
- Thread starter Dor
- Start date
Well that's true, and more so every day as everybody pops up with their personal theory about what Christianity is and means ... that's why I stipulated 'Catholic'.
Thomas
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
Modern Christianity (Including Catholicism) has undoubtedly perverted the message of Jesus, making salvation a selfish endeavor when his message was meant to inspire humanity to love one another, and to serve each others needs.
Modern Christianity tells us that we are evil, wicked, a reprobate by nature, and that it is a pointless endeavor to attempt to be a good person and to better our world.
Instead, we are encouraged to believe in a mystical heaven after death, and to forsake the world we live in. The true faith was somehow lost, which was the good news of the kingdom of heaven (Paradise on earth).
Jesus showed mankind what it would take to realize Paradise. He taught us to love one another, and to serve the needs of our fellow man. He taught us to become good stewards, and caretakers.
It is up to us (Collectively) to usher in this new world. Jesus being one who not only labored for this end, but who also gave his life in his quest to show us what it means to truly love our fellow man.
To quote an old Moroccan proverb, "He who has nothing to die for has nothing to live for". Jesus lived and died for the kingdom.
It's time to bring the lost faith to life again. It's time to realize our abilities as a peoples, and bring paradise to fruition for our future generations.
Whilst I agree that modern Christian denominations often operate according to contemporary socio-political attitudes rather than Scripture, that is modernists interpret Scripture to promote a self-oriented doctrine (and even modern Catholics can fall into this trap), that is not what orthodox Catholic doctrine says.
As you rightly highlight, the 'selfish endeavour' is a marker of contemporary western thinking, and one which the current Pope, Benedict XVI, has challened continually and persistently, with his critique of the Philosophy of Relativism ... so please can you refrain from making sweeping and inaccurate generalisations — or at least with regard to my tradition?
Ditto.
Undoubtedly Catholicism has suffered this, through poor education, and even I was brought up in that environment, but I questioned, sought the truth, found the answers, saw the errors...
In fact 'paradise on earth' is not a Christian concept at all, whereas a mystical heaven is, so you seem to be trying to change Christianity into something it isn't?
OK. But this earth is not the paradise of which He speaks.
And He also said, without Him we can do nothing, so agin, we make the error of assuming we have the power that only God possesses.
it is not up to us to collectively usher in this new world — nowhere does Christ say it is — what Christian Scripture actually says is it is up to us to be ready, and right, when it happens ... but when and how it will happen is according to the will of the Father, and He alone knows.
You mean set ourselves up as gods?
I think not.
Thomas
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
Sure it is, Thomas .... How did Jesus teach us to pray? "Our father which art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.
Heaven is the abode of God, the kingdom of heaven is paradise on earth, where Gods Spirit rules in every mans heart. When Jesus spoke of the kingdom, he was speaking about paradise manifesting on earth (Through mankind). We were told to seek first the kingdom, that it is near and in our midsts.
I don't reject the concept of an after life, but I think if we ever want to realize paradise on earth or anywhere else for that matter, it is imperative that we live as if we were already there. How can we expect to gain something we are not willing to live for first?
I disagree .... If this earth was once our paradise, what makes you so sure it won't be again?
Without living through him, or rather as he himself lived, mankind couldn't possibly realize the kingdom. Jesus represents mankind (Son of man) and he represents God as the anointed one (The Christ). He was the beginning, the first of many sons who would labor for the kingdom, and all who come after, all those who make up Christ's body will be the end.
The Spirit behind the man named Jesus was love. He loved above all else, and it is because of this that he was called the Christ (Anointed one). We too become a part of Christ's body (Anointed one/s) when we, like Jesus, live through this life giving Spirit.
It will happen through mankind. Jesus showed us what it would take, but it is up to us to follow his lead. It's a simple message meant to inspire us to love, and serve one another. The kingdom will manifest on earth if we seek it, but only if we submit our lives to God, and love one another as he loved us.
Not at all! We are to become as servants, bro ....
That's a petition ... a request ... when the day comes, everything will be changed, a new heaven and a new earth ... not this one ... and not changed by us.
The Beatific State manifests through the presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul, so through the Holy Spirit, not through mankind — we are the instrument, but not the causation.
I don't argue with that, I just affirm always that our purpose is to make ourselves available to the Holy Spirit ... whenever we take it upon ourselves to 'do the work', invariably we cock it up.
It was a paradise, not the paradise ... and what is offered now is more than what was available to the Primordial Couple in the Garden.
That sounds more like the way I understand it.
Jesus is God, God is love ...
... we become part of His body ... the priority is maintained. He is the head, we are the members.
OK. But I have met atheist humanists who live to love and serve their neighbour. So I think there's more to it than that.
It will happen through us, but we will not cause it. We can only be ready.
And I would agree that the good servant anticipates His master ... my only contention was, it seemed to me, the servant was taking the master's decisions upon himself. I apologise if I read you wrong.
Thomas
Seriously?thomas said:
I don't have time right now to get into all this....
But no.
You know you hold no corner on truth, we all have our beliefs....
but you simply can't have it both ways....your authorities are not our authorities.
Relax Wil — release that bee from that bonnet!
Please read my post in context Wil, I was not referring to truth in general, nor what other denominations believe, simply what is Catholic, and the fact that the poster lumped Catholicism in with all other Christian denominations with regard to a point of belief.
The statement I referred to was:
In fact it is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and contrary to the message promoted by Pope John-Paul II and moreso by Benedict XVI (see his encyclical on social justice).
And again, we get into hot water when pointing out what is in fact an inversion of the doctrine of love, a fault of the modern western mindset, evident not only in the misrepresentation of Christianity, but also of Buddhism, a disposition which Pope Benedict XVI referred to as 'auto eroticisme' (self-indulgent .
The 'selfish endeavour' is best encompassed by Plotinian idea of 'the flight of the alone to the Alone', it's one of the main points of contention between a pure Hellenic and a pure Catholic metaphysic.
Thomas
I have never said I do, Wil, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs ... but when Catholicism is mis-represented, then I do have the right to point that out.
Please read my post in context Wil, I was not referring to truth in general, nor what other denominations believe, simply what is Catholic, and the fact that the poster lumped Catholicism in with all other Christian denominations with regard to a point of belief.
The statement I referred to was:
Which is not Catholic doctrine nor, I believe, is it a Catholic endeavour, nor do straw-man examples prove the point.
In fact it is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and contrary to the message promoted by Pope John-Paul II and moreso by Benedict XVI (see his encyclical on social justice).
And again, we get into hot water when pointing out what is in fact an inversion of the doctrine of love, a fault of the modern western mindset, evident not only in the misrepresentation of Christianity, but also of Buddhism, a disposition which Pope Benedict XVI referred to as 'auto eroticisme' (self-indulgent .
The 'selfish endeavour' is best encompassed by Plotinian idea of 'the flight of the alone to the Alone', it's one of the main points of contention between a pure Hellenic and a pure Catholic metaphysic.
Thomas
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,246
- Reaction score
- 550
- Points
- 108
So, according to your facts, what's the earliest era of change within Christianity?
In a growing and healthy relationship with our God concepts, we begin to see our flaws and the flaws in our God concept. If we continue to ignore the flaws of our relationship, how can it be a healthy relationship?
Human nature is understood in regards to our flesh; thus Christians believe that this essential part of us--being the flesh--will be resurrected.
However, those that walk ahead of us are not gauranteed to have fleshly bodies (I'm thinking of merging with machines here or disregarding the flesh in some other way through technology), so how can they be resurrected in fleshly bodies as the immortal Apostles Creed asserts . . . when they don't have fleshly bodies?! That's a hypothetical question.
The Apostles Creed also asserts that Jesus' fleshly resurrected body was raised from the dead and escaped the Earth's atmosphere . . . and then settled in some region of the universe Christians like to call heaven, or perhaps Jesus was miraculously teleported outside of the universe (if there is even an outside).
Have I represented the Catholic faith's position well?
Bishop Shelby Spong loves to point out the above. I guess the conservative Christians can look at this as a good thing: it gives heretic hunters somebody to hunt. The heretic hunters never offer logical and believable alternatives to the Apostles Creed; that's why hearts will always waver about these beliefs, and so people will always try to change Christianity.
In order to be a Christian, I must blindly accept these beliefs on the basis of tradition. Instead of blindly folling the Christians' religious leaders, I opt to investigate reality. What basis do you have in reality to support the tenets of the Apostles' Creed I'm attacking? If the Christian's facts were based on reality, would we have to change the Creed? No, but Christians have a 100% assurance that the contents of the Apostles Creed are 100% true. Why? Tradition.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
in what way are they far from God and in what way can they practice real Christianity?
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
I was asking for your opinion. It's not a question of what I know or what you think I know.
You see a problem, but do you have any ideas on how you should approach the task of fixing it?
It's like watching a football game and getting angry at the players because they keep screwing up. But as one of the people watching the game, you wouldn't have a clue what it's like to be a football player or to be in the game itself. All that anger and swearing becomes pointless because you ultimately can't and don't change the course of the game.
But at this stage you haven't stated clearly what the specific problem is.
It's like saying you have a problem with your car. When I ask you what the problem is, you say it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. When I ask you what it's supposed to do that it isn't doing you say it's not doing what your car dealer said it was supposed to do or that it doesn't function or perform as designed or claimed.
(not answering the question, making the questioner ask more questions.)
...... being vague doesn't help people.
If you have no interest in talking about the specific details about why Christians are not doing what they should be doing then there is little point in having a discussion here. But that is what I am asking of you now.
The first one was the day of the Resurrection, the second one was Pentecost.
That's why we do theology.
Christianity holds that the created order, the material realm, is not a disposable 'by-product' of Creation, nor a place to be left behind ... rather it has its place in the scheme of things. Creation is a theophany, a divine manifestation ... the Book of Nature is the first book by which God might be known.
Well what resurrects is the soul, and the body is the form by which the soul manifests its being within a given cosmos, or under given determinate conditions. As man will not be able to create souls, the question does not apply.
Not 'well', no.
Two things to remember: One is that 'heaven' is not a region that can be located by spatio-temporal dimension — it is not a physical realm in that sense that we understand physical — so 'here' or 'there' does not apply (famously the seeker is told to look within), but this is the language of analogy, and if we forget that, then we start looking for technological solutions.
On the other hand, any discussion of the eschaton can only be analogous, and then the question is, is the 'naive' analogy that images heaven as a place any better or superior of more effective than a fully realised cosmological analogy which takes into account the latest findings of quantum physics? I think not.
So what I am saying is while Dawkins and his ilk ridicule the naive language of some Christians (and really he's ridiculing them for their lack of education), does a sophisticated and intellectual eschatalogical analogy serve any better than the naive one ... again, I think not. They're both analogies, and they're both gropings towards a glimmering light, as it were.
Put another way, I probably have the most worked-out Christian cosmological speculation of anyone in my parish. Does that make me in any way a better Christian them them? No ... but I've met many who think just that.
"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" Matthew 16:26
Christianity is not about being clever. Compared to many, I have quite a sophisticated eschatalogical viewpoint ... but I still believe 'the heart shall be weighed against the feather' when I get to the Pearly Gates, and St Peter will be there.
Then I suggest he's subject to the same error of looking materialistically, and not analogically.
That's a somewhat medieval perspective on things.
Well, quite who these 'heretic hunters' are I'm not sure, but the point is, surely, why should they? If one has truth, then why chase alternatives, which can only be lesser than the truth?
I think what you mean by 'logical and believable alternative' is something that fits in with your preconceptions. It's a subjective opinion, and may well be wrong.
For my part, and for 2,000 years of theological, philosophical and metaphysical development, the Apostle's Creed is logical and coherent.
Still not sure who you think 'they' are ... not the Catholic, nor the Orthodox, who have never wavered, which is why the Creed today is the same as it ever was.
We don't waver, that's why culture, which wavers all the time and is ever adrift, doesn't like us.
I'm sorry, but that's the voice of ignorance and prejudice.
It's tantamount to saying 'because I can't see it, it doesn't exist.' Which is a fundamental error.
Faith, I will accept, is its own 'light' ...
I would contemplate that notion for a while, and I think you'll find its insupportable in the end. Have you proved everything for yourself? Never taken another's word? I doubt it. If you think you operate independently of any cultural influence you're kidding no-one but yourself.
G.K. Chesterton said: "There's two types of people in the world, those who have a creed, and those why think they haven't."
'No man is an island', as the other saying goes.
The power of Love, for a start. A compelling metaphysic. Faith.
You're not attacking the Creed at all, you're just announcing you don't accept it. An attack would involve a critique of its actual statements. All you've offered is subjectivity.
And what is that tradition, but a Body of Evidence?
Thomas
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,246
- Reaction score
- 550
- Points
- 108
Nice. I see you're pretty much saying, "be more specific!" Ah, the question I asked was vague, eh? A few posts back I was asking about what you thought the era of changes to be in Christianity. You mentioned three: (1) reformation, (2) nationalism, and (3) enlightenment. We're talking about change as departing from "true Christianity."
The resurrection and pentecost are believed in by Bishop Shelby Spong. I mention Bishop Shelby Spong because Dor said:
So my point is that Bishop Shelby Spong and I believe in the day of the Resurrection and Pentecost, but Thomas and many other Christians disagree with us about what actually happened during these events. Here's my question rephrased: Do you believe any diverging from true faith happened between Jesus' crucifixion and the writing of the gospels? Was there an era of change in this sense? Shortly afterwards? Gnostics? Ebionites?
Your notion of the Book of Nature as a first book by which God might be known reminds me of the Baha'i analogy of the material realm likened to the womb of a mother. Likewise, we believe it has "its place in the scheme of things."
Ah, so the soul animates the body. I would like to do away with the word soul myself: it's the 21st century and we need new language to articulate what exactly the soul is. Currently, I call it a mystery.
What do the words in bold mean? What are you trying to say? Is not Jesus understood to have been resurrected with wounds in his hands, and then fly in the air to a heavenly realm up there? I don't see how here and there can't apply unless you change Jesus' body. Great intellectual gymnastics with your hints of a glorified body (whatever that may be), but how do you react to Christians that say Jesus' material body must escape Earth because that's why it's missing from the tomb? What I think you're saying is that Jesus has an after this life body. We don't really know what it is, but it exists. It transcends this spatio-emporal dimension, yet produces some type of effect.
I think Spong is simply refuting what many Christians do believe!
You clearly don't live in the bible belt. It's like everything I'm saying is awkward.
Didn't you just reject the physical sense I understood the ascension to mean? Man, I'm willing to change my opinion.
It seems you have a different interpretation of it's contents from many bible believers here in North Carolina.
They = the Baptist Christians I usually encounter on a daily basis.
Of course I don't operate independently of culture. I acknowledge that the way I think and see the world is influenced and shaped by culture. You know well what I meant. You know people can blindly follow religious leaders. I did it myself. I still question my own beliefs as a Baha'i. For example, I said I think that the word soul is something we should do away with. It doesn't really say anything. We need a new way to articulate things like that.
How can I attack it when I've misunderstood it? Otherwise I thought it was the beginning of an attack. The Creed states the belief in the resurrection of the body and the ascension. Enlighten me on its true meaning.
Tradition can err, just like you and I. Didn't your Prophet overthrow hundreds of years of tradition, the great Body of Evidence?
My point was one can signal many changes. The three I mentioned are significant in their own right.
Christianity changes all the time, but the core truths — the Deposit of Faith — remains the same.
I believe there was paradigm shift at Pentecost, but there were already centres of faith prior to that event, who possessed an as-yet incomplete vision of the truth, as it would be made known, in accordance with Christ's teaching (John 16:13).
When the Apostles began to preach, not all could accept the teaching, not all were willing to align themselves to the new message, some because they wanted to contain the revelation within a strict Judaic concept, such as the Ebionites, the Nazarenes; some because they wanted to contain the revelation within a dualist concept, such as the gnostics or Cerinthians.
OK. As I said with analogy — it's the best we can do. I think in the absence of anything better, soul works fine. Why invent new terms when one doesn't even understand the old one properly?
I mean it's an analogy.
Well no one said 'fly', nor does Scripture even imply that. The term is 'taken up'. So I am suggesting 'taken', 'up' and the 'cloud' that received Him, are analogous terms loaded with meaning.
Well it's evident from the text that something's happening. Jesus appears, and disappears, yet His body is as physically present to His witnesses...
Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
No, I don't.
I don't think so. What I reject is the limitations you place on the event. I'm saying it's a supernatural event, therefore we cannot explain it fully.
I can believe that.
No I didn't. You didn't express that at all, you just made derogatory remarks about Christians. That kind of talk leads nowhere.
Really? I think it says more than most people today are prepared to contemplate.
You'll have to wait for that, like the rest of us.
Nope, He vivified it.
And yes it can err, and at times it has, but on the necessities, I don't believe it has. They are still in place, the same today as yesterday.
God bless,
Thomas
One of the most interesting points of note for me is how the highly intelligent and intelectual (yet with no understanding of the Christian spirit), struggle to logically "pocket" every aspect of the Christian faith, when the faith itself is boundaryless, by its very nature. God...can not be cornered, and God's revelations to individuals, is at his pleasure, not our time table, or intellectual level of understanding the universe...
In short, if one wants to know the truth, and is not satisfied with a human answer, then ask the source. One might be very surprised at the answer one receives...but, becareful for what one asks for...one just might get it...
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,246
- Reaction score
- 550
- Points
- 108
You're right about the loaded with meaning part, but only understood as analogous? Christian writings shows us the literal meaning of terms like "up" and "presuppose a tiered hierarchical cosmology," which the Jesus group borrowed from its neighbors.
Check this out:
"In the Gospel accounts of the post-resurrection Jesus, his ascension is understood as going up into the heavens, and his coming again as a coming down from the heavens. The New Testament authors may have been using this language metaphorically, as many scholars argue, but (as we have already noted) this should not obscure the fact that they were using these metaphors because of their cosmological assumptions . . .
These presuppositions are even more explicit in the eschatology of patristic theologians like Origen (cf. Lyman, 1993). Noting Jesus' prayer for the disciples -- 'I will that where I am, these may be also' (Jn 17:24) -- Origen explained that Jesus passed 'into' the heavens (or globes), and suggests that this also applies to the resurrection of believers. In On First Principles he argued that when 'the saints shall have reached the celestial abodes, they will clearly see the nature of the stars one by one, and [will come to understand] why that star was placed in that particular quarter of the sky, and why it was separated from another by so great an intervening of space [and . . .] what would have been the consequence if it had been nearer or more remote' (II.11.7) . . .
In his Almagest Ptolemy compiled and combined the dominant cosmologies of his era, relying most heavily on Aristotle. Although it was written in the 2nd century AD it was not made widely available to the broader Latin-speaking theological world until the medieval period. In the Summa Tehologiae Thomas Aquinas accepted Aristotle's notion that the heavenly bodies were moved by spiritual 'intelligences' (angels), and that these movements were causally related to the movements of bodies on earth. He acknowledged three heavens beyond the spheres of the planets: 'the first is the empyrean, which is wholly luminous; the second is the aqueous or crystalline, wholly transparent and the third is called the starry heaven' (SumTh. I.69.1). Like Origen, his discussion of the ascension focuses on explaining Jesus' movement through and beyond the heavenly spheres, but his description is shaped more explicitly by Aristotelian cosmology (SumTh. III.57) . . .
Under the pressure of the Copernican revolution the logic behind the idea of Jesus' ascent and descent, of a movement 'up' and 'down' through the cosmos, which had been presupposed in the New Testament as well as many of the early creeds, began to erode . . .
Written during the same decade as Newton's Principia, Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology depicts the ascension by maintaing that 'Christ went up locally, visibly and bodily from the earth into the third heaven or seat of the blessed above the visible heavens . . . by a true and local translation of his human nature" (XIII.18.3) . . . In the late 19th century Charles Hodge, who relied heavily on Turretin, resists speaking of the ascension as a movement 'up,' but continues to insist that Jesus' risen body 'takes up a definite portion of space.' The ascension 'was a local transfer of his person from one place to another; from earth to heaven. Heaven is therefore a place. In what part of the universe it is located is not revealed . . . (but) it is a definite portion of space where God specially manifests his presence' (1981 [1982], 629-30)" (Shults 116-18).
Source:
Shults, Leron. Christology and Science. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2009.
Conclusion: the 'up' and 'down' analogy comes loades with a tiered hierarchical cosmology and, besides, its bogged down in Aristotle's concept of the cosmos, so why continue to use it?
Well, how do you understand the word soul? Do you equate it with having the powers of intellect and will, for example? If so, this is problematic. Here's an example: "They [Reformers and early modern theologians] accepted the basic countours of faculty psychology, in which the soul is understood to rule the body through the powers of the intellect and will . . . .
In early modern science the understanding of the relation between the body and the soul was deeply shaped by Rene Descartes, who argued for a radical dualism between the (extended) material body and the (thinking) immaterial soul. In Cartesian anthropology strong distinctions were made among the 'faculties' of the soul (the intellect, the will and affections) and between these soulish powers and the human body . . .
The sciences of neurobiology, however, have shown how human cognition is deeply rooted in and dependent upon the electro-chemical and neural functions of the brain. In fact, all 'reasoning' (and 'willing') emerges out of and is shaped by the 'feeling' of the embodies brain. Higher cortical processes depend upon and are regulated by the functioning of various parts of the limbic system, which are linked through the brain stem into the whole energetic network of the body as it responds to its environment. Rationality could not have evolved, nor can it emerge within an individual, apart from the emotional responsivity of the biological organism. As neuroscientist Antonio Damasio argues:
'This is Descartes' error: the abysmal separation between body and mind, between the sizable, dimensioned, mechanically operated, infinitely divisible body stuff, on the one hand, and the unsizable, undimensioned, and moral judgement, and the suffering that comes from the physical pain or emotional upheaval might exist separately from the body. Specifically: the separation of the most refined operations of the mind from the structure and operation of a biological organis.' (1994, 249-50)
The main point is that what we once called the faculties of the soul are now explained as registers of the whole human organism whose mental functioning emerges out of brain processes embedded within a feeling body . . .
If one begins with ancient Greek or early modern faculty psychology, with a concept of 'person' as a soul with the powers of intellect and will, and projects this onto the divine Logos (or God as a single subject), a familiar set of conceptual difficulties inevitably arises. How are the 'faculties' of the divine Logos and the man Jesus related? Does Christ have two wills and two minds? If so, are they mingled together or do they co-operate somehow? If he has only one will and one mind, do these have divine or human attributes (or powers) or some combination of both? (Shults 35-7)"
Source:
Shults, Leron. Christology and Science. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2009.
. . . and, as you clearly pointed out, I'm saying we don't have to speak of it as a supernatural event.
I inserted beliefs into this; I think you slightly twisted the way I'm coming off.
I tend to think this is the viewpoint of post-rationalist cultures, which seems to assume that no-one can think for themselves, but everybody must borrow off somebody else.
I think that the language of symbol owes more to the observation of nature, than borrowing off one's neighbours, and is far more intuitive than rationalists suppose. The sun 'rises' - 'up', the sun 'sets' - 'down' ... so in the words of the prophet, such intelelctualist rationalisation is all well and good, but it misses 'the bleedin' obvious'.
Because the language of symbol transcends Aristotle.
So rather than having to invent an artificial language to replace a natural one, I would have thought the easier path would simply be to be aware of what is Aristotelian.
Christian cosmology blends and/or borrows from both Plato and Aristotle to explain, as much as possible, the Data of Revelation. This, of course, is an evolving and unfolding process.
Actually, I have heard some Cosmologists observe that Plato offers a more viable philosophy to approach cosmology than Aristotle.
ry reading St Paul, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, St Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Nicholas of Cusa, Eckhart, St John of the Cross, Bernard Lonergan ... the revised Platonism of St Maximus the Conferssor, for example, deploys a whole lexicon of symbolic language with the relationship of Logos to logoi ...
The core of one's being. But does one have to have an intellectual rationalisation for everything? I think not. When the coastguard hear's an SOS, he doesn't have to rationalise what the term 'soul' means ... likewise in Scripture — if one spends time rationalising what the soul is, one's probably missed the message.
No it's not.
OK. But I'm not talking about Reformation Christianity.
And we regard Descartes as wrong ... and have the philosophical argument to back that up.
Two things:
1: St Paul knew, and spoke about that: Read Romans 7.
2: This is still a work in progress ... no doubt next week they'll be explained a different way ...
Never read Catholic or Orthodox theology, obviously, as this was the very subject of the Council of Chalcedon 451AD, and developments in theology since, especially Norris W Clarke and Transcendental Thomism.
But if you do, you run into all manner of difficulties, as is apparent.
If you don't like 'supernatural', how about 'events according to circumstances we as yet do not understand' ... but you won't explain them within the realms of science as it currently stands.
Thomas
Amergin
Well-Known Member
People try to change Christianity mainly when they discover a particular teaching is obviously false.
1. Bible says Earth is flat and supported by four giant pillars.
When Eratosthenes proved it was curved and Magellan sailed around it, the Flat Earthers became laughing stock.
When Jesus and Satan went up to the mountaintop, they supposedly could see all of the nations of the world. Sorry, that is impossible on a globe, no matter how high the mountain. Even on a Moon mountain, one sees only one side of the Earth at a given time.
2. Magical Divine Creation in 4004 BCE, Earth and universe 60 Centuries old. This is what the Bible says.
Thousands of investigators in Geology have studied Earth rocks 4.5 billion years old by the highly accurate clock of radioactive decay rates.
Astronomers with Hubble view birthing galaxies 13.8 billion light years away, means it took 13.8 billion years for the light of those quasars to reach us on Earth.
3. Bible says the Sun goes around the Earth and God or Joshua once stopped the Sun in the sky.
We know by work of Galileo and Copernicus that Earth revolves around our Star the Sun. The only way the Sun could appear to stand still is for the Earth to suddenly stop. That would cause oceans to whip across the Earth in Gigantic Tsunamis; the Earth's sub-crust magma would shift catastrophically causing gigantic quakes and splitting continents.
4. Bible says God created two human beings (man and woman) 4004 BCE by conjuring magic words.
Archaeology and Palaeontology show with overwhelming evidence that unicellular life began somewhat about 3.7 billion years ago or older. Chlorophyll is still in the ancient rocks. Palaeontology shows cells developed the ability to make collagen and form diploid or multicellular living organisms in the Ediacaran Period 600 to 545 million years ago. Life evolved in thousands of stages from Cambrian, to Silurian, to Ordovician, to Devonian, to Carboniferous, to Permian, to Triassic, to Jurassic, to Cretaceous, to Cenozoic.
Fossils show Apes in 13 million BCE. Pierolapithecus to Orangs to Sahelanthropus to Gorillas and Chimp-Humans about 6 million years ago. Then we have fossils of Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, to 9 progressing species of humans (Homo) with Homo sapiens (us) dating back 200,000 years ago.
There were no two first humans conjured by magic. There is no defined line separating Australopithecus from Homo or Homo erectus to Homo hiedelbergensis/rhodesiensis to Homo sapiens or Homo neandertalis. Natural selection made man from primitive primate and ape evolution to us.
5. Bible has two incompatible genesis myths.
One has to be wrong or both are wrong.
There are many other Bible verses that are proven false but my fingers are getting tired.
Does not one edit a document or book that contains obvious errors?
Amergin
1. Bible says Earth is flat and supported by four giant pillars.
When Eratosthenes proved it was curved and Magellan sailed around it, the Flat Earthers became laughing stock.
When Jesus and Satan went up to the mountaintop, they supposedly could see all of the nations of the world. Sorry, that is impossible on a globe, no matter how high the mountain. Even on a Moon mountain, one sees only one side of the Earth at a given time.
2. Magical Divine Creation in 4004 BCE, Earth and universe 60 Centuries old. This is what the Bible says.
Thousands of investigators in Geology have studied Earth rocks 4.5 billion years old by the highly accurate clock of radioactive decay rates.
Astronomers with Hubble view birthing galaxies 13.8 billion light years away, means it took 13.8 billion years for the light of those quasars to reach us on Earth.
3. Bible says the Sun goes around the Earth and God or Joshua once stopped the Sun in the sky.
We know by work of Galileo and Copernicus that Earth revolves around our Star the Sun. The only way the Sun could appear to stand still is for the Earth to suddenly stop. That would cause oceans to whip across the Earth in Gigantic Tsunamis; the Earth's sub-crust magma would shift catastrophically causing gigantic quakes and splitting continents.
4. Bible says God created two human beings (man and woman) 4004 BCE by conjuring magic words.
Archaeology and Palaeontology show with overwhelming evidence that unicellular life began somewhat about 3.7 billion years ago or older. Chlorophyll is still in the ancient rocks. Palaeontology shows cells developed the ability to make collagen and form diploid or multicellular living organisms in the Ediacaran Period 600 to 545 million years ago. Life evolved in thousands of stages from Cambrian, to Silurian, to Ordovician, to Devonian, to Carboniferous, to Permian, to Triassic, to Jurassic, to Cretaceous, to Cenozoic.
Fossils show Apes in 13 million BCE. Pierolapithecus to Orangs to Sahelanthropus to Gorillas and Chimp-Humans about 6 million years ago. Then we have fossils of Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, to 9 progressing species of humans (Homo) with Homo sapiens (us) dating back 200,000 years ago.
There were no two first humans conjured by magic. There is no defined line separating Australopithecus from Homo or Homo erectus to Homo hiedelbergensis/rhodesiensis to Homo sapiens or Homo neandertalis. Natural selection made man from primitive primate and ape evolution to us.
5. Bible has two incompatible genesis myths.
One has to be wrong or both are wrong.
There are many other Bible verses that are proven false but my fingers are getting tired.
Does not one edit a document or book that contains obvious errors?
Amergin