Duff

No, that is not what I'm saying. Those parts are useful for understanding why other things are written in the Bible, for one. To be honest, stoning wasn't a huge deal back in those days. Culture changes. What we can learn from it involves looking at the bigger picture (writing these examples off the top of my head): what does Leviticus tell us about the state in which God's people were in, how did that affect future events? I am saying we are not to interpret them literally, as correct, moral actions. EDIT: I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I'm sure with a bit of searching you could find out what the Church does say about verses like the ones you posted.

Woops. My mistake. I'll bet you anything the Magisterium does not teach that the punishments you listed in your verses are allowable.

Evolution created what we are today, that is science not a belief. Enlighten me: how does one evolve to have rational thinking? When I think of evolution, I think of physical characteristics. :\

You do know that the Bible is a work of history, yes? It may not be historically accurate, but like any piece of work, it displays the societal norms at the time. I'm not going respond to all of your Bible verses (interestingly enough, they all come from the Old Testament, and most are from a time before 1000 BC). For one, you take all these verses out of context, to be honest. Leviticus was a set of written rules given to the Hebrews because the ten commandments didn't seem to be getting to their heads. And you don't even look at the larger picture (the Exodus as a whole, what does this teach?). Your post is the perfect example of one who is looking at the Bible from a modern day perspective, without taking into account cultural differences. And, did you even both to look up what the Church says on each of these verses? Like I have said before, the Church is made up of Scripture and Tradition. I'll bet you anything the Magisterium does not teach that the punishments you listed in your verses aren't allowable. Your post verges on fundamentalism. We don't 'believe what the Bible says' in the sense that we take it literally. The Bible is a 'good book' because the Church's interpretations of it are for our ultimate salvation. So do some research (you had time to find all those verses, you'll have plenty of time for research), and you'll notice that the Church never interprets these verses literally.

Rob has 1,000+ posts. I still think it's active posters since a certain time. Maybe there's going to be a big clean-up of members who haven't posted in forever.

o.O You have it now, though. :s

Maybe it's all active posters since the new forum changes? EDIT: Never mind, My Eggs has posted since then and doesn't have Members+.

Question, what does "Group: Members+" mean? I just noticed that. It's really windy out, right now. I'm thinking of taking a break from homework and going across campus to visit a friend.

Catholicism is not just thanking God for giving them to us. As you say, we have rational thinking, we come up with out own values, groups come up with their own ethics; all have some sort of moral hidden beneath them, but we try to justify why one is an exception or whatever. Abortion, the death penalty, any of those subjects - the teaching authority of the Church, that is, the Magisterium, is there to interpret the Word of God for the world; to provide their position and (if they're using Scriptural and Biblical teaching to do so, which they do), God's position on such issues. The Church is seen as necessary because Catholics see salvation as communal; it involves all of humanity, the overcoming of the alienation between God and humanity. Christianity/Catholicism can only be experienced within a community. This shows that our relationship to God is dependent on our relationship to other humans. And, once again, the Church believes in the universal salvific will; it strives to lead everyone to salvation. And proving that rational thinking was the result of evolution is just as murky as proving God exists, if I'm not mistaken.

Then we come across the question of where these morals come from. They're in all of us (with the exception of psychologically unstable people, I guess). It's really a tough question, since we can only assume that those first human beings had morals themselves. We have some sort of universal conscience from the beginning of our lives, something that no other being has (no other known being, for all you alien believers out there, :P): why, and from where? The Church associates God with this (as seen above).

Catholics support a variety of interpretations of the Bible. They reject that every single word should be interpreted literally. The difference is that interpretations of the Bible must ultimately be used for the above. The Bible is God revealed for the purpose of salvation (the ultimate good), available to all (universal salvific will). The conclusions of some interpretations that are contradictory to other Church doctrine (for the Church is made up of both Scripture and Tradition) and that really, if enacted and carried out, would do no good to society, such as that it is correct to stone a woman who has committed adultery, are not supported. Basically, the Church supports all types of interpretation (be it liberation theology, feminist theology, etc); however, the Church may not agree with certain the conclusions made from said interpretations. Make sense?

So, I just remembered why I'm not a fan of getting caught up in 'theism/atheism' arguments. I haven't touched my physics assignment because I've been stuck on this board all morning! :wall:

Nah, I don't. Is there a file hosting site that hosts zip files or whatnot?

Yes, exactly. My PHYS 300 class has 7 people in it, and they all try to impress the teacher every class. I just sit there, fuming, with my mouth shut, just taking notes. And they're not really the social type. I think type is supposed to be singular, since you're only referring to "those that think they know everything knowable," and that's one type.

Cute.

I'll give some examples of what I meant: 1.) When a theist insists that you are blind if you don't believe that the questionable evidence provided for you is sufficient to believe a god. 2.) When an atheist draws questionable parallels, such as FSM and Santa, as a way of saying, "If you don't believe in Stupid-Ridiculous-Thing-Off-the-Top-of-My-Head-X, then you shouldn't believe god either". Basically, when someone is being an unreasonable douche just to get a jab at anyone who is not accepting of their illogical means for discerning the truth annoys the hell out of me. Being a(n) theist/atheist, having thought-provoking conversation with others of different belief systems, and being understanding of those who choose to remain skeptical is completely fine. Too bad that line almost always gets crossed. That makes two of us, then. Also, is there any way I can upload a PDF to the internet so I can link it to you guys? Cause I have a PDF saved on my computer, but I don't know how I'd get it so you can view it, too.

Iron & Wine's low-fi stuff is really good, too (The Creek Drank the Cradle).

Fundamentalist Christians = take the words in the Bible literally. You can see the various problems with this. If not, I suggest reading the short pamphlet on Fundamentalism written by Eugene LaVerdiere. It goes through why fundamentalism is a pastoral, social, theological, and personal problem. Catholicism = inerrancy of the Bible: "the Bible solidly, faithfully and without error teaches the truth which God wanted put into sacred writings." In other words, whatever was written down, through this writing God intended to help us attain eternal life. (Dei Verbum paragraph 11, from the Second Vatican Council). And I say Catholicism because it's one of the most longstanding, organized religious institutions out there, and it's Catechism is extremely detailed and... well, non-contradictory (so, well founded). EDIT: Again, I clarify, I'm not trying to convert any of you. Just defending my faith. :P

Meh, fundamentalist Christians. I guess I'll say that you have to recognize that you're dealing with a Christian belief system that is so contradictory that it's impossible to defend. Again, I think Catholicism, if you really want solid, founded ideas, is the religion to look into. Just because one sect of Christians seems wacky to you (:P) doesn't mean you shouldn't look into other sects (I strongly suggest Catholicism, cause some other denominations aren't any better than fundamentalist Christianity).

There's nothing wrong with evangelization (and by that, I mean non-condescending evangelization). If someone were atheist by truly ignorant of theistic doctrine, I would, if they were willing to listen, try to get them to rethink their position on the subject, not because I feel superior (I don't), but because they might actually be convinced. Honestly, living a Catholic lifestyle is not a bad thing; though some teachings seem stupid to people (i.e. no sex before marriage), a Catholic lifestyle is not something to be feared. If I'm able to convince someone to consider joining the Church, I feel I've done them good. If not, at least I tried and made them think a bit. Heck, I might have even done them some good, since they would now know the opposing argument better because of me. I've never looked at one of the elder ladies or gentlemen who I see at mass and think, "Gosh, that lifestyle is straight up undesirable and no good comes from it." Jesus' teachings, though some are challenging, are morally good teachings. Getting someone to connect more with said teachings isn't bad at all, let alone one of the worst things you could do in life. <_< Constructive criticism, getting someone to defend their beliefs, making them think, being a proponent of a morally good belief system - that's one of the worst things you can do in life? I don't support conversion through insulting the other person's belief; hence, my above 'definition of sorts' of converting.

They came to my school to protest, hoping that we'd react violently. What a joke. :P

Fortunately, Catholicism doesn't advocate for hating gay people. :thumbup: And I like that comic a lot. :) It really makes me just wish people could agree to disagree and just live good lives for the sake of living a happy ones.

Maybe I'll get a Madrid instead of a Loaded cause of the price difference. Cathlamet Slide Jam 2011

Homework day. Let's see: gotta read some poems by Browning for English, do some online Chemistry homework, and finish up some physics homework. I woke up at 8:30am this morning and the campus was dead. Went to eat in the food commons with my roommate and it was super relaxing cause there was only about 7 other people there. Sometimes you just have to wake up early for the sake of appreciating how great mornings are, not because you have class. :P

"You cannot prove God does not exist, so therefore he does exist" is not a good argument at all. I have a book which I would like to quote to give you a better understanding of why so many people are convinced God exists, but it's at home. So, I'll be ordering it on Amazon today. Once I have it, though, I'd be glad to at least give you a few interesting perspectives. Oh, and because the last topic on this subject should hardly be forgotten, I feel we should at least link to it: (it may be better if you put this link in the original post, Skeptic) Is God real post your thoughts! I'm not entirely sure there's going to be any good from this topic, but I want to show that there is reasoning behind theism.