Considering the Catholic Faith

Any ways with proof or a shred of credibility?

 

I guess that's where the faith comes in.
I think that faith is fine so long as people are honest enough to admit to themselves that it's faith. I think that's the difference between a sane believer and a crazed zealot.

 

So god spoke and wrote down his ideas.

I understand the idea of a non-intelligent "force" within the universe. I can’t fathom how this force can communicate with man.

I also understand that many Christians dont really take the text in Genesis as fact. So if these words of god can be seen as untrue, then why can others.

 

That what i dont understand. How.

I'm not against the possibility of some kind of force in the universe, but i dont believe this possible force is intelligent, nor did it create the world/universe, nor do we have to worship it. Here is a Zen view that i think somewhat relates to this. Zen teaches that everyone is already enlightened by nature, but is kept from experiencing enlightenment by the minds emotions, concepts and images. Our task is to see past this and go beyond it. So I do believe there is something out there for humans to attain. I think many religions / faiths / people aim to reach a similar experience; I just think filling your minds with doctrines and living rigidly is counter-productive.

My point exactly. We know scientifically that the Genesis version of events is highly unlikely, so you see why i reject or dont instantly accept many other parts.

 

What is truth? Can't fiction be a vehicle for philosophical and spiritual truths? The Bible isn't interested in scientific facts. The human authors of the bible wrote with the basic understanding of the universe they had at the time. The bible is a record of the religious experience of Israel and the earliest Christians. I don't see why one can't be a Christian and treat the Bible in the same way that Taoists treat ancient Taoist writings and Buddhists treat ancient Buddhist writings. I doubt that all Taoists believe in all of the ancient stories about the immortals and so forth. But they recognize those stories as illustrating truths.

 

Its good to see no one can refute my sex argument.

 

The difference is Taoists and Buddhists use historical text/stories to guide them along their path and don’t necessarily strictly live their life by them.

I agree with what you’re saying but to many Christians/Catholics treat the bible as ultimate truth, rigidly abiding to what it says. Now that in itself is totally fine, but understand that it’s only faith and not everyone will think the same way, so don’t try converting people to this “ultimate truth” because the only way they will truly grasp to it is if they discover it themselves. Also, instead of mixing stories, metaphors and facts all together, their purpose should be identified and treated as such. I believe the authors of the bible wrote an explanation for the universe.

If the bible is a vehicle for philosophical and spiritual truths then interpretation will be vital, and different interpretations should be expected and respected. And when someone has a different interpretation, they shouldn’t be seen as wrong, simply as having a different idea for the same goal. In Christianity people are expected to follow the same path.

The bible itself may not be interested in scientific facts, but when it’s portrayed as truth, it needs to be susceptible to scientific analysis. Believe the idea of creationism all you want, but if you want it to be taught in science class then scientific analysis matters. It’s like saying lets teach science in religious education class. Science has no place there. The point I’m getting at is believe things how you will, just understand the context of it, and that’s its faith. For example, I believe humans can be enlightened, but I know that its something that can only ever be understood by the person experiencing it, so I’m not going to say that enlightenment is fact as there is no way or testing it.

 

So educated people believe the story in Genesis?

Bwhahahahahah! Was that a joke

I have to say i do considered his view of a deity as mentioned here: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

And i see no mention of Genesis in the article you mentioned.

 

I’m not necessarily against the idea of a god/force, just not the kind portrayed by many religions. I am open-minded to accept the possibility. If there is an intelligent force out there, I don’t think it created the world in the manner that Genesis depicts, nor do I believe Jesus was it’s son, or any of the other stories/words in the bible related to it. I don’t believe it in anyway communicated with us and I don’t believe we need to worship it nor will it condemn us for “sinning”.

Ultimately, I don’t believe in a god, but, if there is one we will never know.

 

I sure as hell don't believe in the biblical version of god, but i believe in some force.

 

I can't fathom it either, I mean, it's been 2000 years since God popped his head over a cloud and spoke to us, and now we have video cameras and stuff, and he's gone all shy! How bizarre

 

Maybe thats because he never spoke to us in the first place ? How did Lenny Bruce put it:"He was poor..he was a carpenter..it was a publicity stunt that went horribly wrong." LOL

Christian

 

Here is a difficulty for those with faith in a God who reveals himself to human beings. There is no way to know with certainty that one actually has received a revelation, even if it is given directly to the person, such as a voice from God. It is always possible that the person could be deluded. But even if one were subjectively certain, there would be no way to instill that certitude in another person. This means that matters of religious belief can never be matters of knowledge, in the strong sense of the word. All we have, at best, are probabilities and likelihoods. Right now, I'm working through a book by John Cardinal Henry Newman on this subject, "An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent." Newman wants to argue that it is possible to move from probability to unconditional assent. Currently, I don't agree with him, but I'm giving him as sympathetic a read as I can. So who knows if he'll persuade me a week or two from now.

But this is a difficulty I'm having. And it causes me to move in between my Christianity and something like a vague Deism that claims that there is some kind of divine causal force in the universe, but claims that it is impossible to know much of anything about it.

 

To add more on this. The guy in the link said he still doesn’t believe in a god represented by religious text, and nor does he believe in the Genesis version of events or that this god has communicated with us. He also said that this new belief could possible change (infact it somewhat has) should more scientific evidence be provided. Now, that is being open-minded.

I hold a similar view to this guy. First and foremost i believe the scientific evidence/facts/theory on the origin of this world, but i am open to the possibility that there is some kind of force out there. I find that many religious people have so much faith/belief that they simply refuse to accept or consider other possibilities and that they think their belief is ultimate truth. I also find this true with some non-religious people.

 

He was actually referring to physicist Gerald Schroeder comments on Genesis 1 (below). All he said was he was impressed with the argument put forward.

Now that is a good argument, but biblical authors couldn't have knew this scientific information, so i see it as modern knowledge being used to enhance faulty ancient knowledge.

Flew is adamant that he does not believe in any god portrayed by any religion, hence he wouldn't believe the actions of the bibles god.

I think there should be a clear definition between a the use of the term “god”, as Flew’s current belief is in a Aristotle / Spinoza God and not in the God(s) of religions such as Christiany and Islam.

 

I am looking at this book by Gerald Schroeder. I also read a few reviews. It is a fascinating book, odd, but fascinating. You do realize don't you that when Schroeder argues that Genesis 1 and science can be harmonized, that he does not read the 6 days of creation as literal 24 hour days? Also, he believes in evolution. I don't have a problem with any of this. I can't see how anyone could reconcile Genesis with science without interpreting Genesis in a way that is not literal. Also, Schroeder, gets some of his stuff out of medieval Kabbalism; which is also fine with me. But its not a straight read on Genesis nor a straight read on science. To be honest, while it is all interesting, I find his explanations to be ad hoc; at least the ones I've read in this book so far.

 

Exactly. The only way Schroeder can harmonize Genesis and science is after he changes the entire meaning of Genesis.