[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Also, it would be in your best interest to listen to the evidence that jumping off a roof will likely result in death, >>>[/quote]You missed my point entirely. I listen to the evidence for everything in eager anticipation of God’s latest gift of knowledge He gives me through even unbelievers. “It’s not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It’s only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they do bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That’s why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they “suppress” or as the Greek has it, they “hold under” the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That’s how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably everywhere and especially IN themselves as created in His very image fractured though it is in sin.” [quote]Oleena wrote:<<< rather than assuming that because I don’t know whether or not God exists, I also don’t know anything for sure about gravity.[/quote] Oh but you DO know that God exists. And not just any ol God either. He is the source for all that certainty you incessantly live in while denying that there is any certainty at all. Unless you are recanting I will go find your post to me where you denied the possibility of certainty altogether and now here you are talking about what you know “for sure” about gravity. As my beloved brother Paul the Apostle said. EVERYBODY knows. They know His “divine nature and eternal Godhead” and are without excuse. You spend all the energy you are attempting to escape what is confronting you everywhere, but especially in your own mirror.
Are you now telling me that you you live in certainty after all?
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Also, it would be in your best interest to listen to the evidence that jumping off a roof will likely result in death, >>>[/quote]You missed my point entirely. I listen to the evidence for everything in eager anticipation of God’s latest gift of knowledge He gives me through even unbelievers. “It’s not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It’s only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they do bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That’s why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they “suppress” or as the Greek has it, they “hold under” the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That’s how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably everywhere and especially IN themselves as created in His very image fractured though it is in sin.” [quote]Oleena wrote:<<< rather than assuming that because I don’t know whether or not God exists, I also don’t know anything for sure about gravity.[/quote] Oh but you DO know that God exists. And not just any ol God either. He is the source for all that certainty you incessantly live in while denying that there is any certainty at all. Unless you are recanting I will go find your post to me where you denied the possibility of certainty altogether and now here you are talking about what you know “for sure” about gravity. As my beloved brother Paul the Apostle said. EVERYBODY knows. They know His “divine nature and eternal Godhead” and are without excuse. You spend all the energy you are attempting to escape what is confronting you everywhere, but especially in your own mirror.
Are you now telling me that you you live in certainty after all?
[/quote]
Why is this so difficult for you?
Just because I don’t know for certain whether or not God exists doesn’t mean that I don’t know for certain what happens when I jump off the space needle, or look under a microscope at a gram stained legume root nodule, or what happens to the DNA of two populations of the same species when you separate them and subject them to different conditions and many other things.
You’re basically saying that if I can’t be certain of God’s existence I can’t be certain of anything. That just isn’t true and is a terrible logical fallacy on your part.
To put it another way, just because you don’t know what causes gravity doesn’t mean that you don’t know for sure that when you drop a ball, it will fall down.
I’d be happy to keep discussing this with you, but perhaps I should send you a PM. I tried to get Tirib to lose interest, but he’s climbed all the way up on his soap box now. lol
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< You’re basically saying that if I can’t be certain of God’s existence I can’t be certain of anything. That just isn’t true and is a terrible logical fallacy on your part. >>>[/quote]I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of the God who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. It’s not difficult for me at all. I see staring me in the face the truth of Romans 1:18-27 every time I read one of your posts, or anybody else’s.
It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence. You’re a smart enough girl (though you try a bit too hard). It has everything to do with spiritual death and blindness. Everywhere are the “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature” of the most high God clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse, but even though you know God, you do not honor Him as God or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart is darkened. Professing to be wise, you’ve became a fool, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and his alleged scientific method. In other words yourself. That’s my accurate Oleena-ward paraphrase, but it applies to everybody.
I’m certain that very much of what you know is true. I’m also pretty sure there is plenty in your domain of expertise that you could teach me. Maybe elsewhere too. What I am most certain of all though is that all of this is so because we are both creatures of the same ultra holy and intelligent designer. BTW, are you certain that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? I ask because you likened God to Santa Claus earlier and now you say you don’t know if God exists so I thought maybe you weren’t sure if ol St. Nick is around either.
[quote]Christine wrote:
So, I will agree with you on this: The Grateful Dead rules!
[/quote]
Really? Was it that unclear? Well it doesn’t actually seem like your all fired interested in the discourse, so I’ll leave it at that.
And yes they sure as hell do. To bad Bobby had all the sound boards pulled off the internet. It’s hard to find a good quality '80’s show. That clown they had in the booth (I forgot his name) at that time massacred the recordings, so good '80s shows are hard to find. Know anybody with and FTP site? Now the want the $$ for them…Some hippies they turned out to be! :)[/quote]
I used to have a few tapes, but I have no idea what happened to them. Sorry, I can’t help you out.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight, so it is difficult to get fired up.[/quote]
Here ya go, a little peace offering. You can listen at work and get your Dead on, provided your firewall allows streaming. http://www.gdradio.net[/quote]
Thanks.
And I do apologize if I have offended you by what I have written in the past. My intent is never to offend, but I tend to be blunt and this is the internet. It is very easy to turn into an asshole here. Something I need to watch.
You do come across here as a cool person, and I think that we would get along just fine IRL.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of the God who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. [/quote]
So let me get this straight: because I am sure of one thing, I am sure of something that is by definition impossible to know.
Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes.
On that note, I’m going to re-read you what you wrote so you can see it through my eyes:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of Santa who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. It’s not difficult for me at all. I see staring me in the face the truth of Romans 1:18-27 every time I read one of your posts, or anybody else’s.
It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence. You’re a smart enough girl (though you try a bit too hard). It has everything to do with spiritual death and blindness. Everywhere are the “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature” of the most high Santa clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse, but even though you know Santa, you do not honor Santa as Santa or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart is darkened. Professing to be wise, you’ve became a fool, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible Santa for an image in the form of corruptible man and his alleged scientific method. In other words yourself. That’s my accurate Oleena-ward paraphrase, but it applies to everybody.
I’m certain that very much of what you know is true. I’m also pretty sure there is plenty in your domain of expertise that you could teach me. Maybe elsewhere too. What I am most certain of all though is that all of this is so because we are both creatures of the same ultra holy and intelligent designer [Santa].
“There is no conflict between science and religion”. If you really believe this, you are extremely uneducated. Open a history book. Most scientific discoveries have been opposed and nearly squashed by a religious body, starting with Galileo discovering that the planets travel around the sun. There are hundreds of other examples, including evolution.
[/quote]
This is also wrong and, interestingly enough, pretty much the only case that is constantly brought up, out of all the “hundreds” that supposedly exist.
Galilei was not prosecuted for his belief that the earth revolves around the sun but for his insistence that the whole bible needed to be reinterpreted according to his theory, which, incidentally, he could not back up.
And for making the pope look like an idiot after he had his back for pretty much decades.
Meanwhile, the heliocentric world view was taught all over Europe, in those pesky founded by the Pope and in large part run by the church universities.
Here’s only a small part of the link posted above. BTW, you can read the full chapters in the link; this is just the outline:
CHAPTER VII. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY.
1. The Thunder-stones.
* Early beliefs regarding ``thunder-stones''
* Theories of Mercati and Tollius regarding them
* Their identification with the implements of prehistoric man
* Remains of man found in caverns
* Unfavourable influence on scientific activity of the political conditions of the early part of the nineteenth century
* Change effected by the French Revolution of to
* Rallying of the reactionary clerical influence against science
2. The Flint Weapons and Implements.
* Boucher de Perthes's contributions to the knowledge of prehistoric man
* His conclusions confirmed by Lyell and others
* Cave explorations of Lartet and Christy
* Evidence of man's existence furnished by rude carvings
* Cave explorations in the British Islands
* Evidence of man's existence in the Drift period
* In the early Quaternary and in the Tertiary periods
CHAPTER VIII. THE ``FALL OF MAN’’ AND ANTHROPOLOGY.
* The two antagonistic views regarding the life of man on the earth
* The theory of ``the Fall'' among ancient peoples
* Inheritance of this view by the Christian Church
* Appearance among the Greeks and Romans of the theory of a rise of man
* Its disappearance during the Middle Ages
* Its development since the seventeenth century
* The first blow at the doctrine of ``the Fall'' comes from geology
* Influence of anthropology on the belief in this doctrine
* The finding of human skulls in Quaternary deposits
* Their significance
* Results obtained from the comparative study of the remains of human handiwork
* Discovery of human remains in shell-heaps on the shores of the Baltic Sea
* In peat-beds
* The lake-dwellers
* Indications of the upward direction of man's development
* Mr. Southall's attack on the theory of man's antiquity
* An answer to it
* Discovery of prehistoric human remains in Egypt
* Hamard's attack on the new scientific conclusions
* The survival of prehistoric implements in religious rites
* Strength of the argument against the theory of ``the Fall of Man''
CHAPTER IX. THE ``FALL OF MAN’’ AND ETHNOLOGY.
* The beginnings of the science of Comparative Ethnology
* Its testimony to the upward tendency of man from low beginning
* Theological efforts to break its force --- De Maistre and De Bonald Whately's attempt
* The attempt of the Duke of Argyll
* Evidence of man's upward tendency derived from Comparative Philology
* From Comparative Literature and Folklore
* From Comparative Ethnography
* From Biology
CHAPTER X. THE ``FALL OF MAN’’ AND HISTORY.
* Proof of progress given by the history of art
* Proofs from general history
* Development of civilization even under unfavourable circumstances to advancement even through catastrophes and the decay of civilizations
* Progress not confined to man's material condition
* Theological struggle against the new scientific view
* Persecution of Prof. Winchell
* Of Dr. Woodrow
* Other interferences with freedom of teaching
* The great harm thus done to religion
* Rise of a better spirit
* The service rendered to religion by Anthropology
CHAPTER XI. FROM ``THE PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR’’ TO METEOROLOGY.
1. Growth of a Theological Theory.
* The beliefs of classical antiquity regarding storms, thunder, and lightning
* Development of a sacred science of meteorology by the fathers of the Church
* Theories of Cosmas Indicopleustes
* Of Isidore of Seville
* Of Bede
* Of Rabanus Maurus
* Rational views of Honorius of Autun
* Orthodox theories of John of San Geminiano
* Attempt of Albert the Great to reconcile the speculations of Aristotle with the theological views
* The monkish encyclopedists
* Theories regarding the rainbow and the causes of storms
* Meteorological phenomena attributed to the Almighty
2. Diabolical Agency in Storms.
* Meteorological phenomena attributed to the devil --- ``the prince of the power of the air''
* Propagation of this belief by the medieval theologians
* Its transmission to both Catholics and Protestants --- Eck, Luther
* The great work of Delrio
* Guacci's Compendium
* The employment of prayer against ``the powers of the air''
* Of exorcisms
* Of fetiches and processions
* Of consecrated church bells
3. The Agency of Witches.
* The fearful results of the witch superstition
* Its growth out of the doctrine of evil agency in atmospheric phenomena
* Archbishop Agobard's futile attempt to dispel it
* Its sanction by the popes
* Its support by confessions extracted by torture
* Part taken in the persecution by Dominicans and Jesuits
* Opponents of the witch theory --- Pomponatius, Paracelsus, Agrippa of Nettesheim
* Jean Bodin's defence of the superstition
* Fate of Cornelius Loos
* Of Dietrich Flade
* Efforts of Spee to stem the persecution
* His posthumous influence
* Upholders of the orthodox view --- Bishop Binsfeld, Remigius
* Vain protests of Wier
* Persecution of Bekker for opposing the popular belief
* Effect of the Reformation in deepening the superstition
* The persecution in Great Britain and America
* Development of a scientific view of the heavens
* Final efforts to revive the old belief
4. Franklin's Lightning-Rod.
* Franklin's experiments witlh the kite
* Their effect on the old belief
* Efforts at compromise between the scientific and theological theories
* Successful use of the lightning-rod
* Religious scruples against it in America
* In England
* In Austria
* In Italy
* Victory of the scientific theory
* This victory exemplified in the case of the church of the monastery of Lerins
* In the case of Dr. Moorhouse
* In the case of the Missouri droughts
CHAPTER XII. FROM MAGIC TO CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.
1. The Supremacy of Magic.
* Primitive tendency to belief in magic
* The Greek conception of natural laws
* Influence of Plato and Aristotle on the growth of science
* Effect of the establishment of Christianity on the development of the physical sciences
* The revival of thought in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
* Albert the Great
* Vincent of Beauvais
* Thomas Aquinas
* Roger Bacon's beginning of the experimental method brought to nought
* The belief that science is futile gives place to the belief that it is dangerous
* The two kinds of magic
* Rarity of persecution for magic before the Christian era
* The Christian theory of devils
* Constantine's laws against magic
* Increasing terror of magic and witchcraft
* Papal enactments against them
* Persistence of the belief in magic
* Its effect on the development of science
* Roger Bacon
* Opposition of secular rulers to science
* John Baptist Porta
* The opposition to scientific societies in italy
* In England
* The effort to turn all thought from science to religion
* The development of mystic theology
* Its harmful influence on science
* Mixture of theological with scientific speculation
* This shown in the case of Melanchthon
* In that of Francis Bacon
* Theological theory of gases
* Growth of a scientific theory
* Basil Valentine and his contributions to chemistry
* Triumph of the scientific theory
2. The Triumph of Chemistry and Physics.
* New epoch in chemistry begun by Boyle
* Attitude of the mob toward science
* Effect on science of the reaction following the French Revolution:
* Development of chemistry since the middle of the nineteenth century
* Development of physics
* Modern opposition to science in Catholic countries
* Attack on scientific education in France
* In England
* In Prussia
* Revolt against the subordination of education to science
* Effect of the International Exhibition of ii at London
* Of the endowment of State colleges in America by the Morrill Act of 1862
* The results to religion
CHAPTER XIII. FROM MIRACLES TO MEDICINE.
1. THE EARLY AND SACRED THEORIES OF DISEASE.
* Naturalness of the idea of supernatural intervention in causing and curing disease
* Prevalence of this idea in ancient civilizations
* Beginnings of a scientific theory of medicine
* The twofold influence of Christianity on the healing art
2. GROWTH OF LEGENDS OF HEALING. --- THE LIFE OF XAVIER AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE.
* Growth of legends of miracles about the lives of great benefactors of humanity
* Sketch of Xavier's career
* Absence of miraculous accounts in his writings and those of his contemporaries
* Direct evidence that Xavier wrought no miracles
* Growth of legends of miracles as shown in the early biographies of him
* As shown in the canonization proceedings
* Naturalness of these legends
3. THE MEDIAEVAL MIRACLES OF HEALING CHECK MEDICAL SCIENCE.
* Character of the testimony regarding miracles
* Connection of mediaeval with pagan miracles
* Their basis of fact
* Various kinds of miraculous cures
* Atmosphere of supernaturalism thrown about all cures
* Influence of this atmosphere on medical science
4. THE ATTRIBUTION OF DISEASE TO SATANIC INFLUENCE. --- ``PASTORAL MEDICINE'' CHECKS SCIENTIFIC EFFORT.
* Theological theory as to the cause of disease
* Influence of self-interest on ``pastoral medicine''
* Development of fetichism at Cologne and elsewhere
* Other developments of fetich cure
5. THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO ANATOMICAL STUDIES.
* Medieval belief in the unlawfulness of meddling with the bodies of the dead
* Dissection objected to on the ground that ``the Church abhors the shedding of blood''
* The decree of Boniface VIII and its results
6. NEW BEGINNINGS OF MEDICAL SCIENCE.
* Galen
* Scanty development of medical science in the Church
* Among Jews and Mohammedans
* Promotion of medical science by various Christian laymen of the Middle Ages
* By rare men of science
* By various ecclesiastics
7. THEOLOGICAL DISCOURAGEMENT OF MEDICINE.
* Opposition to seeking cure from disease by natural means
* Requirement of ecclesiastical advice before undertaking medical treatment
* Charge of magic and Mohammedanism against men of science
* Effect of ecclesiastical opposition to medicine
* The doctrine of signatures
* The doctrine of exorcism
* Theological opposition to surgery
* Development of miracle and fetich cures
* Fashion in pious cures
* Medicinal properties of sacred places
* Theological argument in favour of miraculous cures
* Prejudice against Jewish physicians
8. FETICH CURES UNDER PROTESTANTISM. --- THE ROYAL TOUCH.
* Luther's theory of disease
* The royal touch
* Cures wrought by Charles II
* By James II
* By William III
* By Queen Anne
* By Louis XIV
* Universal acceptance of these miracles
9. THE SCIENTIFIC STRUGGLE FOR ANATOMY.
* Occasional encouragement of medical science in the Middle Ages
* New impulse given by the revival of learning and the age of discovery
* Paracelsus and Mundinus
* Vesalius, the founder of the modem science of anatomy. --- His career and fate
10. THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO INOCULATION, VACCINATION, AND THE USE OF ANÆSTHETICS.
* Theological opposition to inoculation in Europe
* In America
* Theological opposition to vaccination
* Recent hostility to vaccination in England
* In Canada, during the smallpox epidemic
* Theological opposition to the use of cocaine
* To the use of quinine
* Theological opposition to the use of anesthetics
11. FINAL BREAKING AWAY OF THE THEOLOGICAL THEORY IN MEDICINE.
* Changes incorporated in the American Book of Common Prayer
* Effect on the theological view of the growing knowledge of the relation between imagination and medicine
* Effect of the discoveries in hypnotism
* In bacteriology
* Relation between ascertained truth and the ``ages of faith''
CHAPTER XIV. FROM FETICH TO HYGIENE.
1. THE THEOLOGICAL VIEW OF EPIDEMICS AND SANITATION.
* The recurrence of great pestilences
* Their early ascription to the wrath or malice of unseen powers
* Their real cause want of hygienic precaution
* Theological apotheosis of filth
* Sanction given to the sacred theory of pestilence by Pope Gregory the Great
* Modes of propitiating the higher powers
* Modes of thwarting the powers of evil
* Persecution of the Jews as Satan's emissaries
* Persecution of witches as Satan's emissaries
* Case of the Untori at Milan
* New developments of fetichism. --- The blood of St. Januarius at Naples
* Appearance of better methods in Italy. --- In Spain
2. GRADUAL DECAY OF THEOLOGICAL VIEWS REGARDING SANITATION.
* Comparative freedom of England from persecutions for plague-bringing, in spite of her wretched sanitary condition
* Aid sought mainly through church services
* Effects of the great fire in London
* The jail fever
* The work of John Howard
* Plagues in the American colonies
* In France. --- The great plague at Marseilles
* Persistence of the old methods in Austria
* In Scotland
3. THE TRIUMPH OF SANITARY SCIENCE.
* Difficulty of reconciling the theological theory of pestilences with accumulating facts
* Curious approaches to a right theory
* The law governing the relation of theology to disease
* Recent victories of hygiene in all countries
* In England. --- -Chadwick and his fellows
* In France
4. THE RELATION OF SANITARY SCIENCE TO RELIGION.
* The process of sanitary science not at the cost of religion
* Illustration from the policy of Napoleon III in France
* Effect of proper sanitation on epidemics in the United States
* Change in the attitude of the Church toward the cause and cure of pestilence
CHAPTER XV. FROM ``DEMONIACAL POSSESSION’’ TO INSANITY.
1. THEOLOGICAL IDEAS OF LUNACY AND ITS TREATMENT.
* The struggle for the scientific treatment of the insane
* The primitive ascription of insanity to evil spirits
* Better Greek and Roman theories --- madness a disease
* The Christian Church accepts the demoniacal theory of insanity
* Yet for a time uses mild methods for the insane
* Growth of the practice of punishing the indwelling demon
* Two sources whence better things might have been hoped. --- The reasons of their futility
* The growth of exorcism
* Use of whipping and torture
* The part of art and literature in making vivid to the common mind the idea of diabolic activity
* The effects of religious processions as a cure for mental disease
* Exorcism of animals possessed of demons
* Belief in the transformation of human beings into animals
* The doctrine of demoniacal possession in the Reformed Church
2. BEGINNINGS OF A HEALTHFUL SCEPTICISM.
* Rivalry between Catholics and Protestants in the casting out of devils
* Increased belief in witchcraft during the period following the
* Reformation
* Increase of insanity during the witch persecutions
* Attitude of physicians toward witchcraft
* Religious hallucinations of the insane
* Theories as to the modes of diabolic entrance into the possessed
* Influence of monastic life on the development of insanity
* Protests against the theological view of insanity --- Wier, Montaigue Bekker
* Last struggles of the old superstition
3. THE FINAL STRUGGLE AND VICTORY OF SCIENCE. --- PINEL AND TUKE.
* Influence of French philosophy on the belief in demoniacal possession
* Reactionary influence of John Wesley
* Progress of scientific ideas in Prussia
* In Austria
* In America
* In South Germany
* General indifference toward the sufferings of madmen
* The beginnings of a more humane treatment
* Jean Baptiste Pinel
* Improvement in the treatment of the insane in England. --- William Tuke
* The place of Pinel and Tuke in history
CHAPTER XVI. FROM DIABOLISM TO HYSTERIA.
1. THE EPIDEMICS OF ``POSSESSION.''
* Survival of the belief in diabolic activity as the cause of such epidemics
* Epidemics of hysteria in classical times
* In the Middle Ages
* The dancing mania
* Inability of science during the fifteenth century to cope with such diseases
* Cases of possession brought within the scope of medical research during the sixteenth century
* Dying-out of this form of mental disease in northern Europe
* In Italy
* Epidemics of hysteria in the convents
* The case of Martha Brossier
* Revival in France of belief in diabolic influence
* The Ursulines of Loudun and Urbain Grandier
* Possession among the Huguenots
* In New England. --- The Salem witch persecution
* At Paris. --- Alleged miracles at the grave of Archdeacon Paris
* In Germany. --- Case of Maria Renata Sanger
* More recent outbreaks
2. BEGINNINGS OF HELPFUL SCEPTICISM.
* Outbreaks of hysteria in factories and hospitals
* In places of religious excitement
* The case at Morzine
* Similar cases among Protestants and in Africa
3. THEOLOGICAL ``RESTATEMENTS.'' --- FINAL TRIUMPH OF THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW AND METHODS.
* Successful dealings of medical science with mental diseases
* Attempts to give a scientific turn to the theory of diabolic agency in disease
* Last great demonstration of the old belief in England
* Final triumph of science in the latter half of the present century
* Last echoes of the old belief
* Colenso's work on the Pentateuch
* The persecution of him
* Bishop Wilberforce's part in it
* Dean Stanley's
* Bishop Thirlwall's
* Results of Colenso's work
* Sanday's Bampton Lectures
* Keble College and Lux Mundi
* Progress of biblical criticism among the dissenters
* In France. --- Renan
* In the Roman Catholic Church
* The encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII
* In America. --- Theodore Parker
* Apparent strength of the old theory of inspiration
* Real strength of the new movement
VICTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND LITERARY METHODS.
* Confirmation of the conclusions of the higher criticism by Assyriology and Egyptology
* Light thrown upon Hebrew religion by the translation of the sacred books of the East
* The influence of Persian thought. --- The work of the Rev. Dr. Mills
* The influence of Indian thought.
* Light thrown by the study of Brahmanism and Buddhism
* The work of Fathers Huc and Gabet
* Discovery that Buddha himself had been canonized as a Christian saint
* Similarity between the ideas and legends of Buddhism and those of Christianity
* The application of the higher criticism to the New Testament
* The English ``Revised Version'' of Studies on the formation of the canon of Scripture
* Recognition of the laws governing its development
* Change in the spirit of the controversy over the higher criticism
RECONSTRUCTIVE FORCE OF SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM.
* Development of a scientific atmosphere during the last three centuries
* Action of modern science in reconstruction of religious truth
* Change wrought by it in the conception of a sacred literature
* Of the Divine Power
* Of man
* Of the world at large
* Of our Bible
A few years later came another testimony even more striking. Early in the last decade of the nineteenth century it was noised abroad that the Rev. Professor Sayce, of Oxford, the most eminent Assyriologist and Egyptologist of Great Britain, was about to publish a work in which what is known as the ``higher criticism’’ was to be vigorously and probably destructively dealt with in the light afforded by recent research among the monuments of Assyria and Egypt.
The book was looked for with eager expectation by the supporters of the traditional view of Scripture; but, when it appeared, the exultation of the traditionalists was speedily changed to dismay. For Prof. Sayce, while showing some severity toward sundry minor assumptions and assertions of biblical critics, confirmed all their more important conclusions which properly fell within his province.
While his readers soon realized that these assumptions and assertions of overzealous critics no more disproved the main results of biblical criticism than the wild guesses of Kepler disproved the theory of Copernicus, or the discoveries of Galileo, or even the great laws which bear Kepler’s own name, they found new mines sprung under some of the most lofty fortresses of the old dogmatic theology. A few of the statements of this champion of orthodoxy may be noted.
He allowed that the week of seven days and the Sabbath rest are of Babylonian origin; indeed, that the very word Sabbath'' is Babylonian; that there are two narratives of Creation on the Babylonian tablets, wonderfully like the two leading Hebrew narratives in Genesis, and that the latter were undoubtedly drawn from the former; that the garden of Eden’’ and its mystical tree were known to the inhabitants of Chaldea in pre-Semitic days; that the beliefs that woman was created out of man, and that man by sin fell from a state of innocence, are drawn from very ancient Chaldean-Babylonian texts; that Assyriology confirms the belief that the book Genesis is a compilation; that portions of it are by no means so old as the time of Moses; that the expression in our sacred book, The Lord smelled a sweet savour'' at the sacrifice made by Noah, is identical with that of the Babylonian poet’‘; that ``it is impossible to believe that the language of the latter was not known to the biblical writer’’ and that the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife was drawn in part from the old Egyptian tale of The Two Brothers.
Finally, after a multitude of other concessions, Prof. Sayce allowed that the book of Jonah, so far from being the work of the prophet himself, can not have been written until the Assyrian Empire was a thing of the past; that the book of Daniel contains serious mistakes; that the so-called historical chapters of that book so conflict with the monuments that the author can not have been a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus; that the story of Belshazzar's fall is not historical''; that the Belshazzar referred to in it as king, and as the son of Nehuchadnezzar, was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and was never king; that King Darius the Mede,‘’ who plays so great a part in the story, never existed; that the book associates persons and events really many years apart, and that it must have been written at a period far later than the time assigned in it for its own origin.
There’s at least another 10 days of reading about all of this in the link above.
Egyptologists have also translated for us the old Nile story of The Two Brothers, and have shown, as we have already seen, that one of the most striking parts of our sacred Joseph legend was drawn from it; they have been obliged to admit that the story of the exposure of Moses in the basket of rushes, his rescue, and his subsequent greatness, had been previously told, long before Moses’s time, not only of King Sargon, but of various other great personages of the ancient world; they have published plans of Egyptian temples and copies of the sculptures upon their walls, revealing the earlier origin of some of the most striking features of the worship and ceremonial claimed to have been revealed especially to the Hebrews; they have found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and in various inscriptions of the Nile temples and tombs, earlier sources of much in the ethics so long claimed to have been revealed only to the chosen people in the Book of the Covenant, in the ten commandments, and elsewhere; they have given to the world copies of the Egyptian texts showing that the theology of the Nile was one of various fruitful sources of later ideas, statements, and practices regarding the brazen serpent, the golden calf, trinities, miraculous conceptions, incarnations, resurrections, ascensions, and the like, and that Egyptian sacro-scientific ideas contributed to early Jewish and Christian sacred literature statements, beliefs, and even phrases regarding the Creation, astronomy, geography, magic, medicine, diabolical influences, with a multitude of other ideas, which we also find coming into early Judaism in greater or less degree from Chaldean and Persian sources.
So people get pissed when you mess with their favorite bedtime stories.
That does not even come close to what allegedly happened to Galilei but didnt.
What we are looking for here though is “hundreds of cases” where “scientific discoveries have been opposed and nearly squashed by a religious body, starting with Galileo discovering that the planets travel around the sun”.
If most of those cases touched on bible exegesis, well, yes, religion kind of got involved.
Somehow I doubt that what you meant with your original assertion is that a catholic Scholar disputed that Zebediah the Elder spoke Sumerian or some such.
So people get pissed when you mess with their favorite bedtime stories.
That does not even come close to what allegedly happened to Galilei but didnt.
What we are looking for here though is “hundreds of cases” where “scientific discoveries have been opposed and nearly squashed by a religious body, starting with Galileo discovering that the planets travel around the sun”.
If most of those cases touched on bible exegesis, well, yes, religion kind of got involved.
Somehow I doubt that what you meant with your original assertion is that a catholic Scholar disputed that Zebediah the Elder spoke Sumerian or some such. [/quote]
Read the whole outline on the first link. Plenty of cases of religion directly opposing release of scientific findings of everything from the age of the earth, to what makes lightening, to sanitation, to inoculation, mental illness… I am tired man. Read the link.
Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]
No.
God is by definition untestable. [/quote]
Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?
Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]
Well that’s not God, that’s miracles and provided you have access to them you can test them to one degree or another. There is one in particular that comes to mind and it has been tested, but I am loathed to discuss it with you as I sense you’ll jump on any chance to make mockery.[/quote]
Well, if there is evidence of miracles then that would substantiate the existence of a supernatural power, right? I bet it would be easier to prove the existence of Bigfoot, or Nessie, or Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny, etc.
[/quote]
I didn’t give you those links purely for the purpose of being a smart ass. They actually contained the information you needed to not make the statement above. The nucleus of it is based on the cosmological argument from contingency. You can do you’re own research because I’ll just copy and paste. I have argued it so much I really don’t feel I need to type it out in my own words. Look at the argument, understand what it says and why it says what it says, then you will understand the difference between that and a fairy tale as you posit God is. Just because you haven’t bother to look at any arguments or evidence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it means you drew an ill informed conclusion.
No shit? Really?
[quote]
however was on the other side of the fence and fully Christian & have a sound feel for that viewpoint. I have had “experiences” of my own. I have come to terms with those in a non super natural way but yet a still unexplained format… Lots of things we dont understand or “see”. Doesnt mean its supernatural or deity. [/quote]
Based on what you said and your weak grasp of the subject matter, I have serious doubts about what you just said. I could never prove it of course. Perhaps you were on the cusp in like a in a Larry Flynt sort of way. I don’t see you have a Christian understanding of any of this…at all.
What do you need explained that hasn’t been? Like I said, the info is out there. Ignoring it doesn’t count. If you were really interested you would have found it.
I did and I certainly am nothing special.[/quote]
Wasn’t being a smart ass… seen no “links”. You must have me confused with someone else.[/quote]
You skimmed. I said I was being a smart ass, as I was. Here are the links I presented earlier. They are not everything, but is gives you a very good back ground to the argument form. It makes it clear that aside from scripture, religion and everything else ‘divinly’ revealed, you still have to deduce a Necessary Being.
We are on different wavelengths of a discussion…and I have no interest in discussing metaphysics or philosophy. If that is one’s proof of a “God”, so be it. The idea of a “God” when studied scientifically is indeed plausible. But, super natural deity…
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes. >>>[/quote]As soon as you can tell me why YOU are certain that 2+2=4, something else you say may actually have some meaningful content. I really miss Elder Forlife. WHERE ARE YA MAN?!?!?!?! These people need yer help. Even I didn’t realize how good he really is. He should found an international school for skeptics. Nobody I’ve ever known has been more right while being more wrong than him. I honestly do not mean this as an insult my sweet, but you are waaay behind.
Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.
[/quote]
Friend, you have some of the most foundational scientific answers today due to the work of god-believing folk, long before you were born.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty interesting point.
I think I remember reading Darwin struggled with his Christian beliefs when he uncovered evolution.[/quote]
I have to look that up. I cannot see what discovering Evolution had to do with Christian belief and why that would invalidate the other.[/quote]
The field of biology initially started as the study of god’s creation. The idea was, because god created nature, understanding it would bring you closer to god.
So every discovery that’s been made which opposes what you find in a Bible was most likely set into motion by someone who started researching with the goal of trying to know god better through his works.
It’s incredibly ironic that religion now views science, especially biology, as a threat. It’s even more ironic that less people are religious because of science. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and never seeing it coming.[/quote]
A threat? LOL!
Where the hell did you get that notion? Unbelievable. Don’t let facts get in the way you hate filled bigotry.
Apparently you don’t know shit about religion except what you read on those idiotic atheist propaganda websites. Besides, if atheism isn’t a belief, why does it need propaganda in the first place?
I do find it irronic that all you little atheists all say the same thing like you all read the same book, but them claim it’s about 'independent thought. But you all babble on about fair tales, Sky God, Magic Sky fairy and yes the inevitable and venerable flying spaghetti monster.
There is no conflict between religion and science. Save for some little out post sects on the outskirts of Christianity. Plenty of scientists also happen to be Christian.
But no, go on being complete ignorant and to you little ignorant hate filled rants, despite the fact that they have no basis in fact.
OR, maybe you should do some research and find out what verious religions really believe before you come here and say stupid shit that has no validy…
“Oooooooo, look at me! I can copy and paste from atheist web sites and mock these stupid Christians. I am soooo smart and they are like sooooo stupid!”
[/quote]
Wow that touched a nerve didn’t it?!
Let’s look at the assumptions you just made:
[/quote]
Assumptions I made? Like the ones where you said that science is a big, bad scary monster to religion? But ok, I’ll play.
Hmm, so ok, you don’t hate it, you just mock it proclaim the stupidity of Christians based on, uh, love? Forgive me if that sounds disingenious. Further, I didn’t say you ‘hate religion’, I said your a ‘hate filled bigot’. A bigot being someone who discriminates and thinks less of people based on misconceptions and ignorance which you are clearly displaying.
Let me break it down for you, you see, you cannot draw any sort of conclusion of a mythical creature to solve deductive issues. You have this idiotic idea, we (Christians) just read the bible and ‘Whamo!’ we believe it like a Harry Potter book, or some other fictional book. We just arbitrarily assign it to be sacred.
This is where you are a bigot, because you do not understand that, nor can you be bothered to do a little research. There is a logic behind it as well, and once you understand that, then you can begin to understand what religion is about. But no, it’s a made up fairy tale even though it’s not.
Oh so it’s all about you? If your comparing God to Santa Claus and saying how it’s a fairy tale, pardon me, but your full of shit. But it’s all about you I suppose.
I didn’t read the website since I already believe that evolutionary science is good science and well founded, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that the current universe likely was the result of an explosion from about 13-15 billion years ago. But earlier, you did in fact post athiest propaganda as I have seen those sites before. You know the whole ‘flying spaghetti monster’ bullshit you tried to peddle as if it were something new.
It’s interesting as well that you mentioned, Catholics as separate from Christians? First, I am Catholic; second, we were the Origional Christians. All the other sects brached out from us.
So your argument for this is that hundreds of years ago, when the affairs of the church, state and pretty much all things were mixed together, some people thought that some scientific discoveries were frowned upon so that’s just the way it is forever?
I went to a Catholic high school that’s where I first learned about evolution.
So by that logic we can go ahead and say science is full of shit too. Because along time ago, it thought the Earth was flat.
Not one of those things nor any newer theories are a problem for religion. Hell, there’s plenty of scientists who also happen to be Christian as well. To think that science is a threat to religion is another sign of your ignorance.
What kind of horseshit are you trying to feed me now? You were being deliberately insulting and arrogant and you are making assumptions about what I believe and attacking that. Don’t give me that happy crap that I took it wrong. I ‘attacked’ you? I gave what I received. You cannot go around saying “You guys believe in fairy tales and God is like the flying spaghetti monsters, you’re stupid”. And then come back and say that’s not what you meant or that you meant it in the best possible way. Your Jedi mind trick won’t work on me.
Rather than getting to the heart of the matter, i.e. does God exist and is there any point of worshiping he, she and/or it. You get all personal. “You attacked me”, well, no shit. You didn’t start any kind of dialog looking for honest discourse, you went out to prove how very stupid we Christians are and how very smart you atheists are because you can’t sense God with your 5 senses, so he must not exist.
“Oh my God!” scratch that… “Oh my nothing! You used derogatory language!” Really? Apparently, you can dish it, but you cannot take it.
Why the hell would I go look for a ‘Christian’ web page on the topic of evolution discussing it as a science? I am not sure what you think that would prove at all. However, if your interested, here is a link to an article that discusses how evolution theory in not in conflict with Christianity.
Please tell me what evidence you based your decision to believe in Catholicism on? BTW, I will never tell you for sure that god DOESN’T exist, but I do know for sure that you can’t know for sure, so anyone who says that they do obviously used faulty logic to make such a claim. I also know that there are older religions then Christianity and Catholicism and that people lived before even the oldest religions we know about came into existence, so I do not believe that those religions are anything other than another made-up answer about a topic humanity has always wondered about.
[/quote]
Well it depends on which angle you want to take, but for atheists/ agnostics, I usually use cosmology. It’s a deductive argument form. The one i rely on is the cosmological argument from the point of contingency. Aristotle first introduced the argument, St. Thomas Aquinas perfected it, and it’s maintained it’s existence unrefuted for a couple thousand years and not because it hasn’t been tried. This is an argument for the existence of God, not Catholicism per se, but you cannot put the cart before the horse. If you don’t believe in God religion makes no sense.
But if you believe in God, you believe in God as the Hebrews understood him, and you believe Jesus said is who he said he was, then Catholicism is really the most logical choice. Catholicism is the only Christian faith that can trace it’s roots directly to Matthew 16:18. Before the splintering off of Christian sects, there was only one church so it wasn’t call anything back then. All Christian sects trace their roots to Catholicism, and Catholicism can trace it’s roots to the words right out of the mouth of Jesus himself.
Now unlike ,ahem, others, I will not quote you a bunch of random scripture so you can wipe your ass with it. I think that does the Word an injustice.
Please do shut the hell up with this dishonest shit.
I never supported teaching that religion and science are the same thing at all much less replacing one another. They are different disciplines all together. I think science should be studied with the utmost determination and vigor and the results, not opinions should be the guide of where it goes next. I damn sure ain’t afraid of science. It does more to prove my points than it ever would destroy them.
You don’t necessarily think I am stupid? LOL! That’s an interesting way of calling someone stupid.
Now please do shut the fuck up about the fact that you mock and make fun of Christians and please do humor me by doing it and then telling me it’s not what it seems. I may be stupid, but I am not that stupid.
Well it seems to me your the one making assumptions here, I am telling you that what you think is the case, is not the case. I even provided an article that showed that evolution is no threat what so ever. That people using ‘evolution’ and as a spike in the spokes of Christianity is really slaying a strawman. It’s an issue that doesn’t exist, save for fringe elements. But there are backward people every where, Christian and not, like your a fore mentioned friend. Yes, some Christians are backwards and close minded, but I have met far more close minded atheists. Most cannot handle anything rattling the ‘antigod’ cage. Fear of being wrong I suspect.
Saying that believing in God is like believing in the flying spaghetti monster is not arguing against giving religion equal footing with science. That’s a statement to mock and make ridiculous a belief in God. So you are lying.
Second, I would never argue that science and religion are similar or one is like the other. One isn’t equal with another. One is an observation about the physical world the other is a metaphysical discipline to interact with that on which all that exists is dependent. Perhaps, you cannot interact with it, and we our fooling our selves, but my personal experience says different. What you cannot say or prove, say ultimate dependence does not exist.
To be a proper athist, you should talk to Kamui. He did not have to change the nature of existence to fit in to his paradigm. He simply doesn’t beleive you can interact with that Necessary Being. I do, can, and I get results, none that I could convince you of.
Personal experience is not good evidence for others, just yourself.
