Slashdot Mirror

We have to reduce consumption regardless.

No, we do not have to reduce consumption. I see this fallacious argument everywhere. What we have to do is either reduce consumption or develop sustainable energy. There is no need to reduce consumption if:
fusion
non-food biofuel
Thermal depolymerization
molten salt
or any other of several technologies, or any combination of the above come to fruiction. Are you seriously proposing that there will never be a source of energy sufficient to maintain the world at first-country usage levels? Wear your mortification-colored glasses if you want, but I say again, we do not need to reduce consumption.

The Catholic Magisteria would disagree.

Yes, those phenomena -- "causality, chaos, and random interactions" -- are often used as arguments against the existence of God; but they are insufficient to disprove it, and depending on how one looks at them, can be viewed equally easily as manifestations of God's will.

GP prefaced his statement with "I believe", not "I have proved". Faith is the decision to believe. GP has decided to believe that God directs such phenomena; you have (I'm guessing) not decided to believe so. But either decision is a judgment call. GP is not trying to convince you. Please accord him, and others like him (like myself), the same courtesy.

Your other point -- the argument from evil -- is one that is hotly debated, and decidedly troubling. But counter-arguments have been made by finer minds than mine, if you're really interested in the question.

Galileo's falling out with the Catholic Church may have been vital - but it sure wasn't about the church accepting a proven point of heliocentricism.

Corpenicus' work proposing the heliocentric hypothesis was after all church sponsored (as was Galileo) and indeed inscribed, IIRC, to the pope of the time.

Galileo had been wrong before, apparently he believed comets to be an atmospheric phenomenon and the great _scientific_ minds of the time were as yet unconvinced. The church was leaving the question of geo- and heliocentricism open rather than making a decree as to the truth of one or other. Galileo by all accounts didn't like that. Despite being called in to the vatican he went ahead and published non-latin work to tell the masses that his theory was the truth - this shows he wasn't trying to convince the learned scholars, incidentally. Kepler had already published on much of the stuff Galileo worked on anyway so the papacy was hardly keeping things in the bag. Possibly the church was wary of following Kepler's hypotheses which appear to have been founded on a sort of Platonic helio-mysticism (eg http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/kepler.html).

Fine, the papacy over-reacted to Galileo. We got it.

Incidentally - was Galileo right? Is the sun "fixed". I don't think so. Indeed I'm happy with both geocentric and heliocentric descriptions; but in a "sol" centred frame of reference I'm happier with heliocentric maths (though one of the problems with heliocentricism apparently was that it failed to be as accurate as Ptolemy's tables).

---
Some comparative sources:
http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_7.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

He is a religious man who confided into a local priest who had nothing better to do than walk from door to door and warn people about the dangerous paedophile who moved into town.

"Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed", and he goes on to say that the violator of this law should be made a life-long, ignominious wanderer. [...] "For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance"

Okay, this is off topic and perhaps a bit pedantic, but here goes:

In Roman Catholic theology, at least, the wine is not just a metaphor. It is the actual blood of Jesus, present in the wine. That is, when the bread and wine are consecrated, they become -- in their total substance -- the body and blood of Jesus, although still under the appearance of bread and wine.

(Mind you, most other branches of the Christian faith reject this idea, so your statement is not necessarily wrong. And you may consider the notion of drinking Jesus' actual blood even creepier than if the blood is metaphorical.)

Painful childbirth was eve's punishment for eating the apple, I love pointing this out to pregnant Christians when they discuss epidurals.

That's an interesting reply, and different from what I expected. I wonder how inaccuracies in the scripture will convince you that the whole god thing is a scam, but you said it so let's roll with that. (Then again, Paul the Apostle wrote to his friends in Corinth that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, their faith was in vain, so you follow him in that.)

I'm by far not a bible expert, so I'll pick one where I happen to be a little familiar with the topic: The gospels.

It's very common knowledge that the four gospels included in the NT were hand-picked from a much larger number. Several of the non-canonical gospels include versions of Jesus' life story that differ considerably. The total number of gospels is quite impressive.

The rediscovery of the gospel of Judas sheds considerable doubt on the objectivity of the canonical gospels. It makes it clear that they are witness reports, and from witnesses with limited information.
Also, remember that there are no non-christian sources from the time who document the resurrection, which - if it happened - was certainly newsworthy. A list of authors who we would expect to mention this event can be found at the end of this article, which also gives evidence near the start that at least the earliest gospel was altered after the fact.

There's also a longer discussion about the resurrection thing, and I'll leave the topic with that because I wanted to write about the gospels.

Regarding altering of the gospels, christians don't call it that way, the proper term appears to be "harmonizing". It's been going on for a long time, too. this article puts it nicely:

"To
bring the different stories into agreement, the church often modified
or even rewrote the scriptures. Tatian, a disciple of Justin, tried to
solve the problem by writing the "Diatessaron", a composite of the
stories of matthew, mark, luke and john. "

It also contains the following claim, unfortunately without mentioning the source:

""the most radical alterations", writes Kronos, "date from the
nicene Council and were motivated by the understanding between
Pope Damasus I and Emperor Constantine. It was on this occasion
that the oldest Gospels, Notably the Gospel of the Hebrews(the
original Gospel of Mathew) were declared to be hidden (apokruphos
== Apocryphal). Furthermore additions, ommissions, and alterations
were made in the four remaining Gospels. St Jerome, who had been
commissioned to translate them into latin, was surprised by this."

So let's move away from the sceptics, here is the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it says:

"Another factor which contributed to the alleged distortion of the Gospel story was the necessity imposed on primitive Christianity of altering, if it were to last, the conception of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus in person. On His lips, it is said, the Gospel was merely a cry of "Sauve qui peut" addressed to the world which He believed to be about to end. Such was also the persuasion of the first Christian generation. But soon it was perceived that they had to do with a world which was to last, and the teaching of the Master had to be adapted to the new condition of things. This adaptation was not achieved without much violence, done, unconsciously, it is true, to historical reality, for the need was felt of deriving from the Gospel all the ecclesiastical institutions of a more recent date. Such is the eschatological explanation propagated particularly by J. Weiss, Schweitzer, Loisy; and favorably received by Pragmatis

Q: Why did the Catholic church accept the divinity of Mary in the middle of the 20th century? A: Catholicism wasn't taking hold in Latin America, where people were unwilling to give up their earth mother goddess.

The Catholic church, does not, has not, and never will accept the divinity of Mary. According to the Catholic Church, Mary is a human being. Period. Full stop.

The most (only?) significant statement about Mary the Church made in the middle of the 20th century was the declaration by Pope Pius XII that, at the end of her life, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven by the grace of God. This, BTW, was the second of only two ex cathedra statements ever made by a pope and reflected a Christian tradition going back more than 1500 years. It also has absolutely nothing to do with a supposed divinity of Mary.

-JS

Q: Why did the Catholic church accept the divinity of Mary in the middle of the 20th century? A: Catholicism wasn't taking hold in Latin America, where people were unwilling to give up their earth mother goddess.

The Catholic church, does not, has not, and never will accept the divinity of Mary. According to the Catholic Church, Mary is a human being. Period. Full stop.

The most (only?) significant statement about Mary the Church made in the middle of the 20th century was the declaration by Pope Pius XII that, at the end of her life, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven by the grace of God. This, BTW, was the second of only two ex cathedra statements ever made by a pope and reflected a Christian tradition going back more than 1500 years. It also has absolutely nothing to do with a supposed divinity of Mary.

-JS

Q: Why did the Catholic church accept the divinity of Mary in the middle of the 20th century? A: Catholicism wasn't taking hold in Latin America, where people were unwilling to give up their earth mother goddess.

The Catholic church, does not, has not, and never will accept the divinity of Mary. According to the Catholic Church, Mary is a human being. Period. Full stop.

The most (only?) significant statement about Mary the Church made in the middle of the 20th century was the declaration by Pope Pius XII that, at the end of her life, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven by the grace of God. This, BTW, was the second of only two ex cathedra statements ever made by a pope and reflected a Christian tradition going back more than 1500 years. It also has absolutely nothing to do with a supposed divinity of Mary.

-JS

I'm not really interested in a flame war on this subject. However, this is such a common misperception that I feel the need to respond. You really do need to understand the distinction between inspired teachings (magisterium) on faith and morals vs. church discipline and mere custom (aka small-t tradition). This is not a dodge or a clever way of avoiding responsibility, but fundamental to the Christian understanding of the human person.

First of all, I am well acquainted with the many faults, errors and even enormities committed by those who make up the church. It is an obvious fact that the Church is made up of and run by fallible human beings. Knowing what is true and right is not going to ensure right behavior - we do believe in original sin, you know, aka the defectibility of human nature or "the only doctrine of the church that can be independently verified". Just look around at your fellow humans, or, preferably, at yourself.

If you understood this distinction and the history around the indulgence controversy of the 16th cent, you would know that Tetzel and his crew were wrong to be "selling" indulgences, even by the official teachings of the time. It is probable that pope Julius II at least "winked at" these abuses to raise money to build St. Peter's (or pay for his more or less continuous wars), but still, that can only be added to his fairly long list of likely sins, not ascribed to the Church itself. Any uncertainty on the point was pretty definitively removed at Trent. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm if you really want to know about this.

So the conclusion is that what the Church really teaches about ethics is worth paying attention to. Leaving aside for the moment my belief in the infallible nature of the essential principles (magisterium), there is, after all, some 2000 years of continuous tradition in thinking about this and quite a bit of attention is paid to internal consistency, even on the less formal declarations. A modicum of humility in consideration of this tradition may be worthwhile. Just a thought.

Frankly, I've never seen any passage in the Bible describing the position or, or need for a pope.

The Huns were European / central Asian, a long way from Mongolia. They controlled a large area in the final days of the Roman Empire (the one based in Rome, not Constantinople.) While it is held by some that Attila the Hun was of Mongolian origins, the area over which his rulership held sway was in what we would consider Europe / the Caucasus.

http://www.boglewood.com/timeline/attila.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/attilathehun/a/ attilathehun.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attilla_the_hun
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02061b.htm

Also, that the Huns were not the descendants of the Hungarians is a bit in question (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maygar).

All this in a story about 80 column terminals. This is, like, a tangent of a tangent of a tangent. But then again, that's what makes /. so enjoyable!

Indeed. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a fantastic essay called Nonoverlapping Magisteria on this subject. His point was that religion and science are essentially orthogonal domains of knowledge, and as such should stay the hell away from one other. Also interesting - Gould mentioned a statement issued by Pope John Paul II entitled Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, which confirmed the catholic church's official position on evolution - it does not conflict with theology.

I'm not going to explicate this fully, because your statement is pretty far off-base as to what the Church has taught regarding sin, but I will note that at minimum you'd have to de-oversimplify your notion of "flawed" with respect to the notions of responsibility here.

As a simple analogous example, take the war in Iraq. Few individual Americans have "direct blame" for the Iraq situation, yet it can be reasonably asserted that as an American, I retain a broad responsibility for the situation which I can be called upon to make effort to correct.

If you want to argue the Church's stance, at least let's start from what that stance -is-, which I think you'd find pretty well elaborated here.

I'd start with the part stating...

"There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth", writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27).

Right. For anyone interested, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about this in the Summa Theologica (Ia, q. 93).

Have a look at the first part of the "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Actually... Aquinas has quite a bit to say on the subject: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

There is clearly an implicit assumption about the nature of religion there - as well as a grotesque distortion of what I said earlier

Just an obvious note re the status of support for your theories re religion -- i.e. lots of contradicting theories that make claims about reality without support outside of people's heads.

I am certain that religious people see something else as the "nature" of their theory of the world's reason to exist. I don't really care any more about that than philosophical implications for the flogiston theory. (-: I won't read books about string theory until it is testable either. :-)

If I am cherry picking, how come I can provide documentation, and you cannot?

Gud i Helvete! (Anachronistic Swedish curse from the west coast, "God in Hell". A milder version is "Gud i London").

It seems you are right! Catholicism has rewritten.. sorry, reinterpreted ... the basic facts about their religion's afterlife that they were given by divine inspiration! After a couple of thousands of years!!

This is really funny. I am quite old, so I read up on the subject more than a decade ago in books that were older. The Catholic encyclopedia is quite old, so it has not been updated to show the new reality yet!! More modern references show the less sadistic version. (-: I didn't even read the content on Wikipedia, so sure was I... :-)

I thought the Catholics if anyone would stay with integrity above details like their religion making Hitler look good... :-) Let me guess, in a decade the muslims will reinterpret their Hell?? He he he... I almost fell off the chair laughing.

The problem is that you are trying to apply the label efficient

For the third time -- just read up on the subject instead of arguing about things you don't have even a popular background in. Partly because I'm a bad pedagogue and don't have much time now -- and partly because Dawkins really got "Selfish gene" right (read the notes in the 2nd ed, they are as good as the book itself).

CS Lewis never commented on it, and may not have even being aware of it (I commented on that as well - I was not aware of British law on this point till the publicity that arose when it was changed).

The problem with that argument is that the law was not particularly English -- afaik, it was universal over the western world (and probably still is in the books over most of the rest of the world).

My point was/is that it was an obvious part of how the world worked in CS Lewis' time (and earlier).

You have given no reason for your belief in the existence of an absolute moral. Despite admitting not being faintly familiar with the relevant research on evol behavior.

You know that you have not full information but have an opinion anyway, because of how you feel the world should be -- the definition of religion!

Any example is bound to have some people disagree with it, which you say invalidates it.

Oh, get real. I pointed out that the only example of absolute moral you gave was not agreed by society at the time CS Lewis held the speech... and that CS Lewis did not speak out against it either.

I think that you are objecting to a concept of hell that I do not agree with [..]. In brief and VERY superficialy, hell is not torture. [..] To quote from the chatechism of the Catholic Church hell is "self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed" and "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God".

Without background in theology, I do think that disagrees with the research on early Christian attitudes. And to insinuate that the Catholics don't believe in a hell with fire and pain must be trolling.

PS sorry to go on about spelling, but it is "moral", not "morale". The meaning of morale is altogether different.

Same spelling in my native tongue. :-)

That is an absolute moral position, even if a very minimal one (not that much more minimal than the two key commandments of Christianity). It is certainly not moral relativism.

It can also be argued to be an efficient strategy in many human cultures, as seen in game theory.

I'd like them to replace "In God we trust" from banknotes with "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..."

I think "God" on banknotes means the god Mammon. The people in charge of the world's money obviously make that choice.

... my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man ... new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis ... It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

A far better source than Wikipedia (as if anything could be a worse source on many matters!) is the Catholic Church itself. The decrees of the First Vatican Council which took place between 1869 and 1870 (full text at http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm) say:

"when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church
"

Note the "defines a doctrine" and "or morals" parts. The Pope can, and several have, declare that certain actions which are not condemned by Biblical texts to be sins, which effectively damns those who practice them. He also traditionally had more direct powers of damnation against individuals which I will describe a little later in this post.

"It is meant to settle disagreements on doctrine, not for the Pope to be set above others"

I would respectfully suggest that the above text quite clearly sets the Pope above all others.

"I severely doubt that it would ever be used to damn someone, and if you think it is so, I would welcome you to cite a source"

The usual form of damning a person or group was by declaring them Anathema. Only the Pope could do this via a ceremony formulated by Pope Zachary which includes the following words:

"we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

The Catholic Encyclopaedia has a rather good article on Anathema and a variant of it called Anathema Maranatha at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm.

NB: various "Vatican II" canons and acts during the 20th century first reduced the severity of Anathema to that of normal (minor) excommunication, and then removed all mention of it -- note though that, as has happened in the past, such reforms can be repealed by papal fiat.

Excommunication is not a damnation to Hell. It's a public statement that what they are saying is not what the Catholic Doctrine is saying. There's a difference. It's still supposed to be an invitation to correct. An excommunication can be reversed.

For your second point, there are some organizations that use religion as an excuse to make money. Probably not a shocker to most people. I don't agree with that at all. Tithing is between a person and God, not for people to use as extortion. There is a cost to running any facility, including a church, so there is a good reason for it. Many Priests, Pastors, Preachers, etc. could be making more money in the real world. As a Catholic, I know that each ordained religious person takes vows of Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience. I'm not so naive as to think that all vows are taken like that all the time, but they are still there.

The thing that bothers me most is that the ones who evangelize in a non-intrusive way get lumped in with those who are complete jerks. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, if I remember the expression correctly. In the same way that many people go around leading fairly normal lives, but those who do something extreme are the ones who hit the paper. Whether it's extremely good, or extremely bad, that's who you hear about.

A school's job is not meant to brainwash people into believing something, whether that be Science or Jesus. It's job is to teach them how to gather evidence from all points of view, and then come to logical conclusions about that evidence using critical analysis, sound reasoning, valid thought processes, and logic.

Individuals who promote a certain viewpoint, whether that be religious, political, scientific, or whatever, must be able to back their viewpoints with such reasoning and evidence. Otherwise their thoughts are little more than opinions and/or delusions, whether theirs or someone else's, that lack justification, accountability, and credibility.

The idea is that by providing people with valid, unbiased thought-processes through proper schooling, they will be able to draw their own conclusions, and a perception of reality for what it actually is will emerge. This would eliminate the ability for people to be easily manipulated, and/or brainwashed into believing non-truths, fairy tales, and superstition.

Any such schooling is a direct threat to organizations based upon such fantasies, like religions. It becomes next to impossible to make someone believe in something without being able to offer them a whole-hearted explanation, taking all relevant factors into account.

Because of this, fantasy-based organizations become threatened with this type of schooling. The chessboard needs an ample supply of pawns, if you will, and if those pawns disappear, so does the religion. It's not surprising then to see members of a religious cult, such as Jesus Teacher Lady here, lash out against a student in her class.

There will be more lashing out in the years to come, especially seeing as science is starting to exponentially increase its speed of discovering new things about the world around us, many of which completely contradict the bible.

I predict that within the next 30 years, scientists will be able to create life from non-life in a lab. It'll mark a definitive moment in human history, shattering religions to shreds. You can expect protest far greater than Jesus Teacher Lady, and quite possibly far more dangerous.

(A) The Brits have spelled it "spelt" for a long time, whereas we Americans have spelt it "spelled" for just as long. (B) See this site. Evidently, it's Greek and Latin.

People do tend to be rather vocal, and sometimes violent, in the "battle" between science and religion. I don't really know how that war began. Perhaps it dates back to the days of witch burnings and alchemy.

There are agnostics who believe in the supreme power of the scientific method, whereas those of faith are driven purely by that. Each thinks that the other is narrow-minded and foolish.

Personally, I think they're all fools. IMHO, science is merely a tool for us to use to explain the mechanics of how the Almighty (whomever/whatever that might be to you) did it all; how He put the universe together, how He populated our little blue globe with life.

Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even the Catholic Church sees this. It was just almost a decade ago that John Paul II declared evolution as a very plausible theory.

Once people get over this opinion that theirs is the only way, there will more than likely be a lot more peace in this world :-P Once they see this, the idea of a war between science and religion just seems trite and foolish.

Turning Lebanon into a de facto confederation rather than a single country, in collaboration with their Syrian ally, which controls much of the rest of the confederation. From which they make war against both military and civilians in Israel, in collaboration with their Iranian ally, as part of Iran's larger Shiite revolution.

This statement brings up an itch I have. Many people say how Iran, through Syria supports Hezbollah. Why in the world would Iran support Syria and visa versa? Iran is a theocracy, ruled by and for religion. Syria on the other hand has a secular, nonreligious, government with Christian, Jewish, and Mohammedans. And in the case of Syria the two are animus towards each other. Some will say then that they are both Arab countries but that is incorrect. Syria is Arab but Iran is Persian.

On a side note: Iran is also home to one of if not the oldest religions, Zoroastrianism. There aren't many but a few still practice it there.

"Religion is pretty much self-admittedly not based on logic and rationality - it is based on faith. The two are largely irreconcilable on a logical basis unless one of them is adapted."

As a physicist and a Catholic, I'm rather perplexed by this assertion. The belief that faith is irrational is a rather ideosyncratic concept that has been in vogue in the Western world for a few decades. This is not to say that no one holds irrational beliefs -- some people certainly do. This does not imply, however, that faith is irreconcilable with reason. I would recommend that anyone who believes they are should read a bit of systematic theology, e.g. the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Be forewarned, however that if you are unfamiliar with Aristotelian philosophy, some of the terminology may be confusing.

Some may be interested to know that those who go to seminary to become a Catholic priest are taught philosophy and logic before they even begin to study theology. Faith does transcend reason, but it is, at the same time, eminently reasonable. If you believe that faith is blind, you haven't taken enough time to understand the rational underpinnings of faith. You might also take a glance at the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio (On Faith and Reason) penned by the late John Paul II.

can we prove/verify that god doesnt exist ?

No, but we can prove that God does exist.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Does God exist?

Objectively morally wrong? No, there is no such thing as objective morality. Subjectively, I have my own personal morality, but 'sin' is a strictly religious concept with connotations that I absolutely do not recognize.

How can this be? Surely you won't mind if I say that because I have such awesome genes, it's my duty to help the species by spreading them, and I go and rape whomever I like, then. After all, it's not morally wrong according to me. (And if you say the babies may not appear or survive or be raised well, perhaps I should kidnap attractive women and keep them as concubines. Anyway, that's what ancient kings did, so it must be okay.)

I can appreciate if you have your own personal ethical code, but you have to be able to say there are certain actions that are wrong for anyone to do.

Original sin is bullshit. I am not responsible for the crimes of my ancestors.

Even ignoring the fact that half of the "catechism" of the Roman Catholic Church is a holdover from exploitative doctrines of the Dark Ages, original sin through Adam, as referenced in the Bible is used in parallel with original forgiveness through Jesus. It allows people to acknowledge the truth that humans are not inherently perfect creatures, and then supposes that this imperfection inherited through Adam. But if this imperfection could inherit to the physical descendants of Adam, then salvation could inherit through the adoptive children of God. Recognizing either original sin or universal eligibility for salvation, without recognizing the other, is incomplete. So no, you are not responsible for the crimes of your ancestors. You ought to be responsible for your inherent sinfulness, but God - who created the concept of sin - has himself absolved you of that responsibility. (Of course you are responsible for your own actual sins, but not for original sin.)

Sin places little or no emphasis on immo[r]al inactions. See the Isaac Asimov short story Little Lost Robot for details as to why this is an extremely bad thing.

I'm not sure why you say that. In the Bible there are plenty of examples of inaction being considered sin. The most obvious is the story of David lusting after Bathsheba, sending her husband Uriah into the forefront of the line, and ordering the commander not to aid him in order that he may be killed. Another is God killing the priest Eli as well as his sons because his sons (though not himself) were godless and desecrating the sacrifices. "I'm bringing judgment on his family for good. He knew what was going on, that his sons were desecrating God's name and God's place, and he did nothing to stop them." (1 Samuel 3:13, The Message translation). If there's a sin of omission, this is the perfect example.

Most Christians hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything in existence. If this is true, then every sin ever committed is a direct foreseeable result of his actions, because he knew exactly what was going to happen with the fruit and the snake before he even bothered breathing life into Adam.

As you said, i'm not going to mention the "eternal mystery" phrase. Even the Presbyterian doctrine of the elect doesn't make much sense to me. (If you're elect, why should you want to do good? Either you will or you won't. And if there's no free will there's no responsibility for sin.) But imagine that you were creating, say, a video game with extremely advanced AI - sentient enough to understand that they are created AIs. Wouldn't you somewhat want them to know of your existence? And if you were so proud of your AIs, would you program them to acknowledge your existence, or hope that they (i.e., the sentient algorithm) would discover you themselves? If they're forced to acknowledge and worship you, then there's no honesty in the worship now, is there?

You

First of all, in case you all didn't notice. Pope John Paul II died, therefore is not the current pope. So, it isn't appropriate to refer to him as "The Pope", unless you mean to suggest that he had this conversation with his spirit, in which case I doubt he would be so brash in the recounting of it.

Second of all, this whole story is based on an anecdote which leads up to a joke punchline. I highly doubt Stevie H. ever spoke to John Paul II, let alone have this particular alleged conversation.

Third of all, there has been countless examples of John Paul II saying that science was a very good thing, and that no science would ultimately lead to something that contradicted truth. An one example check out his words. In fact, his predecessor, Pope Pius XII, stated in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis that the theory of evolution contradicted in no way with the teachings of the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII also stated in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus that "truth can not contradict truth", and John Paul II seconded that motion.

I would suggest everyone is out of date in their understanding of the Catholic Church's stance on science.

Let's not make /. a platform for anti-catholic bigotry (not uncommon in puritanical cultures). It is already a platform for agnostics and atheists to spout off about how ignorant and stupid religious people are, and with the arrogance of a teenager about how smart and well-educated *they* are.

As a Catholic myself, I and my whole family have always been taught that the pursuit of science can only *help* us understand the universe and the world around us, and that this ultimately will help us to know and understand the nature of God. What science can't teach us, but philosophy (and yes religion) can, is how to live our lives or gain a sense of morality.

The assertion that has already been made I see by at least one /.'er in thread to this story, is that science can somehow be sufficient for us to discover our moral compass. I disagree with this assertion. Science is inherently neutral on moral grounds, neither good nor bad, only seeking knowledge. It is what we do with the knowledge that makes it good or evil.

Lastly, every good Catholic knows that what the pope says about science is irrelevent. In fact, the doctrine of papal infallibility pertains to the singular domain of faith and morals, not science, not fact, not popular opinion, and not politics. Even if John Paul II "personally" discouraged Stevie H. from pursuing his line of scientific hypothesis (which I doubt), he has already officially encouraged it in a dogmatic way (a much more potent way).

First of all, in case you all didn't notice. Pope John Paul II died, therefore is not the current pope. So, it isn't appropriate to refer to him as "The Pope", unless you mean to suggest that he had this conversation with his spirit, in which case I doubt he would be so brash in the recounting of it.

Second of all, this whole story is based on an anecdote which leads up to a joke punchline. I highly doubt Stevie H. ever spoke to John Paul II, let alone have this particular alleged conversation.

Third of all, there has been countless examples of John Paul II saying that science was a very good thing, and that no science would ultimately lead to something that contradicted truth. An one example check out his words. In fact, his predecessor, Pope Pius XII, stated in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis that the theory of evolution contradicted in no way with the teachings of the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII also stated in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus that "truth can not contradict truth", and John Paul II seconded that motion.

I would suggest everyone is out of date in their understanding of the Catholic Church's stance on science.

Let's not make /. a platform for anti-catholic bigotry (not uncommon in puritanical cultures). It is already a platform for agnostics and atheists to spout off about how ignorant and stupid religious people are, and with the arrogance of a teenager about how smart and well-educated *they* are.

As a Catholic myself, I and my whole family have always been taught that the pursuit of science can only *help* us understand the universe and the world around us, and that this ultimately will help us to know and understand the nature of God. What science can't teach us, but philosophy (and yes religion) can, is how to live our lives or gain a sense of morality.

The assertion that has already been made I see by at least one /.'er in thread to this story, is that science can somehow be sufficient for us to discover our moral compass. I disagree with this assertion. Science is inherently neutral on moral grounds, neither good nor bad, only seeking knowledge. It is what we do with the knowledge that makes it good or evil.

Lastly, every good Catholic knows that what the pope says about science is irrelevent. In fact, the doctrine of papal infallibility pertains to the singular domain of faith and morals, not science, not fact, not popular opinion, and not politics. Even if John Paul II "personally" discouraged Stevie H. from pursuing his line of scientific hypothesis (which I doubt), he has already officially encouraged it in a dogmatic way (a much more potent way).

The Catholic Church has accepted Evolution and the Big Bang, but they still need some kind of mystery involved in creation so that their God has a role to play.

I've hunted around for some web resources that give good overviews of the events that took place. Some are biased, but contain good information nonetheless. As with many such things, a balanced overview can only really be obtained from "averaging" several sources.

A rather good (if biased) article with an extensive list of references can be found at http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.h tm

There is another good resource at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/g alileo/galileo.html. Again, somewhat biased, but it includes some interesting translations of original trial documents, including the inquisition's verdict.

A link to a book review which nevertheless contains some key points such as the fact that Galileo had no actual proof for his heliocentric beliefs:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookRevi ewTypeDetail/assetid/49581;jsessionid=baaesdBdzFeP Uj

A quick overview of the history of heliocentricism (including some good links) is here:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/helioce ntrism.

Obviously biased (considering the source!) but nevertheless interesting is the entry for Galileo in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. One of many links to it is at:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

I hope you find these links both useful and interesting. If nothing else, the fact that some of them cite sources means that they can be used as "jump points" for further reading.

Three data points on the subject of amputees being healed.

St. Anthony of Padua healed a boy who had had his foot amputated

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01556a.htm

Michael Juan Pellicer Blasco had his leg amputated, prayed, and awoke to find that it had spontaneously regenerated. His amputation was witnessed by two doctors and an assistant, attested to by the local government, and confirmed as a miracle by the Catholic Church.

http://www.spiritdaily.org/Our%20Lady%20Apparition s/saragossa.htm

Luke 22:49-51: Jesus heals Malcus ear

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2 022;&version=31;

Now, logically speaking, if we assume that any one of the above stories is true, then Marshall Brain's argument is done for. If even one amputee was healed, ever, than his argument collapses.

Now, you may feel that the stories listed above are a pack of lies told to credulous, pre-scientific peasants. And you may be right. But, if you're really honest with yourself you might see that your feelings about the stories listed above are probably a product of a pre-existing agreement with Marshall Brain's conclusion (God doesn't exist) rather than an absolute agreement with his premise (God never heals amputees).

The feast of St. Melito is observed on April 1.

The values that made America be able to unify came out of centuries of darkness in Europe, followed by something called the Enlightenment. Without that movement, the ideas of natural law, the rule of law, and limited government could not have taken root.

These things already existed during what you call the "centuries of darkness". For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) talks about natural law here. And it was precisely the Enlightenment that brought about big government. During the Middle Ages, each level of government was limited, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. But with the Enlightenment came the centralization of state power ("L'etat, c'est moi": Louis XIV (17th-18th century)), Socialism/Communism, etc.

To my knowledge, not only is that not the case, but it would be blasphemy for a Muslim to believe that. I'm quite sure they are much like many other religions in that they believe that only God is perfect.
From wikipedia: Hadith
Muslim scholars classify hadith relating to Muhammad as follows:
* What Muhammad said (qawl, )
* What Muhammad did (fi'l, )
* What Muhammad approved (taqrir, ) in others' actions.

If Mohammad was not perfect (or near perfect), why would what he approved in other's actions, or what he did be so important. Furthermore, His life constitutes the highest ideal, the perfect example, and the concrete instance of his Lord's command (M.H. Haykal, page-296-297).

Yep. Colossians. Timothy has additional instructions for how slaves should behave.
I looked it up (never having read the New Testament as I am not a Christian or that interested in Christian theology), and this is what I found:
Colossians 3:22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh: not serving to the eye, as pleasing men: but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.
Now, I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean, but the term used is servant, instead of slave, which refers to a completely different relationship between the master and the individual. Now, granted, we don't know what the original Koine Greek word was, but it seems that at least the version of the New Testament that a lot of English speaking Christians use does not refer to slavery, as you insinuated.

In the parable, he neither supports nor condemns slavery, but it is a parable.
Then what's the problem? As for the other ones, you'll have to find them for me. Anyways, my original point remains: Jesus did not own slaves, unlike Mohammad, and even if he did, it would in no way make Mohammad's actions more respectable. You haven't addressed this point, just as you have not addressed many of my other points.

That can be said of virtually any major religion, including Islam. Note the differences between Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Sufis.
My point was that the Catholic Church's more questionable actions were not supported by Christian scripture, but rather by their own dogma. Shiites and Sunnis all both believe in the Holy Quran and the Hadith as far as I know, and therein lies the problem, as both the Quran and the Hadith have a lot of questionable content, including Mohammad engaging in sexual intercourse with a nine year old e.g.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Link

And the Roman Catholic church was virtually all of Christianity -- particularly in Europe -- for much of the past two millenia.
And the veneer of education slips away. Need I remind you of Orthodox Christianity? And where it not for Islam, there would have been more Christians still including Copts (most of which are now miraculously dead).

Has nothing to do with slavery or religion.
I'm pretty sure that slavery is the antithesis of freedom. As such, the phrase "Life free or die" does have quite a bit so do with slavery. It embodies a philosophy whereby one refuses to life as a slave, regardless of how pleasant the master treats you; you attempted to defend Islam by stating that Islam compels people to treat slaves nicely -- whatever that means. If you believe that there is any merit to that sort of life, then you and I have diametrically opposed personal philosophies.

Oh, please! You sound ... well, rather like a Muslim fundamentalist

I thought he was referring to the Arian heresy,(named after a guy named Arius): "it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity."

So being an Arian robot would be a bad thing; you would have to agree with 99.5% of papist claptrap to be a proper Arian.

I think he was referring to Niclas Kopernik, aka Copernicus.

Sorry dude, but you are conveniently ignoring a *very* established Christian principle.
Check out the Catholic encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm
The Vatican *emphatically* promotes the belief that the resurrected will (and did) inhabit their own physical bodies. Otherwise, why would the tomb of Jesus have been empty? (amongst other arguments).
I wonder about cannibals who later turn to Christ?
Who gets the atoms in their bodies? -They, or their food?

Well then its a good thing for this, "Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation. This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions."

Besides, what does Christ have to do with it? Christ isn't God (at least not from what I remember of my catechism classes).

You're a heretic. Congratulations; so am I. One of the things hammered out at the Council of Nicea was the nature of the holy trinity. In order to make it work, Jesus had to be declared fully both human and divine. Thus, Jesus is God, as you cannot be fully divine without such. Also, Jesus is the only element of God to be fully human (since he was born of woman.) If you don't believe this, you're a heretic! Welcome to the black-and-white world of Christianity.

Notice that the Catholic church directly and publicly threw its weight behind evolution.

Sources?
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/kmc/?adate=1 1/14/2005

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

New Revelations do occur, and have occurred.

The question is: what is the source of revelation?
very briefly:

If a teacher tells a student that 2+2 is 4, then the teacher is revealing knowledge. This is natural, and should happen every day in shools around the world. While God may want me to understand mathematics, and may be using the teacher to instruct me, few would regard it as a supernatural event that I memorized the formula, "2+2=4" by rote, unless maybe I was an especially unruly child.

If I am secretly given LSD, I may experience visions that (I might think) look like angels or devils. Yet the common diagnosis is not that I was touched by God, but that I was trippin'. So LSD, so wheat rust.

If I obsess over the idea of angels and demons, I may trigger an unhealthy event where what I imagine is what I believe is real. This also is not a divine revelation, but the difference between this and revelation can be very difficult to discern.

According to Catholic tradition, if Angels or Saints, by God's power, reveal some new facet of the truth, it must be tested and examined to see whether the source truly is God. Someone who sincerely believes that he (or she) is experiencing Divine revelations should seek a spiritual director supported by his (her) bishop. Usually, it is his confessor, at least at first, then the confessor may urge her (him) to speak with others in the Church. These members are better equipped than the individual to understand the nature and veracity of the revelation.

Revelations have occurred since Biblical times. One can find a number of reverences in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Specifically, this is worthy of note.

New Revelations do occur, and have occurred.

The question is: what is the source of revelation?
very briefly:

If a teacher tells a student that 2+2 is 4, then the teacher is revealing knowledge. This is natural, and should happen every day in shools around the world. While God may want me to understand mathematics, and may be using the teacher to instruct me, few would regard it as a supernatural event that I memorized the formula, "2+2=4" by rote, unless maybe I was an especially unruly child.

If I am secretly given LSD, I may experience visions that (I might think) look like angels or devils. Yet the common diagnosis is not that I was touched by God, but that I was trippin'. So LSD, so wheat rust.

If I obsess over the idea of angels and demons, I may trigger an unhealthy event where what I imagine is what I believe is real. This also is not a divine revelation, but the difference between this and revelation can be very difficult to discern.

According to Catholic tradition, if Angels or Saints, by God's power, reveal some new facet of the truth, it must be tested and examined to see whether the source truly is God. Someone who sincerely believes that he (or she) is experiencing Divine revelations should seek a spiritual director supported by his (her) bishop. Usually, it is his confessor, at least at first, then the confessor may urge her (him) to speak with others in the Church. These members are better equipped than the individual to understand the nature and veracity of the revelation.

Revelations have occurred since Biblical times. One can find a number of reverences in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Specifically, this is worthy of note.