Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Chris S

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028

Posted: September 07 2010 at 14:34

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Dean wrote:

You've got to be at least a little bit cautious when making any assumptions about how the brain works and what constitutes "mind" or "soul" in relation to that. I'm not over sure what that video demonstrated to be honest - the guy's brain wasn't working correctly before surgery and the "fix" was to break it in two - any conclusions derived from post surgery experimentation have to be viewed as being possibly unrepresentative of every mind, especially ones that do work correctly and haven't been broken in two. Neuroscientists have isolated specific areas of the brain that appear to be attributable to specific functions, and that there is left/right laterailism in the brain, but it is also know that the nasal cycle is also linked to left/right brain activity (which implies that too is cyclic). This suggests that whether someone is predominately left or right brained is determined by when in the nasal cycle they are tested not by any actual hemisphere dominance - we can still process language and have spacial awareness regardless of which hemisphere is dominant during this periodic cycle because of they are interlinked and communicating. Personally I think we are guilty of being far to simplistic in our interpretation of the neuroscientists analysis - while individual areas of the brain can be attributed to specific functions by isolating them from other areas, it is perhaps incorrect in thinking that this works like a matrix of little Von Neumann machines all doing their own bit in isolation from all others. The fact that we have to (effectively) power down certain activities to allow us to concentrate on specific tasks could be that those task require extra processing-support from areas of the brain not normally associated with that task.

To say the neuroscientists can explain/demonstrate soul attributes to brain-function attributes is being premature and making assumptions that science isn't in a position to make and they will be misused and misinterpreted as being the carrier of the soul and not the source because science doesn't know enough to be absolutely conclusive and definitive. This is like the god-antenna claim of Dr Newberg (discussed somewhere on this forum last year) - atheists claim this is the mechanism that makes people receptive to the idea of god and belief while theists claim this is the receptor of god.

Split brain experiments show that the two halves of the brain can be separate personalities - there are examples when one half is an Atheist, and the other one a Theist. So when a brain is split, is the soul also split - or does God send a second soul? This makes no sense to me. It's not a proof that there are no souls, it's just something that makes the concept implausible. Another problem is Chimeras and identical twins - are those two souls in one, or one soul in two different people? We know how identical twins develop - but at which point does the collection of cells get injected with a soul?

Your line of argumentation suggests that I'm making specific claims. I'm not. I'm just showing implausibilities and contradictions, the sum of which make me conclude that my position is more reasonable than the Theist position.

I am not sure that video clip is credible. I mean just look when he draws, there is no ways if asked to draw something with your eyes closed you can draw that precisely. His eyes were not closed. Anyway good to see these kind of experiments on volunteering humans and not rats or monkeys. Next we gonna have Planet Of The Apes with a Cardinal as a leader

<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]

Chris S

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028

Posted: September 07 2010 at 14:37

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

To explain it more:

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

Now, Mike asks what is more important, the official interpretation or what some Christians believe.

Well, the only ones who have authority to make an interpretation of the Bible are the Pope in an "Ex Cathedra" document or the Cardinals when reunited in Conclave or Or Concilium.

Just imagine, the native Peruvians accepted the Catholic Church FORMALLY, but they created a cross-breaded Church that mixed their ancient beliefs with the Catholic ones (mestizaje), for example on June 28 the Church celebrated the Corpus Christi, but the native Peruvians celebrated the Inti Raymi (Harvest Feast) with the excuse of the Corpus Christi.

You can't consider this celebrations or what a grandmother taught in the old school believes more important than the official position of the Church

Iván

Ivan for the most part I have been agreeing with you. Are you saying that the Catholic Chruch only auhorise the Pope and Cardinals to interpret the Bible? I find that totally bizaar

<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 07 2010 at 15:02

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

How exactly do you get from "almost entirely debunked" to "100% certain evidence"?

That's science problem, not religion, you are the one that insists things must be proven by scientific methods.

The word almost proves nothing

Hitler almost won WWII in some moment...But he lost

I almost won the lottery....But one number was missing and I got almost nothing

The surgery was almost a success..But the patient died

The car accident was almost fatal...But all the passengers are all alive

About your video:

And I have seen the video, probably you don't know, but before studying Laws, I studied one year of medicine (It was not my thing) and the separation of the two hemispheres is nothing radical or new, it was being done already in the early 80's.

The fact that this operation that splits the brain by the corpus callousum only proves that even when it stops the convulsions product of epilepsy (this convulsions start in one hemisphere and end in the other), the BRAIN doesn't work properly again, this has no relation with the soul.

There are mental illness that change the behaviour, but this doesn't mean the soul is sick, but that the container of this soul is unable to work properly and sends erroneous or incomplete messages.

This is why one part of the brain sends a conscious choice for theism, but being that the connections with the other hemisphere are broken, the half of the brain receives an incomplete or mistaken error and assume the person is atheist.

No church ignores the difference between physical/mental and spiritual component. That's why the Church doesn't make exorcisms every day because they know 99.99% of the cases are simply schizophrenia.

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 07 2010 at 15:21

Chris wrote:

Ivan for the most part I have been agreeing with you. Are you saying that the Catholic Chruch only auhorise the Pope and Cardinals to interpret the Bible? I find that totally bizaar

It may sound bizarre, but that's how it partially works, even when we all can interpret the Bible, in case of doubt or disagreement that could cause a schism with the central dogmas, the only person who can decide if this interpretation is right or wrong is the Pope in base of the authority imposed by Jesus to him:

Remember that Theologians every day interpret the Bible, and only if the Pope feels that one interpretation is dangerous or goes against a sacred dogma, he can declare it wrong

Matthew 16:13-19

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

And that is good, there are almost 2 billion Christians, between 1.2 and 1.3 are Catholics while the other 6 or 7 hundred Christians are divided into more than 50,000 churches, sects and cults (And growing).

I have nothing against our Protestant brothers, but this lack of central authority allows that guys like Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones or Fred Phelps create their hate and racist churches, or what is even worst, well intentioned pastors in small churches with little theological background make their interpretation in each local, sometimes even contradictory with the central dogmas of their own denomination.

Last week I couldn't sleep and the cable was down, so was watching those Tele-Evangelists, one of them criticized the leader of another community, because he had divorced, but the other leader (From the Brazilian sect "Pare de Sufrir") justified the divorce of their leader because he said his wife had been unfaithful to him, and that she was lucky that the ancient laws had been changed, because she should had been killed by stone.

So, the central authority is necessary

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 07 2010 at 15:25

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

How exactly do you get from "almost entirely debunked" to "100% certain evidence"?

That's science problem, not religion, you are the one that insists things must be proven by scientific methods.

The word almost proves nothing

Hitler almost won WWII in some moment...But he lost

I almost won the lottery....But one number was missing and I got almost nothing

The surgery was almost a success..But the patient died

The car accident was almost fatal...But all the passengers are all alive

About your video:

There are mental illness that change the behaviour, but this doesn't mean the soul is sick, but that the container of this soul is unable to work properly and sends erroneous or incomplete messages.

Iván

99.99%? Have you researched that number? Tongue

Seriously: Sorry, but I'll go with the more rational explanation.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 07 2010 at 15:27

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 07 2010 at 16:05

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

99.99%? Have you researched that number? Tongue

The 99.99% mention is only a hyperbole (a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect) that indicates that the Church doesn't make almost an exorcism.

When I was in the University I used to talk with one of the few priests authorized to realize exorcisms (with previous study and approval of the Vatican), and in his whole career he has only done one and he was almost sure it was a mental disease.

BTW: The priest is one of the most rational history teachers I ever had, so not a fanatic or a loony.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Seriously: Sorry, but I'll go with the more rational explanation.

But back to the point:

Your explanation might be as rational as you want but is absolutely unrelated with the existence or not of the soul.

The case is as simple as can be, the connections between the two hemispheres of the brain are destroyed to avoid convulsions produced by epilepsy, so the brain as a whole can't perform it's normal functions like in any normal brain, it's a problem of your brain connections, not of the soul.

It's like if you had a stereo with the cables of the right speaker destroyed, you can only listen the signal of the left speaker, probably your Dark Side of the Moon sounds like crap, but that's not caused by the disk or the music , it's caused by the broken cables.

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 07 2010 at 16:39

That's some cables if they can make the difference between Atheism and Theism. Wink

Sorry, but I still think that with all this knowledge about the brain to still insist on the existence of a soul is an irrational position. But by all means do so - after all, if it was rational, we wouldn't need to call it "religion".

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 07 2010 at 16:42

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Chris wrote:

Ivan for the most part I have been agreeing with you. Are you saying that the Catholic Chruch only auhorise the Pope and Cardinals to interpret the Bible? I find that totally bizaar

Remember that Theologians every day interpret the Bible, and only if the Pope feels that one interpretation is dangerous or goes against a sacred dogma, he can declare it wrong

Matthew 16:13-19

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

There was 400 years between Jesus affirming Peter as the foundation for building his church on Earth and Leo I claiming the title for himself. All the bibles used by all the protestant denominations have that same chapter of Matthew in the same wording and none of them make the association between Peter and any subsequent church leader - it seemed fairly clear to me that verse 19 is giving this power to Peter and Peter alone, not to anyone who later wears the fisherman's shoes.

What?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 07 2010 at 17:19

Dean wrote:

There was 400 years between Jesus affirming Peter as the foundation for building his church on Earth and Leo I claiming the title for himself. All the bibles used by all the protestant denominations have that same chapter of Matthew in the same wording and none of them make the association between Peter and any subsequent church leader - it seemed fairly clear to me that verse 19 is giving this power to Peter and Peter alone, not to anyone who later wears the fisherman's shoes.

Not exclusively to Peter, as a fact most Protestant denominations don't question the succession, but they claim that Jesus was talking about himself as the rock:on which the Church was going to be founded.

At first glance, it may appear that Jesus was referring to Peter as "the rock", but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means "a pebble" or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" or bedrock. Now we can see that there is an obvious difference! Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was "the Christ" and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon: Jesus Christ "the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42). Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock, not a small pebble.

http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/47.html

I have even read one interpretation that claimed that jesus was not looking at Peter when he said this

I wonder where they discovered what Jesus was looking at.

All this is absurd, because why should Jesus change the name of Simon to Peter?

But the sucession is clearly stated in other verses, being the most evident the oone of Acts of the Apostles 1: 20. When Judas died they inmediately choosed a successor foor him in the leadership:

²⁰"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,

  " 'May his place be deserted;
      let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
   " 'May another take his place of leadership. ²

¹Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, ²²beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

²³So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

All the Apostles were replaced by another person when their place was deserted.

Now, there are more references:

Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death.

John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus' creation of Peter's office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.

Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses' seat ("cathedra") of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter's seat is called the "cathedra," and when Peter's successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an "ex cathedra" (from the chair) teaching.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

In the Catholic Encyclopedia you can find:

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

Plus there is an argument of simple logic...Jesus didn't created a Church to last one generation, and men die, so the succession is undeniable.

There are many references, but yes a good part of it is interpretation, tradition and logic.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 07 2010 at 17:28

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 07 2010 at 17:22

Hawkings is on the fight again! With its undemostrated and (highly) especulative M theory. Dead

The atheist church is taking positions..........Here in Spain you can see in the media a parade of cliches that make my stomach turns: Atheism is good and never violent, and religion is a patriarchal plot of killers Dead

.
Always talking about spanish inquisition.....is this in anyway historicaly exact?
The english church and protestan churches were not so archetypical (you know the bad guys with robes) but were as bad as ours.
Also anyone in those media knows that the first debate about the nature of slavery were in fact in the spanish church by Vitoria and others....and centered in theological matters that not the english or netherlanders would bother to argue about, especially because in those times ( the middle/end of renaissance)
they had a much more secular philosophy that of course didnt see any trouble in slavery ( you know slavery is profitable).........in the england we have to wait for Wilberforce to see a political debate like that.
Oh my...oh my it seems a historical tide is going all over the world....again it doesnt matter that the experiment of atheist ubermensch in XX century ( comunism, nazism, thimotylearism LOL

) have ended in such crude disasters....it seems is the time for a new capitalist technocratic utopia to rise and take everyone of us to a new u-thopos, a new void.
I know the question is not easy im not even catholic, and for good reasons....but the risky ones, the boring ones, the arrogant ones are so evidently the atheist in this times.......doing exactly the same error of churches in the past: using their cosmological constructs as a political weapon.
When everybody should be pondering quietly, again an enclosed vison is forced upon us.

I want also to recomend Maximo Sandin to spanish talkers in the Progarchives...a biologyst of the UA in Madrid with a interesting vision on evolution ( creationism versus evolution? thats and old meat)
Darwin unmasked? i let you decide by yourselves.

As always sorry for my english.

Un saludo para Ivan.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: September 07 2010 at 17:42

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

The T wrote:

Textbook wrote:

T: I don't know what to say to you other than that you're just wrong. I simply despise religion.

But you sound angry. You say religious people are blind, foolish, etc etc etc yet you can't say it without using mockery and trying to make them look like idiots. So that, instead of fortifying your position (I'm agnostic too, probably an atheist since I really doubt god exists) just weakens it. I don't like that attitude because it hurts atheism and makes us all look like arrogant people incapable of tolerating others' beliefs. That's why I react.

By that definition you are an Atheist - albeit a closet Atheist, since for some reason you seem to not be able to commit. I guess it's because of the baggage that the word carries - like for example the straw man argument that Iván keeps promoting (Atheism = Communism = Fascism = Religious Persecution = Mass Murder).

To commit to what? To what "cause"? To a label? I doubt. That's all I know. You are interested in labels and commitment, go ahead. I don't know anything. I tend to think god doesn't exist. I just can't be sure. I'm not that big you know.... Wink

If you want to assign me a particular label, I'd probably be in the lighter side of atheism.. I don't remember the names.... I'm not a "closet" atheist (I tell anyone who asks me that I don't believe in the existence of god). Specially on an internet forum where I don't know nobody and probably never will meet anybody... What would be the point on being "closeted" here?? Confused

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 07 2010 at 17:43

Gracias por el saludo.

Now, the Spanish Inwquisition is the usual attack since I remember.

I won't even try toi justify the Inquisition, as a fact John Paulñ II asked pardon fopr the atrocities, but you can't judge an 1600 institution from our perspective.

Nobody says George Washigton is a criminal who had slaves...Slavery was normal and acceptable in his days, today this would be criminal.

Well, until the XIX Century people believed witchcraft was real, they were afraid of witches, so they had to be burn, today we see this with horror because most likely a self proclaimed witch will ge a talk show and become millionare.

BTW: Not only in the Catholic Church Protestants burned almost 30,000 witches during 1480 and 1700 in Europe and USA...If I'm not wrong, between 1984 and 1990 the McMartin preschool trial involved accusations of witchcraft and statanic rituals.

But there's something called historical perspective, you have to understand what people believed in those days.

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 07 2010 at 17:48

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

By that definition you are an Atheist - albeit a closet Atheist, since for some reason you seem to not be able to commit. I guess it's because of the baggage that the word carries - like for example the straw man argument that Iván keeps promoting (Atheism = Communism = Fascism = Religious Persecution = Mass Murder).

What, when you have no arguments you change my words?

I said that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and many others were atheists and that they created atheist nations where religious persons where killed..that's a fact.

Yes, they were also communist, but this is another story, the only countries in which official and mandatory atheism was instated, ended with massacres.

Never mentioned Fascism, because as a fact most fascists had a religious belief, and I accept it because it's an histotical fact.

Theo is an atheist, that is so sure of his belief, that he doesn't need to discredit or attack religious people.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 07 2010 at 17:50

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 07 2010 at 18:25

To say that comunism doesnt have anything to do with atheism is......lets say for the sake of elegance not correct.

It comes from the crisis of hegelian system caused by rising tide osf atheism introducted by natural sciencies views on cosmology.......but aplied to politics and economics ( Marx takes Feurbach critic and religion and says: "Thats not even close"...or more acurately is not enough to make the sacred familiy a secular one but to destroy the secular one).

While i find Marx and some of the first marxist very interesting......what some psychopaths made of it in xx century is unbareable.....as a one of my teachers said If Marx resurrected in 1940 or 1960 the first thing he would said would be "im not marxist".

But it all was raised in this wave of atheism , naturalism, atheism......wich by the way was different but as strong in the western world....especially due to darwinsm.

I find it funny ( to say something) that people today takes Darwin as a cathecism, but at the same time they ignore the fact of the real procedence of Nazi ideology.....it was applied darwinism, the so called social darwinism of Spencer and others.....in fact the first country to aprove eugenics laws was USA not Germany!!!!

And the myth of Darwin not wanting to have anything to do with social darwinism is utterly false....he aproved that!! i can find the quote or text if needed.

Dawkins is keeping that trend nowadays with its egoist gen theory......so as you can imagine my opinion is, ehem, lets say, for the sake of politeness, that is a non ethical person and his theory, ehem, not very good in scientific terms.

Also a salute to the BoldJeans

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 07 2010 at 18:31

atheism, naturalism, materialism.....excuse me

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 07 2010 at 18:45

Dean wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Chris wrote:

Ivan for the most part I have been agreeing with you. Are you saying that the Catholic Chruch only auhorise the Pope and Cardinals to interpret the Bible? I find that totally bizaar

Remember that Theologians every day interpret the Bible, and only if the Pope feels that one interpretation is dangerous or goes against a sacred dogma, he can declare it wrong

Matthew 16:13-19

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

im with dean this time

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: September 07 2010 at 19:01

With Catholic Christianity embracing paganism, spring fertility rites, saturnalia, Sunday, etc. it had moved on from the Christianity that was being practiced by the original Christians and they became the persecutors instead of the persecuted.

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 07 2010 at 19:02

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 07 2010 at 20:14

Since Constantine cristanism was adapted to the roman schedule and calendary.....One of the trickiest things in Catholic history..I think you are right...it was something political...im sceptic on that point...i dont know if cristianity win or loose with this movement....but whats sure is that Rome gained a lot indeed!

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: September 07 2010 at 21:01

i recomend the lecture of Chesterton, wich i consider inmprescindible in those times were living.

A good start could be "The man that was Thursday" quintaessential novel for everyone, "The Napoleon from NothingHill" is also very funny.....on cristian aphologetics the book por excelencia is "Orthodoxie"...and also "The Eternal man"....i think i have a book called "heretics" wich talks about Tolstoy, Huxley, Bernard Shaw, Orwell, etc.

By the way the Chesterton -Shaw debates (you can find some on the net) are witty, lucid, and funny .....Shaw was his nemesis at political, social, religious debates but both admired each other earnestly....a good beggining for atheists and theists mutual understanding.

jampa17

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802

Posted: September 07 2010 at 23:19

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Gracias por el saludo.

Now, the Spanish Inwquisition is the usual attack since I remember.

I won't even try toi justify the Inquisition, as a fact John Paulñ II asked pardon fopr the atrocities, but you can't judge an 1600 institution from our perspective.

Nobody says George Washigton is a criminal who had slaves...Slavery was normal and acceptable in his days, today this would be criminal.

But there's something called historical perspective, you have to understand what people believed in those days.

Iván

Spanish inquisition is an excuse to any attack they want to make to the Church. It was an organization that lasted more than 300 years, and the estimated number of killing was lower than the 10% of the people accused. Less than 30,000 persons were killed, divided in 300 years covering all America, Spain and Portugal, you can see that it wasn't that bad as some want to do nowadays...

Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.