Why Did God Create......

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
881

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Zooguido wrote:
I suppose I should have made a new paragraph seeing as how it’s impossible to realize the fact that Galileo was alive 400 years ago which is only like what 1600 years difference from 2000 years so there’s absolutely no way i could have been talking about anything else oops sorry.

In all seriousness, no, that’s not what I was saying.

I’m saying if the Church hadn’t tried to quell knowledge that our civilization as whole would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we already are.[/quote]

You mean telling a scientist to stop claiming theory as fact?

Please provide proof to your positive claim.[/quote]

ROFLMAO.

You seriously mean to imply that the Earth is the center of the Universe? I haven’t laughed this hard in ages.

Tell me more.

882

[quote]kamui wrote:
-over-estimate the achievements of the late roman empire.
-under-estimate the achievements of the medieval era.[/quote]

“European technical advancements in the 12th to 14th centuries were either built on long-established techniques in medieval Europe, originating from Roman and Byzantine antecedents, or adapted from cross-cultural exchanges through trading networks with the Islamic world, China, and India.”

Copy pasta w/E.

883

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
^ Someone who had money?[/quote]

Starts with a C. Rhymes with Katholic Church.[/quote]

Only in some cases (most famous being Michaelangelo and the Sistine Chapel).

Most of the time, wealthy nobleman would be patrons of sculptors, musicians, painters, etc in order to have them dedicate art in their name. It wasn’t always the Catholic Church. It rarely was, really.

The most famous patron of those being Cosimo de Medici:
“Cosimo was also noted for his patronage of culture and the arts, liberally spending the family fortune (which his astute business sense considerably increased) to enrich Florence. According to Salviati’s Zibaldone, Cosimo stated: “All those things have given me the greatest satisfaction and contentment because they are not only for the honor of God but are likewise for my own remembrance. For fifty years, I have done nothing else but earn money and spend money; and it became clear that spending money gives me greater pleasure than earning it.””

You’d probably argue that they were dedicated to god. No shit, everything was dedicated to god in those days otherwise you’d be considered pompous, self-serving, heretical and subsequently hanged. You could likewise argue that he is, in fact, a pompous, self-serving heretic but you can’t dispute the fact that he was not part of the Church but at the same time the biggest patron in the Renaissance.

884

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Zooguido wrote:
While it can be said that the Reformation begins with Wycliffe (1350s), it truly doesn’t begin until Martin Luther’s 95 Theses on the Efficacy of Indulgences (1500).

At which point the Renaissance had already begun.

And you do realize that the Renaissance began because the people saw the rampant corruption and hedonistic nature of the Church at the time, right? So, yes, you can attribute the Church as one of the main factors to the beginning of the Renaissance but only from a negative standpoint.

The Renaissance began with Petrarch who was, in essence, the father of Humanism (pursuit of logic, poetry, art, ethics, history, etc [becoming one with the human side of man]). In addition, Petrarch was the first to coin the term “dark ages”, which, indeed, indicates there was in fact a period of time where knowledge was forsaken. He was the one, not the Church, who urged the resurrection of old ways from Greece and Rome.

He wrote a series of “letters” to dead people complaining about the time period he lived in and how it was so devoid of any decent people and morals. The one that sticks out in my mind is his letter to Cicero. And Boccaccio (author of The Decameron [incredible book]).

You really don’t know much about the Renaissance if you think the Church spurred its beginnings.[/quote]

I agree with much of what you posted.[/quote]

Then how can you say that the Reformation spurred the Renaissance when it was already underway and the Reformation came later ROFL. If anything it was the Renaissance that spurred the Reformation.

FYI, Petrarch wrote his letters in 1372. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses were written in 1517.

The reason I consider Petrarch the father of Humanism is because he was the first to lay down those ideas. All Dante did was write his Divine Comedy (reason can only get you so far [sola fide, etc etc]) and talk about religious crap. Petrarch was the true humanist who believed in bettering oneself on the whole.

885

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

oh, i suppose it may looks like this… if you
-over-estimate the achievements of the late roman empire.
-under-estimate the achievements of the medieval era.
-use an extremely blurry chronology.
-conveniently forget the barbarian invasions AND DISEASES and the fall of the roman empire.
-really think than the “grip of Christianity” loosened during the Renaissance.

then yes, i suppose you can start to see some correlation. but still no causation.[/quote]

I agree completely.

  • I added something to your post.[/quote]

On the topic of the black death, you should read The Decameron. Written ~1350-1352, one of my favorite literary works.

886

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I didn’t suggest that. Read my posts carefully.

[/quote]

Well I’m glad you’re not suggesting this.

No, you made the claim. I haven’t seen any evidence of this and from what I’ve read it looks like everybody else carried on as per usual during this time.

So, here I present you a near perfect correlation that follows both historically and logically, but because you don’t like the answer you cover your ears and say “Noooooooooo it must be a complex mix of many nearly unmeasurable factors that have nothing to do with my religion! Perhaps you can lay some blame on those Catholics, but not on MY religion!”

You wouldn’t make this kind of mental jump for anything else. You’re thinking with emotions, not logic.

887

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I’m amused that you find labelling the atheist community as a “church” to be an insult. It’s almost as though you recognize the lunacy of organized religion.

[/quote]

I don’t use it as an insult but rather as an accurate description.

However, as I have mentioned before (on this thread I think, on others for sure) organized religion to a large extent is man made. Men are sinners, fallible, fuckups if you will (look into the doctrine of original sin). God is none of those things.

Therefore organized religion is susceptible to all the foibles that men are.

An adherence to organized religion is not the answer. An adherence to God is.[/quote]

The Catholics would disagree with you. Maybe we should ask God what he thinks of his Church? Lemme know his answer, he doesn’t return my calls.

Though, how do you define religion? In your own words, of course.

888

Some reposts top save typing:

[quote]Epistemology is the area where this debate actually takes place even if many on all sides don’t consciously realize it. One’s foundational, preeminent, presupposition concerning HOW we know anything dictates much of the content and all of the interpretation of every other particle (and sub atomic particle) of “knowledge” acquired.
Epistemology is all about faith and everybody has it. It’s only a matter of what in.[/quote]
and[quote]
Nothing makes ultimate sense until one assumes by faith the triune Deity of the Bible and once this assumption is made, everything does. Everything, including philosophical questions going back thousands of years such as the problem of the one and the many for instance. This will never mean that created beings will ever share the omniscience of the infinite Creator as this cannot be accomplished, even by God who is subject only to his own nature and as such cannot be replicated. We will never know everything as he does.

However, the pursuit of knowledge is good and right as it continually reveals more and more of the unfathomable depths of his majesty and power even by in and to those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that’s what’s happening. In some cases ESPECIALLY by in and to those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that’s what’s happening. Where some claim to find irrefutable proof of his non existence, I find an ever expanding empirical catalog of his mind numbing “eternal power and Godhead” Romans 1. [/quote] and [quote]2+2 does not equal 4 without God because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount the very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him. They can’t help it.

Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.

Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim what they fallaciously perceive as the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. (I’m lookin at you elder forlife) I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.

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.

THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place.[/quote]

889

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Some reposts top save typing:

[quote]Epistemology is the area where this debate actually takes place even if many on all sides don’t consciously realize it. One’s foundational, preeminent, presupposition concerning HOW we know anything dictates much of the content and all of the interpretation of every other particle (and sub atomic particle) of “knowledge” acquired.
Epistemology is all about faith and everybody has it. It’s only a matter of what in.[/quote]
and[quote]
Nothing makes ultimate sense until one assumes by faith the triune Deity of the Bible and once this assumption is made, everything does. Everything, including philosophical questions going back thousands of years such as the problem of the one and the many for instance. This will never mean that created beings will ever share the omniscience of the infinite Creator as this cannot be accomplished, even by God who is subject only to his own nature and as such cannot be replicated. We will never know everything as he does.

However, the pursuit of knowledge is good and right as it continually reveals more and more of the unfathomable depths of his majesty and power even by in and to those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that’s what’s happening. In some cases ESPECIALLY by in and to those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that’s what’s happening. Where some claim to find irrefutable proof of his non existence, I find an ever expanding empirical catalog of his mind numbing “eternal power and Godhead” Romans 1. [/quote] and [quote]2+2 does not equal 4 without God because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount the very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him. They can’t help it.

Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.

Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim what they fallaciously perceive as the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. (I’m lookin at you elder forlife) I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.

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.

THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place.[/quote]

[/quote]

Then there’s no point in arguing with any of you. This is pointless. I’m done. Out. Bye.

894

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I didn’t suggest that. Read my posts carefully.

[/quote]

Well I’m glad you’re not suggesting this.

No, you made the claim. I haven’t seen any evidence of this and from what I’ve read it looks like everybody else carried on as per usual during this time.

So, here I present you a near perfect correlation that follows both historically and logically, but because you don’t like the answer you cover your ears and say “Noooooooooo it must be a complex mix of many nearly unmeasurable factors that have nothing to do with my religion! Perhaps you can lay some blame on those Catholics, but not on MY religion!”

You wouldn’t make this kind of mental jump for anything else. You’re thinking with emotions, not logic.
[/quote]

Yep, that’s gotta be it. You are such a clever boy.[/quote]

Thanks, it was nothing, really. =)

895

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’m certain they do. Wanna fight about it?

[/quote]

Well, we could wait for a catholic to tell us what they think about their church… now that I think about it, where did they all go?

Actually, it seems it was never connected. Check my PS a few pages back.

And that includes the atheist community… how?

897

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Actually, it seems it was never connected. Check my PS a few pages back.

[/quote]

Oh it was connected alright; it’s just that at the age of 13 and after watching a movie you went and yanked the wires out of the wall.
[/quote]

So how old does a person have to be before their search matters to God? Also note that I came back around a few years later. Was I still not worth God’s time then? Who is worth God’s time?

898

[quote]Zooguido wrote:
ROFLMAO.

You seriously mean to imply that the Earth is the center of the Universe? I haven’t laughed this hard in ages.

Tell me more.[/quote]

Is that what I said? I am quite shocked at myself; I obviously lack the ability to say what I mean and for my own words to mean something they don’t actually mean. At once I am an illiterate and a wordsmith.

899

[quote]Zooguido wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
^ Someone who had money?[/quote]

Starts with a C. Rhymes with Katholic Church.[/quote]

Only in some cases (most famous being Michaelangelo and the Sistine Chapel).

Most of the time, wealthy nobleman would be patrons of sculptors, musicians, painters, etc in order to have them dedicate art in their name. It wasn’t always the Catholic Church. It rarely was, really.

The most famous patron of those being Cosimo de Medici:
“Cosimo was also noted for his patronage of culture and the arts, liberally spending the family fortune (which his astute business sense considerably increased) to enrich Florence. According to Salviati’s Zibaldone, Cosimo stated: “All those things have given me the greatest satisfaction and contentment because they are not only for the honor of God but are likewise for my own remembrance. For fifty years, I have done nothing else but earn money and spend money; and it became clear that spending money gives me greater pleasure than earning it.””

You’d probably argue that they were dedicated to god. No shit, everything was dedicated to god in those days otherwise you’d be considered pompous, self-serving, heretical and subsequently hanged. You could likewise argue that he is, in fact, a pompous, self-serving heretic but you can’t dispute the fact that he was not part of the Church but at the same time the biggest patron in the Renaissance.[/quote]

Yes, I studied Renaissance Art History. Thanks, that is why I believe I said, “one of the biggest.”

And the biggest patron was actual the Medici family itself. Though Galileo was given claim to revenue from the Church for his research.

900

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christianity is what God gave us. Religion is what man made of it.
[/quote]

Yes, Jesus, Son of Man, did give us our religion. A great religion, Catholicism. :wink: