Duff

To the above discussion on baptism being forced: Not only this, as said earlier, baptism is the only sure way we know we can get into heaven (emphasize on 'we know'). They're making salvation possible for you. Also, This states that baptism is only the beginning, and it must be nurtured in the faith. Your religion is not set in stone if you are baptized because you could easily decide to reject God. This would no doubt follow with a fall from the Church and a discontinuation of the growth of faith in the Church. ------- I believe both. I quoted some Catechism references earlier that seemed to hint that spiritual baptism existed (if we're thinking of the same definition of spiritual baptism). The above statement is comforting, though. If my interpretation is correct, it's saying that God has the power to grant salvation to those not baptized, but that it is indeed, His will that will be done (case by case basis). Do correct me if I'm wrong, Bari, cause I know you know your stuff, and I don't want to be claiming false things.

~ From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part II, Section II, Chapter I, Article I. From the same article So baptism is the only sure means of entry into eternal beatitude that we know of. Yet, God is incomprehensible, as is his mercy.

I believe it is certainly possible for someone as you described to go to heaven. I alluded to this earlier, but I'll say it again: heaven is being completely engulfed in God's love (semi-redundant, heh). I do not claim to know what happens when we die, but I have a feeling it deals with us facing God (or facing ultimate, eternal happiness, perfection, love), and either accepting Him or rejecting him. Hell is for those who reject God. I think that, even though you may not believe in God when you die, you'll be given a chance to accept Him in the afterlife. I find any religion that believes in the exclusivity of salvation (that it is only for someone of their own religion) to be wrongheaded. EDIT: This is why I like focusing not on these differences in beliefs, but on the mutual belief that we should live good lives. Because if you live a morally good life (which, interestingly enough, is the life which Jesus taught and the life that the Church advises, with a few differences of course), no matter who you're doing it for, God is just and will take it into account. Also, I don't want to forget that God is forgiving. If one spends his life denying God, but lives his/her life for others and this disbelief has no negative effect on how he treats others, God will certain be merciful and give said person the same options as he would give a saint: whether to be with Him, or be without Him. EDIT2: This does not mean I am not for pointing out the flaws in other Christian/religion's beliefs. There are countless Christian denominations (and other religions) whose belief system causes physical harm to others, or insults/is condescending to other people. I will gladly try to set these people right because living a life with beliefs that require you to hate/discriminate/harm/etc others is wrong.

Just thought they'd be interesting for you to watch, that's all. Not guaranteeing they'll convince you. :P I think what Nom said about faith, believing in something you have no evidence for, is interesting, because when I think of evidence, I think of empirical evidence. I remember spending a week in my apologetics class talking about how science and reason can never contradict each other. The analogy was that they're two ropes connected the same boat (truth). It's been a while since then (was high school), so I'm not sure I can do the explanation justice. I have a book that uses copious amounts of reason in its arguments for the existence of God (I ordered it today since my copy is at home; I'll make sure to share some of these said arguments). And if you've ever taken a philosophy class, you'll see that they don't contain fallacies. ;) Though, in this day and age, society seems to be focused on empirical evidence, which makes something like using reason to prove God's existence quite... meaningless to many people?

You should watch some of the debates between Hawkings and Fr. Spitzer. Why should I watch a debate between a priest and one of the most influential theoretical physicists on Earth? [hide]Ph.D. Catholic University of America, 1984-88. Philosophy Summa [bleep] Laude. Dissertation: A Study of Objectively Real Time. Director: Paul Weiss. Th.M. Weston School (Cambridge), 1983-84. Theology (Scripture). Summa [bleep] Laude. Thesis: The Depth Grammar of Pneuma and En Christo in I Cor. 12. M.Div. Gregorian University (Rome), 1980-83. Theology. Summa [bleep] Laude. Thesis: Early Christological Hymns. M.A. St. Louis University, 1976-78. Philosophy. (Research) Magna [bleep] Laude Thesis: The Metaphysical Proof of Gods Existence in the De Ente Et Essentia of St. Thomas Aquinas. B.B.A. Gonzaga University, 1970-74. Public Accounting and Finance Magna [bleep] Laude. High School Punahou High School (Honolulu, Hawaii), 1970 National Honors Society.[/hide] I dunno. Forget I said anything. I'm not an atheist. o.O

You should watch some of the debates between Hawkings and Fr. Spitzer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1cy3iCrxic Just something you might find interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA

Your parents firmly believe that God is very present in their lives. The Church does not condone this. But it does not state it as fact. We will never be able to be certain where God has influenced things and where he hasn't. Just because your parents believe that God helped them get there, doesn't mean you have to (and you don't); what you shouldn't do is assume that the Church says everything good that happens in the world is God's direct doing. The Church does not say those who are not Catholic/Christian will not go to heaven. Also, if you understood what the Church teaches when it comes to Hell, you'd understand more clearly: Hell is the absence of God's love. Those in Hell knowingly reject God. Of course, we don't know exactly how things will play out when we die, but Hell is only reserved for those who reject God, who absolutely do not wish to be near his love. This explains why there are, we can infer, so few people in Hell. I can't remember the exact wording, nor where it came from, but doctrine says something like, "There are more people in Hell than there should be;" yet, when we see this from the point of view of an omnibenevolent God, even one person in hell is more than there should be, because God wishes salvation for everyone. The question of theodicy is a very difficult concept to reconcile. If you're looking for a theological explanation for it, I can give you one. But often times that doesn't help to soothe people's emotions. So I suggest you look at the book Naming the Silences: God, Medicine, and the Problem of Suffering by Stanley Hauerwas. I read it in a day, and it has a central idea that is very thought provoking. Is the good always the easiest? Is losing weight easy? Is becoming really good at something (anything, sports, education-wise) an easy path? No one said believing in God was going to be this wonderful, unchallenging road. I just think not believing in God because of the limits on young adults (can't have sex before marriage, for example) is poor judgement. Again, people like to attribute the good things in the world as God's presence, because God is good in Godself. You can have a totally different religious imagination when it comes to God. First off, the Muslim Allah, specifically the one believed in by those terrorists and suicide bombers who claim to be doing God's work, is definitely not the same God as the Catholic God. Secondly, like I've been saying, the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. So whatever examples you found that suggest God is petty and power hungry, I suggest you take into context the culture of that time, and also modern day Catholic doctrine on the subject. As for Nom, I believe the Earth was formed billions of years ago. I'm not a creationist. This doesn't mean the creation stories do not serve a purpose.

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