Research on Belief in God

Page 107 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Maxiton said:
Echoes, I respect your opinion and your learning and find your positions fascinating. I confess I have some sympathy for them, and have been working up to a post that will engage them at some length.

In the meantime, though, I had to look up the term "sedevacantist" - coming from an Anglo-American, protestant upbringing, and a secular, agnostic, liberal-democratic outlook since childhood, my knowledge of the church, its history and issues, is nil. Having looked up the term, however, it seems obvious on its face that sedevacantism is underlined and justified by circular reasoning: I cannot agree with the doctrine of the current church; because I cannot agree, the doctrine is ipso facto wrong; the church cannot be wrong, therefore the church is not the church (or, the variant, I cannot agree with the doctrine, therefore the doctrine is wrong; the pope cannot be wrong, therefore the pope is not the pope).
Sedevacantism is on the contrary the most coherent and logical stance for a Catholic. There’s no circularity, the fundamental sources are the Gospels and the different Councils through history (which do not contradict each other). When a so-called Catholic dogma contradicts a previous Catholic dogma and thereby contradicts the Gospels, it’s no longer Catholics and with the Pope conveys this new dogma, then he’s not the Pope because the Pope’s faith is infallible. If the Pope does not speak “ex Cathedra” and does not launch the “Papal Magister”, like he does in most of his encyclicals, letters, treaties, etc, then all he’s saying is perfectly fallible because what he says is not dogmatic and any Catholic is free to agree or disagree with him. However the Vatican II Council was meant to be dogmatic (if John XXIII really was the Pope) and since it contradicts the Catholic doctrine in dozens of points, it means that the post-Council so-called Church is actually not the Church. A set of value, a doctrine does not change with time, otherwise it’s called hypocrisy. The main contradiction to me between Vatican II and the Catholic Church is in “Gaudium et Spes 16” where it is said :
According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown.
This is un-Catholic since for genuine Catholics, the centre and crown of all things on earth is God and not man. This is really the sacralization of the humanistic Renaissance kabbalist movement for which nature is made for man’s use and abuse. It’s atheistic and old-testamentary.

Hate is a very strong word. I don't hate you, I disagree with your opinions, but I do respect you, very much. You strike me as a smart person and you write eloquently. However, I do disagree with your opinions.
(quote by Brullnux)

Thanks. Unlike many things I have no problem with pluralism (much less than my contradictors actually). So you may disagree with me all you want. What annoys me is cowardice, though. It’s been weeks now since I first raised the issue of Enlightenment philosophy (the Left-wing) paving the way for liberalism and the individualization/atomization of society and proved it with the French Revolution, the 1791 “décret d’Allarde” and “Loi Le Chapelier”, which resp. suppressed all kinds of craftsmen guilds (which were labour association in order to defend their interest with funds to care for the sick, the oldies, women, etc.), confiscated/robbed all their goods and prohibited any kind of working coalition, id est de facto any trade unions, and prohibiting any strike.

My contradictors have NEVER addressed that issue, for damn sake. And there’s a good reason for this, it’s just too ugly to be admitted. You’ve got to silence such facts. The violence of the Loi Le Chapelier is unheard-of.

And if it were just that! The Church guaranteed annual leave for 25% of the year and halftime work for another 25%. That’s one of the reason why the Enlightenment tore into Her. The workers had too much holiday, too much free time, were partying too often in the villages …

In the countryside the negative impact of the Left is even bigger. The right of grazing lands traditionally enabled the smaller peasant to have their beasts feed on communal land AND on private land after the crop season. The “Enclosure” advocated by the Enlightenment established ownership in the rural areas, the little yokels had nowhere else to feed their beasts. Besides, after the Marshall Plan, it’s the Left-wing that imposed “land consolidation”, destroying the rural environment (kilometers of hedges, ditches, …), promoted fertilizers, all in the name of productivism. The peasants were encouraged to get into debt. So I’m laughing with the back of my face when Leftists teach me moral lessons on ecology.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

Emphyteusis was a ROMAN system! Christianity eventually put an end to it, like it put an end to serfdom by the 13th and 14th century, after the Communal Revolutions and the 100 Year War. There’s a gap of 300 to 400 years between the end of serfdom and the start of the capitalistic era. In the interval, Christianity backed up the emancipation of the labouring classes with the formation of craftsmen guilds, fixed price of bread, prohibition of usury, holiday guarantee and the gradual control by the workers over the means of production. Capitalism swept that all away.
 
Emphyteusis was not ended by the Church. It was perpetuated through the domuscultae. The domusculta capracorum of Formello makes this archaeological fact and not only in the Roman campagna, but throughout Europe. At any rate, keeping the prices on bread down wasn't a Christian invention, Diocletian's Edictum de pretis of 301 was as humane as anything the subsequent papacy or European princes could have contrived and he was a pagan. It extended to all products. The twelfth century communal revolutions were anti-papal, above all in Rome! The increased activity of Roman merchants and craftsman and the improved financial status of the burghers, though not comparable to the centers of Tuscany or Northern Italy at the time because of the clerical freno (brake), made them increasingly in sharp opposition to the power of the old aristocratic clans and the temporal rule of the popes. Gradually the situation generated considerable tension and ultimately a dramatic change: in 1143 the Roman burghers set up a commune (municipality) of their own, like the free ones in central Italy and revived the designation of "senate." The renovatio senatus as it was known reawakened Roman patriotism and nostalgia for the urbs past greatness during the empire, thinking which was to become so prominant in the later views of Petrarch and the Renaissance humanists that succeeded him.

Echoes litany is tiresome. Christianity and the Church very much maintained the status quo of late imperial civilization under much less fortuitous times however. Eventually that order broke down once the necessary pressure to bear was sufficient. Paradoxically the humanist philology so praised by the Church, became the unwitting catalyst of the scientific method that eventually destroyed its dogmatic system.

Speaking of which, I'm sure Catholic ultras like Echoes don't have much of a future. Their presumption is inversely proportional to their preparation. For example when he talks about dogma, things like transubstantiation and the virginity of Mary come to mind. When Christ said "do this in memory of me" the consumption of bread and wine is incompatable with "transubstantiation." Bread and wine as in "body" and "blood" was a recurrent metaphorical theme in those times, as the Mithraic tauroctony by which the solar deity gave life to the world testifies. The grapevine and grain played an integral part in this. Transubstantiation was a term chosen by the fifteenth-cuntury Council of Florence rendered through the Byzantine delagates' recovery of the Aristotelian μετουσίωσις (metousiosis), in Latin transsubstantiatio, which separated the substance per se from the accidental quality that described it. Baruch Spinoza though, somewhat sarcastically, already asked in the early seventeeth century where all those Jesuses in blood and bones in the form of wine and bread wound up? Was it necessary to preserve the faith only through such amazing things I've asked myself?

The religious faiths have always been impregnated with mysteries, beginning with the Eleusian Mysteries that a thousand years before Christ celebrated suggestive rites in the sanctuary of Demeter. On the other hand, if it weren't studded with "mysteries" what faith would it be? The necessity "to believe" only exists for the impossible or the absurd. The possible or the reasonable are known. They can either be demonstrated, or at least a demonstration can be tried, while naturally being exposed to refutation. By contrast dogma can neither be demonstrated, nor refuted, it just must be taken at face value. This is kind of like Echoes' curious historical revisions.
 
Re: God and Religion

Echoes said:
Jspear said:
Oh please, it was a joke! FYI I only eat bacon/pork a couple times a year. Self control is easy. The religious aspect of eating or not eating pork could be discussed in the religion thread.
We both understood it was a joke, I think. ;)

However I don't see why I shouldn't bring the religious element here because in my opinion the Christian religion leads to an (at least) vegetarian diet if not vegan and besides you already did bring that element here:

Animals are not humans (most would disagree with me on this point :), But I would say it is because animals don't have souls. They are not made in the image of God.) Animals have been given to us to enjoy, to help us with work (in our modern society this reason is used far less), and to eat. There is nothing morally wrong with eating animals.

Where is it said that animals have been given us to enjoy and to eat? You are twisting the words of the Gospels to fit with your own habits and individual interests. It's atheism, darwinism and liberalism that promote meat eating. Some kind of a survival of the fittest. Christians mainly eat bread and believe that "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Likewise Vegans who trash the Christian religion are hypos, in my opinion.
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5)
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
pm

for some time i have been asking god.......what thoughts they would wish

to express on this platform........so far.....no response

maybe? i should pm irondan/maxiton

Mark L
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re: pm

ebandit said:
for some time i have been asking god.......what thoughts they would wish

to express on this platform........so far.....no response

maybe? i should pm irondan/maxiton

Mark L
The void loves to hear what's on your mind though. You should get yourself some beads.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
Wow, long thread. Yeah, I believe in God ever since I was a child a I got more practical since my early twenties. I am a catholic ( greek) in a country with a large majority of orthodox people. Anyway, while I am 100 % God exists (based on my life experience so far and not only) I would not be surprised to learn that They are some sort of unexplainable form of life, at least for our curent knowledge. I say our current knowledge because we don't know s--t about this universe. We walked on the Moon? Ha ha, it's like a bee walking a mile around it's hive and thinks that's the whole world. And Enoch said some crazy stuff a few thousand years ago, things that were confirmed by science just recently. No problem with those who don't believe though.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....just ran across this...may have been posted, if so, whoops...

One of my favorite quotes of all time is “God created man in His image and man returned Him the favor“. This aphorism is so good that it was attributed to Mark Twain, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel, Frank Wedekind and Voltaire. I think that this sentence contains the best overall summary of what Christianity is in the 21st century.
Cheers
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
I'm sure I've said this before but I'll say it again 'cause I really couldn't be less concerned what you think of me. Mystics are concerned with their own self study, the interior of being in the world. The Freemasons (mystics at their best, corrupt a$$holes as it stands ) have 33 degrees (Scottish rite) - the Germans didn't invent degrees, btw - and Jesus began his ministry at 33. Coincidence? The human spine has 33 vertebrae, from balls or vag. to brains. Lead (ignorance) to gold (enlightenment). Humans have always been obsessed with making the unconscious (night) conscious (day). Just a thought.

The breakdown to equality without too much b.s.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGRne6Ehh1c
 
Re:

McLovin said:
Wow, long thread. Yeah, I believe in God ever since I was a child a I got more practical since my early twenties. I am a catholic ( greek) in a country with a large majority of orthodox people. Anyway, while I am 100 % God exists (based on my life experience so far and not only) I would not be surprised to learn that They are some sort of unexplainable form of life, at least for our curent knowledge. I say our current knowledge because we don't know s--t about this universe. We walked on the Moon? Ha ha, it's like a bee walking a mile around it's hive and thinks that's the whole world. And Enoch said some crazy stuff a few thousand years ago, things that were confirmed by science just recently. No problem with those who don't believe though.
There's a huge void between believing and not believing.
I haven't had my epiphany yet.
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
True visionary genius.
The Coming Floods: Calling the Church to Oneness with Christ Amidst Rising Deception
https://www.amazon.ca/Coming-Floods-Calling-Oneness-Deception/dp/1933148640/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1483925107&sr=8-4&keywords=jason+w+moore

As we approach the end of the age, floods of trouble, fear and deception will come in our world to test the faith of all who believe. However, amidst the darkness, God will be working wonders among those whose hearts are fully His. This book is a call to higher ground in the Spirit, to a place of personal oneness with Christ. Jason describes in detail a number of prophetic experiences God has given him concerning the future of the church, and then provides a sound biblical basis for this urgent message from the heart of God.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
red_flanders said:
This is worth watching. Some of it (the Horus parallels) are pretty innacurate, from what I can glean, but the astrology stuff is flat out amazing. And ultimately kind of hilarious.

https://youtu.be/88GTUXvp-50
The entire video is full of inaccuracies, not just the bit about Horus. If you know that the Horus parallels are very fanciful, you shouldn't believe the other stuff that's being said here, unless you've properly researched it yourself and found better sources confirming it. The internet is full of these types of quasi-conspiracy videos about Jesus actually being completely mythological and just another incarnation of some common mythological pattern, but this type of theory isn't taken serious by actual academic historians and theologians at all, to my knowledge. The comparative mythology stuff and the idea that Jesus is a completely mythological figure with (almost) no base in history has all been proposed by actual historians/biblical scholars in the 19th century and it had some adherence until the beginning of the 20th century, but nowadays it's been thoroughly tested and the hypothesis is found to be contrary to evidence. The 'Christ myth theory' is considered fringe thing nowadays in academia. (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory)

Just a random point about the astrology; the video bases a lot on Jesus being born on 25th of December, but the Bible doesn't suggest Jesus was born on the 25th of December at all. I think the first mention of Jesus being born on that date is like in the 3rd century or something.

To be honest, I didn't really bother to watch the rest of the video after the cliche inaccurate comparative mythology and the apparent ignorance about where the 25th of December date comes from.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
red_flanders said:
This is worth watching. Some of it (the Horus parallels) are pretty innacurate, from what I can glean, but the astrology stuff is flat out amazing. And ultimately kind of hilarious.

https://youtu.be/88GTUXvp-50
The entire video is full of inaccuracies, not just the bit about Horus. If you know that the Horus parallels are very fanciful, you shouldn't believe the other stuff that's being said here, unless you've properly researched it yourself and found better sources confirming it. The internet is full of these types of quasi-conspiracy videos about Jesus actually being completely mythological and just another incarnation of some common mythological pattern, but this type of theory isn't taken serious by actual academic historians and theologians at all, to my knowledge. The comparative mythology stuff and the idea that Jesus is a completely mythological figure with (almost) no base in history has all been proposed by actual historians/biblical scholars in the 19th century and it had some adherence until the beginning of the 20th century, but nowadays it's been thoroughly tested and the hypothesis is found to be contrary to evidence. The 'Christ myth theory' is considered fringe thing nowadays in academia. (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory)

Just a random point about the astrology; the video bases a lot on Jesus being born on 25th of December, but the Bible doesn't suggest Jesus was born on the 25th of December at all. I think the first mention of Jesus being born on that date is like in the 3rd century or something.

To be honest, I didn't really bother to watch the rest of the video after the cliche inaccurate comparative mythology and the apparent ignorance about where the 25th of December date comes from.
Don't quote me on it because I'm going off memory. I think the Jews figured out Jesus was born some time around September. It definitely wasn't December 25th. There's a way to figure out his birth using the Jewish calendar. I'd have to look it up again to remember the particulars.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts