Lost faith

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, in the absense of divine intervention we are all our own masters and hold to our own subjective truths. Within Christianity, there is as much disagreement about "truth" as their is elsewhere, as evidenced through regular and often violent conflict. Resolution can be achieved through consensus or coercion, where the latter option is increasingly seen as socially unacceptable.

I'm not really interested in whether Christians disagree on many things; that's a given since we are sinners just like anyone else. The question is whether truth exists outside of us and irrespective of whether we agree with it or not, or whether we make it up as we go along.

From my perspective, not only does such truth exist, but he has revealed himself to us, loves us, and died to save us. There is nothing better in the world than that to live for.

I also don't believe that anyone really believes that we can all make up truth as we go along. I think it's truer to say that we make up our truth, and expect others to fall into line with it.

smacl

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

So you've a disregard for morality. Everyone has a degree of morality at some level. A point at which something is just plain wrong.
Show me the evidence to the contrary.

I assume you've stats to back up your claim regarding the majority. I await your evidence.

In terms of stats and a majority, the most obvious examples here are the recent referendums. For example, the Catholic church stated their position as pro-life yet the majority of people voted for pro-choice largely on the basis of simple human decency. i.e. they made a moral decision contrary to declared Catholic dogma. The same was true for same sex marriage. It is abundantly clear that in today's society people's notion of morality centres around kindness, human decency, tolerance, fair play and egalitarianism where religious concerns come much further down the list for most.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Again, I never said that democracy hasn't done anything for us. We've made massive material progress, and in some ways our outward behaviour has improved. But we are just as selfish, greedy etc. as at any other time in the past. In fact, it could be argued that we have facilitated our prosperity in the West at the expense of the rest of the world; in that case we've just outsourced a lot of the misery that used to be experienced here.

I don't think we've outsourced our misery at all, more so that we have much greater visibility of the plight of others that we simply didn't have previously. We have replaced military imperialism with economic imperialism and in my opinion the problem here is unchecked capitalism rather than democracy. This is nothing new but something we're becoming increasingly aware of and beginning to face up to.

Garden of Eden, before the fall? There isn't a golden age when things were better, and all the democratic freedom and material prosperity in the world isn't going to change basic human nature.

With respect, that is not a point in history so much as a piece of Christian mythology that is not considered literally true other than by those who deny evolution. Even if it were, the satisfaction or not of two people is hardly representative of anything. I'm also not looking for a golden age, simply a point in history when things were better, thus indicating a lack of progress.

Why would you think that Christians aren't concerned with human decency and kindness? It's just that we think there is more to human flourishing than being kind, experiencing material prosperity and having the right to vote.

I think you've got me wrong, I think that by and large Christians are kind and decent as are most people irrespective of their religion. I'm also of the opinion that most people in this country are Christian, on the basis that they say they are, but their morality by and large does not derive from scripture or religious dogma as yours does.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I don't think we've outsourced our misery at all, more so that we have much greater visibility of the plight of others that we simply didn't have previously. We have replaced military imperialism with economic imperialism and in my opinion the problem here is unchecked capitalism rather than democracy. This is nothing new but something we're becoming increasingly aware of and beginning to face up to.

Sincerely, I think it is a good thing to be compassionate and to want to make the world a better place, regardless of where that impulse comes from. At least we recognise that there is a problem. I just don't think that politics, economics, education or anything else we can come up with is going to have the kind of impact you're looking for, and are always going to lead to disappointment.

In spiritual terms, we're not a fixer-upper. We are dead and what we need is salvation and new life. That's something that would really change the world. I get that you think it's make believe nonsense, so I guess we need to agree to disagree. But I do think that human wickedness is probably the only Christian doctrine that can be empirically proven

smacl wrote: »

With respect, that is not a point in history so much as a piece of Christian mythology that is not considered literally true other than by those who deny evolution. Even if it were, the satisfaction or not of two people is hardly representative of anything. I'm also not looking for a golden age, simply a point in history when things were better, thus indicating a lack of progress.

As regards human nature and society, I take an Ecclesiastes point of view - as things have been, so they will always be. If we're looking for real hope, we need to look outside of ourselves and outside of the world for it.

smacl wrote: »

I think you've got me wrong, I think that by and large Christians are kind and decent as are most people irrespective of their religion. I'm also of the opinion that most people in this country are Christian, on the basis that they say they are, but their morality by and large does not derive from scripture or religious dogma as yours does.

Sure, we all have to get our morality from somewhere. My simple contention is that it is better to go to the source rather than to look inside ourselves.

smacl

As you say, probably best to agree to disagree at this point. I'll probably leave it at that for now on that basis. Thanks again for the conversation which has been enjoyable.

Leroy42

Go to the source? For which we have no evidence of its existence and the only thing on which to base any opinion, the bible, paints the morality of god as vengeful, murderous, uncaring, lacking empathy and cruel. But if you do exactly as he says he will be nice, but don't dare step out of line.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

In terms of stats and a majority, the most obvious examples here are the recent referendums. For example, the Catholic church stated their position as pro-life yet the majority of people voted for pro-choice largely on the basis of simple human decency. i.e. they made a moral decision contrary to declared Catholic dogma. The same was true for same sex marriage. It is abundantly clear that in today's society people's notion of morality centres around kindness, human decency, tolerance, fair play and egalitarianism where religious concerns come much further down the list for most.

So killing unborn children is "kind, decent, moral, fair play".. that's a new one on me.
What were we blaming God on again?

Leroy42

God has been doing that since the beginning.

How many miscarriages has he allowed happen? How many children have died in childbirth. What is infant mortality rate now compared to when Jesus was born?

Don't come on trying to claim higher morality for your god when you fail to deal with his appalling record in terms of death and slaughter.

Abortion is a lose-lose situation, we are trying to do the best we can given the issue. It would be so easy if we were all powerful and could do anything like your god could but apparently chooses not to bother because of a free will clause he sometimes cares about.

smacl

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

So killing unborn children is "kind, decent, moral, fair play".. that's a new one on me.
What were we blaming God on again?

Happily most people in this country can distinguish between a first trimester fetus and an "unborn child" whatever that may or may not be. Nothing that hasn't already been covered ad nauseam on the abortion threads here and on the A&A forum which is probably the better place for such discussion.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

Happily most people in this country can distinguish between a first trimester fetus and an "unborn child" whatever that may or may not be. Nothing that hasn't already been covered ad nauseam on the abortion threads here and on the A&A forum which is probably the better place for such discussion.

Why do you think the agnostic and athiest forum is a better place to discuss the killing of unwanted babies than here.

An interesting reflection on a godless generation and their regard for life.
By the way...you were the one who brought it up..not me

smacl

[HTML][/HTML]

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Why do you think the agnostic and athiest forum is a better place to discuss the killing of unwanted babies than here.

An interesting reflection on a godless generation and their regard for life.
By the way...you were the one who brought it up..not me

I said threads 'here or on the A&A forum', there are active threads on both and it seems off-topic for this one. And you're the only one talking about killing unwanted babies, which seems extreme by any standards.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]

I said threads 'here or on the A&A forum', there are active threads on both and it seems off-topic for this one. And you're the only one talking about killing unwanted babies, which seems extreme by any standards.

You're the one who mentioned "pro choice". I assume you meant abortion and not save the whale! You can call it what you want but it's definitely not decent or moral by any stretch of the imagination...but do carry on in your delusion.

Leroy42

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

You're the one who mentioned "pro choice". I assume you meant abortion and not save the whale! You can call it what you want but it's definitely not decent or moral by any stretch of the imagination...but do carry on in your delusion.

Any answer for why your apparently moral god allows such widespread levels of miscarriages? And how it has been down to science that we can now care for pregnancies so much better than in the past such that infant mortality rates have declined?

Cabaal

Leroy42 wrote: »

Any answer for why your apparently moral god allows such widespread levels of miscarriages? And how it has been down to science that we can now care for pregnancies so much better than in the past such that infant mortality rates have declined?

Not just miscarriages, there was a high level of deaths of the mother and/or baby during and after birth. Doesn't seem very moral.

Thankfully science has massively improved this through better medical care and support.

When my dad was a child knowing a family that lost a baby after it was born was very common, these days in comparison it's rare. And that's only within the last 80 to 90 years! Prior to that infant mortality rates were even higher.

Given religious organisations brought us mother and baby homes and dumping bodies in a septic tank in Ireland I find it a bit rich to be lectured on morality, your god couldn't even stop its own "men and women of god" from raping children, failing to care for them and dumping their bodies.

But the churchs pocketed a fair few IR£ so it's grand, to this day they benefit from that money earned from suffering.

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

Not just miscarriages, there was a high level of deaths of the mother and/or baby during and after birth. Doesn't seem very moral.

Thankfully science has massively improved this through better medical care and support.

When my dad was a child knowing a family that lost a baby after it was born was very common, these days in comparison it's rare. And that's only within the last 80 to 90 years! Prior to that infant mortality rates were even higher.

Given religious organisations brought us mother and baby homes and dumping bodies in a septic tank in Ireland I find it a bit rich to be lectured on morality, your god couldn't even stop its own "men and women of god" from raping children, failing to care for them and dumping their bodies.

But the churchs pocketed a fair few IR£ so it's grand, to this day they benefit from that money earned from suffering.

Your making the assumption that they were God's men and women. I'd disagree with you on this one.

I love the outrage over miscarriages and still births etc when you've no problems with the medics killing those same children and people voting for it's legalization in the name of decency and morals. Where's your outrage now?

It seems very schizophrenic to be waving your fists at a God you claim doesnt exist and blaming Him for all that goes on in the world.
I blame the people who do it and them having freewill and the outworking of sin in lives. People have to take responsibility for what they do or would you just rather blame your non existent God for it all and absolve yourself of responsibility and culpability.

Leroy42

You blame people for miscarriages and still births?

smacl

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

You're the one who mentioned "pro choice". I assume you meant abortion and not save the whale! You can call it what you want but it's definitely not decent or moral by any stretch of the imagination...but do carry on in your delusion.

Yet your opinion of the pro-choice stance is contrary to that of most people, and most Christians, in this country. Many, if not most of whom, consider the pro-life position morally reprehensible and deeply offensive. And yes, I know those Christians who disagree with your point of view aren't 'real' Christians in your book, but I daresay they might say the same about you.

The reason for bringing the pro-choice outcome of the recent referendum into this discussion was to illustrate that morality has moved on considerably from the anachronistic biblical notions handed out by a male patriarchy.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

You blame people for miscarriages and still births?

I never said that.

My wife having experienced a miscarriage, we didn't go blaming God. 1 in 4 pregnant women miscarry for all sorts of reasons.
It's much easier to go with the biblical reason for sin and death in the world.
Should I blame God for my having needed a new heart valve. I'm just amazed that men had the skill to replace it but I know that I'm alive by His hand and He holds my breath and determines my days.

All the ranting and raving of people here reminded me of what the pslamist asked..."why do the nation's rage against God and His Anointed One?". ...this is nothing new but do carry on

Leroy42

So god is the reason for everything good and man and sin are to blame for everything bad?

That leaves a few possibilities. God cannot control evil. In which case we should be looking to assuage the god of evil rather than the impotent God of good.

God can control everything, good and evil, but chooses not to. If this is the case then question must be asked why he chooses to for some and not others.

Is the child who dies in still birth at fault, or perhaps the parents? And why one child but not the other?

It has nothing to do with ranting and raving. You are making statements about your god and I am trying to work through the clear conflicts in those statements.

These are not merely arguments points, these are clear areas of potential conflict in a belief of god, that I for one, have struggled with and failed to find a reasonable answer.

'Just because' isn't enough for me.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

So god is the reason for everything good and man and sin are to blame for everything bad?

That leaves a few possibilities. God cannot control evil. In which case we should be looking to assuage the god of evil rather than the impotent God of good.

God can control everything, good and evil, but chooses not to. If this is the case then question must be asked why he chooses to for some and not others.

Is the child who dies in still birth at fault, or perhaps the parents? And why one child but not the other?

It has nothing to do with ranting and raving. You are making statements about your god and I am trying to work through the clear conflicts in those statements.

These are not merely arguments points, these are clear areas of potential conflict in a belief of god, that I for one, have struggled with and failed to find a reasonable answer.

'Just because' isn't enough for me.

You've left out freewill, unless you want to be a robot and you've left out personal accountability for wrongdoing ( let's call it sin).

Is a person responsible for a child being miscarried...no, never said that was the case ..but death in the human race came in through sin. It's a fact of life. Bad things happen in the world, sometimes through no fault of anyone but it's part of living in a fallen world.
You blame God for bad things happening, how about blaming the people for doing it.

You blame God for wiping out nations nations who were wiped out be used their sin/evil got so bad and yet question and why He did nothing to protect 6 million Jews. Should he have wiped out Germany? You'd be blaming him for that too.

You don't want an honest discussion. You just want to blame the God you don't believe in and He doesn't need me to defend Him, He can do that himself. I'll leave you to shout and wave your fists at Him, demanding an answer.

I'm out!

For people who don't believe in God, yet want to blame Him for everything, you sure do spend a lot of time in this forum. surely you've better things to be doing than blaming my " imaginary" Friend.

Leroy42

I don't blame god for anything.

Similarly I don't give him credit when one child out of a bus load of schoolkids avoids being killed in a crash that wipes out everyone else.

But I guess they deserved it.

I don't believe god exists because there in no evidence that he does. Even if a higher being created the universe, there is no evidence that they play any part in it or care what happens within in.

As for heaven and hell, no one knows.

You are out because you have been unable to provide anything except belief for any of your positions.

God exists. Why? Just believe
God is moral. Why? Because it says he is so therefore it's True.
What about all the immoral things he does? But man does evil so you can't blame god!

Cabaal

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Is a person responsible for a child being miscarried...no, never said that was the case ..but death in the human race came in through sin. It's a fact of life. Bad things happen in the world, sometimes through no fault of anyone but it's part of living in a fallen world.

Oh hang on there a second,
You appear to be very confused regarding what a fact is.

Claiming death happens because of sin is not by any stretch of the imagination a fact. It is a belief and nothing more.

Please don't misrepresent a belief as a fact. It is not, you cannot prove it as real or factual.

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh hang on there a second,
You appear to be very confused regarding what a fact is.

Claiming death happens because of sin is not by any stretch of the imagination a fact. It is a belief and nothing more.

Please don't misrepresent a belief as a fact. It is not, you cannot prove it as real or factual.

I base it on the Bible which unlike you I believe to be the word of God ( in which you also don't believe). It says death came by sin. What you say is belief I say is fact. Let's agree to differ.

Not seen any of your photos in the photography forum lately. Surely it's something better to be doing than arguing over something you don't believe in.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh hang on there a second,
You appear to be very confused regarding what a fact is.

Claiming death happens because of sin is not by any stretch of the imagination a fact. It is a belief and nothing more.

Please don't misrepresent a belief as a fact. It is not, you cannot prove it as real or factual.

I think confusion is not confined to tat. Tat's believe that death came by sin is, of course, a belief. Whether it is a fact that death came by sin is independent of tat's belief; tat could believe the complete opposite, or he could have no belief at all on the subject, and this would have no implications at all for the objective reality. Likewise the fact that tat can't prove that death came by sin has no bearing at all on whether death did, in fact, come by sin or not.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think confusion is not confined to tat. Tat's believe that death came by sin is, of course, a belief. Whether it is a fact that death came by sin is independent of tat's belief; tat could believe the complete opposite, or he could have no belief at all on the subject, and this would have no implications at all for the objective reality. Likewise the fact that tat can't prove that death came by sin has no bearing at all on whether death did, in fact, come by sin or not.

Semantics perhaps P., but I'd suggest that tat's statement of belief is an assertion. As you say, whether this assertion holds true or not is independent of tat's belief, but as an assertion it does not become a fact until it is properly evidenced. So far as I'm aware, "that death came by sin" has not been evidenced so as Cabaal says, it basically amounts to a belief, i.e. an unproven assertion, and can't reasonably be considered a fact.

I rather like the opening paragraphs of the Wikipedia page on fact in this regard;

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence. For example, "this sentence contains words" is a linguistic fact, and "the sun is a star" is a cosmological fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" are also both facts, of the historical type. All of these statements have the epistemic quality of being "ontologically superior" to opinion or interpretation — they are either categorically necessary or supported by adequate historical documentation.

Conversely, while it may be both consistent and true that "most cats are cute", it is not a fact (although in cases of opinion there is an argument for the acceptance of popular opinion as a statement of common wisdom, particularly if ascertained by scientific polling). Generally speaking, facts transcend belief and serve as concrete descriptions of a state of affairs on which beliefs can later be assigned.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

Semantics perhaps P., but I'd suggest that tat's statement of belief is an assertion. As you say, whether this assertion holds true or not is independent of tat's belief, but as an assertion it does not become a fact until it is properly evidenced. So far as I'm aware, "that death came by sin" has not been evidenced so as Cabaal says, it basically amounts to a belief, i.e. an unproven assertion, and can't reasonably be considered a fact.

I rather like the opening paragraphs of the Wikipedia page on fact in this regard;

Just look around the world and give me an explanation for all the evil in the world.

Cabaal

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Just look around the world and give me an explanation for all the evil in the world.

In short, people and even animals for that matter can be c**ts to each other.

It can be down to money, history, just cultural differences or any number of 1,000's of reasons.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Semantics perhaps P., but I'd suggest that tat's statement of belief is an assertion. As you say, whether this assertion holds true or not is independent of tat's belief, but as an assertion it does not become a fact until it is properly evidenced . . .

It may be semantic, but I'm going to pick you up on it. On my rather absolutist view, a fact is a fact even before it's properly evidenced. A fact is a fact even if nobody believes it; even if everbody believes the contrary, and can point to apparently cogent reasons for that belief. Facts are objective realities; they are in no way dependent on our subjective beliefs about them, or our reasons for those beliefs, or the quality or merits of our reasons for those beliefs.

smacl wrote: »

. . . So far as I'm aware, "that death came by sin" has not been evidenced so as Cabaal says, it basically amounts to a belief, i.e. an unproven assertion, and can't reasonably be considered a fact.

Tat believes it to be a fact, and he has his reasons for believing it. Your assertion that it "can't reasonably be considered a fact" is of course itself a belief, and you have your reasons for holding that belief. Your reasons for believing what you believe are, at the risk of oversimplifying, that Tat's reasons for believing what he believes don't seem sufficient to you. But they do seem sufficient to Tat (obviously), and you can hardly claim that your standard of sufficiency has an objective reality that Tat's lacks, because that itself would be an assertion whose factuality would need to be demonstrated. Etc, etc.

smacl wrote: »

I rather like the opening paragraphs of the Wikipedia page on fact in this regard;

The Wikipedia quote is interesting for two reasons. First, it states that a fact is something "known to be true", which implies that something that is absolutely true is nevertheless not a "fact" if nobody knows about it. On this view, the speed of light in a vacuum, despite being an unchanging cosmological absolute, was not a fact until relatively recently, and could conceivably cease to be a fact in the future. This means that claims about factuality are not claims about objective reality at all, but claims about the subjective state and certainty of our knowledge.

Secondly, Wikipedia points to an example of statement that can be true, and widely accepted as being true, and yet not be factual. ("Most cats are cute.") What this suggests is that there is a class of statements that can be true but cannot be factual, because they are statement about things that cannot be "proven true by evidence". This class includes not only comparative trivialities about the cuteness of catsbut also statements on whose truth we routinely rely ("the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides") and statements that make important claims that demand attention and evaluation (e.g. ethical assertions).

Obviously, Wikipedia's concept of factuality is different from mine, outlined above. Fair enough; words can have more than one sense and it's always helpful to clarify the sense in which they are being used (and rarely helpful to argue about which sense is "correct"). But reflecting on the Wikipedia sense leads to the conclusion that "this statement is not factual" is not the devastating refutation that might at first be thought. Tat's assertion ("Death came through sin") is a claim about causation but, as Hume points out, no statement about causation can ever be proven by evidence. Therefore no statement about causation can be factual. Yet statements about causation are fundamental to how we live our lives.

All of which leads to two the observation that factuality in the Wikipedia sense is not such a big deal. Even if we accept that Tat's claim is not factual in that sense, this tells us nothing about whether the claim is either important or true.

Leroy42

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Just look around the world and give me an explanation for all the evil in the world.

What is your explanation?

I would argue that evil exists for exactly the same reasons that good exists, due to the selfish nature of nature itself and that at times means that it is better to be nice. Its fight for survival. Humans have simply created more complex ways in which to act out these scenarios.

Are two lions fighting over a carcass being evil? Are two men fighting over a piece of land being evil?

But neither evil, or good, require any form of a god for it to exist.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

In short, people and even animals for that matter can be c**ts to each other.

It can be down to money, history, just cultural differences or any number of 1,000's of reasons.

You're pretty much in agreement with Tat there, I think. That's pretty squarely "sin", in Christian terms.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're pretty much in agreement with Tat there, I think. That's pretty squarely "sin", in Christian terms.

Except that Christians do not believe that animals can sin, as to do so would mean a soul. So it is not sin when it comes to animals.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're pretty much in agreement with Tat there, I think. That's pretty squarely "sin", in Christian terms.

Except its not,

As already pointed out animals do the exact same as humans, we after all effectively all animals. Given Christian's don't like the idea of animals having "sin" or a soul or any of that lark then you can't claim its basically the same thing.

For the example given:

Are two lions fighting over a carcass being evil?

So if one lion wins and the other lion goes off and staves to death was the first lion being evil?

A cat can torture a mouse for fun with no intention of eating it. So we should now call cats evil?
:rolleyes:

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is your explanation?

I would argue that evil exists for exactly the same reasons that good exists, due to the selfish nature of nature itself and that at times means that it is better to be nice. Its fight for survival. Humans have simply created more complex ways in which to act out these scenarios.

Are two lions fighting over a carcass being evil? Are two men fighting over a piece of land being evil?

But neither evil, or good, require any form of a god for it to exist.

So it exists because it just exists...that's not an explanation by any stretch of the imagination.
I put that selfish nature down to sin in the human race. What do you put it down to...just saying it exists isn't an explanatiin of it's origin.

Leroy42

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

So it exists because it just exists...that's not an explanation by any stretch of the imagination.
I put that selfish nature down to sin in the human race. What do you put it down to...just saying it exists isn't an explanatiin of it's origin.

Seems to work fine for your belief in god!

First you need to provide an explanation of sin, and then prove sin exist. You need to do this in a way that sin is confined only to the human race, since we are the only things with a relationship with god.

Good and evil don't technically exist, they are judgements based on our moral standards. But the fight to survive is clearly evident in every living thing around us. Be that human, animal, bacteria etc.

So going back to my example of lions, do you believe that lions are acting evil when fighting over a carcass? Do you think that one lion considers all the options but, because of their lack of faith in Jesus decides to fight over the last piece of meat.

Humans have taken the fight to survive beyond the immediate needs and taken a longer term view. I need more land because I want to have more food, for example.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Except that Christians do not believe that animals can sin, as to do so would mean a soul. So it is not sin when it comes to animals.

Fair enough, Leroy (and Cab); I had overlooked the reference to animals.

Take a step back. Not to put words in Tat's mouth, but the key scripture text usually cited in this context is from Romans 5:

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned — sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come."

One reading of this is that "death" refers to death as experienced by humans - death spread to all because all have sinned; death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses. You don't get the sense that we are talking about the death of animals or plants or microbes here. So, on this reading, before the Fall humans did not experience death (and redeemed humanity will also not be subject to death). The death of sinless creatures like animals and plants and microbes is not attributable to sin. (Or, at least, not generally so; obviously if, e.g., I cruelly torture a cat to death that particular death could be attributed to my sin. But, no\\in this view, animals dying in the course of nature is not attributable to sin.)

But there is an alternative view which holds that the Fall corrupted not just human nature but the whole created order, and that includes the notion that cruelty, suffering, death experienced by animals is indeed the consequence of our sin; that before the Fall animals did not suffer or die and that, in the fulness of redemption, there will be no suffering or death for animals, any more than for us. Hence, lambs lying down with lions, etc, etc.

Proponents of this view would argue that the causal connection between our sinfulness and the death of animals is not always obvious, but sometimes it is - e.g. we hunt or slaughter animals for food in order to stave off our own deaths which, of course, wouldn't be necessary if we ourselves did not die. Or, our greed, etc, leads us to do things which destroy animals' habitats or environments, resulting in animal deaths. Etc, etc.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be semantic, but I'm going to pick you up on it. On my rather absolutist view, a fact is a fact even before it's properly evidenced. A fact is a fact even if nobody believes it; even if everbody believes the contrary, and can point to apparently cogent reasons for that belief. Facts are objective realities; they are in no way dependent on our subjective beliefs about them, or our reasons for those beliefs, or the quality or merits of our reasons for those beliefs.

Agreed, but my point was that we need to distinguish between assertions (i.e. claimed facts), and actual facts. Your point above underlines this.

Tat believes it to be a fact, and he has his reasons for believing it. Your assertion that it "can't reasonably be considered a fact" is of course itself a belief, and you have your reasons for holding that belief. Your reasons for believing what you believe are, at the risk of oversimplifying, that Tat's reasons for believing what he believes don't seem sufficient to you. But they do seem sufficient to Tat (obviously), and you can hardly claim that your standard of sufficiency has an objective reality that Tat's lacks, because that itself would be an assertion whose factuality would need to be demonstrated. Etc, etc.

Not really, in that I think you've got a massive false equivalence there. To go back to the wiki point, "a fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence." Your implication that any one belief (e.g. a Tat's religious belief) is equivalent to any other (e.g. a belief consistent with reality that can be shown to demonstrably true through experiment and observation). The religious belief is not a fact in that it has exactly zero supporting evidence. A scientific fact is the opposite, in that it is established via objective evidence.

The Wikipedia quote is interesting for two reasons. First, it states that a fact is something "known to be true", which implies that something that is absolutely true is nevertheless not a "fact" if nobody knows about it. On this view, the speed of light in a vacuum, despite being an unchanging cosmological absolute, was not a fact until relatively recently, and could conceivably cease to be a fact in the future. This means that claims about factuality are not claims about objective reality at all, but claims about the subjective state and certainty of our knowledge.

Not by my reading of it. The wording is "A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence." I don't read this as an implication that humanity has or will ever have all the facts. It is merely a statement that for something to be considered a fact it must meet those criteria. Thus Tat's beliefs cannot be considered facts until such time as they can be proven true.

Secondly, Wikipedia points to an example of statement that can be true, and widely accepted as being true, and yet not be factual. ("Most cats are cute.") What this suggests is that there is a class of statements that can be true but cannot be factual, because they are statement about things that cannot be "proven true by evidence". This class includes not only comparative trivialities about the cuteness of catsbut also statements on whose truth we routinely rely ("the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides") and statements that make important claims that demand attention and evaluation (e.g. ethical assertions).

Obviously, Wikipedia's concept of factuality is different from mine, outlined above. Fair enough; words can have more than one sense and it's always helpful to clarify the sense in which they are being used (and rarely helpful to argue about which sense is "correct"). But reflecting on the Wikipedia sense leads to the conclusion that "this statement is not factual" is not the devastating refutation that might at first be thought. Tat's assertion ("Death came through sin") is a claim about causation but, as Hume points out, no statement about causation can ever be proven by evidence. Therefore no statement about causation can be factual. Yet statements about causation are fundamental to how we live our lives.

All of which leads to two the observation that factuality in the Wikipedia sense is not such a big deal. Even if we accept that Tat's claim is not factual in that sense, this tells us nothing about whether the claim is either important or true.

I think what is often missed with certain facts, e.g. Pythagoras theorem, the speed of light in a vacuum etc... is they may have contextual limits. So for example, "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides" is true for Euclidean geometry on the plane but not for geometry on the sphere. We know that the speed of light in a vacuum can be considered as constant over certain distances but there is some debate as to whether this holds for all distances, particularly when we view light as particles rather than waves.

"Most cats are cute" is not a fact but it might lead us to the proposition that "Most (people at this point in time believe) cats are cute". The cuteness isn't an intrinsic part of the cat as implied by the short version but rather describes our reaction to the cat. It talks about us and not the cat, so if we became extinct, cats would no longer be cute even though they hadn't changed. Much as we love simplicity, we ignore context at our peril.

I think the Wikipedia description is pretty solid, though it could possibly add a note about undiscovered facts and refinement of knowledge.

smacl

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

Just look around the world and give me an explanation for all the evil in the world.

I think you need to specifically define what you mean by 'evil' here as it is a very broad concept, with certain problems.

Epicurus wrote:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"

If we take evil as broadly meaning wickedness caused by humankind, we really need to decompose it further into a specific actions we consider wicked. For the most part I'd guess they stem variously from a combination of human nature, greed, discontent or grievance and opportunity.

one world order

There is so much injustice in the world. The evil that controls the world who are working behind the scenes have been turning us to a godless society through the use of the mainstream media, music and film industries. However according to the bible, those who promote wickedness will be punished when their time is up in this world.

Leroy42

one world order wrote: »

There is so much injustice in the world. The evil that controls the world who are working behind the scenes have been turning us to a godless society through the use of the mainstream media, music and film industries. However according to the bible, those who promote wickedness will be punished when their time is up in this world.

Wasn't Jesus sent down because of the evil in the world? So it seem a bit rich to blame the media, music and film.

Jesus was gods secret weapon and yet you seem to think he was completely ineffectual. So Adam ruined it, his chosen people didn't stick with Him, he killed everyone except Noah and family to start again, and yet still the place is a dump.

At what point to do start to question this supposed god of yours?

one world order

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wasn't Jesus sent down because of the evil in the world? So it seem a bit rich to blame the media, music and film.

Jesus was gods secret weapon and yet you seem to think he was completely ineffectual. So Adam ruined it, his chosen people didn't stick with Him, he killed everyone except Noah and family to start again, and yet still the place is a dump.

At what point to do start to question this supposed god of yours?

Jesus was sent so we would turn away from our sinful nature, by putting our trust in Jesus, repenting and asking God hot help and forgiveness. The evil that control the world that is leading us astray would exist whether Jesus came into the world or not. As Christians, the bible helps to give clarity and why we need to be mindful for what is being pushed on us in society.

Leroy42

So Jesus had no effect? According to you since he came down things have actually got worse and God seems to be fresh out of ideas.

We, according to you, have not turned away from our sinful nature, the job Jesus was sent down to do.

Lets face it, every 'plan' or idea that god has turns out to be a disaster. Why would you worship such a ineffectual god?

He can't intervene because of his self imposed free will clause, except of course when it comes to small individual acts like saving a single baby in a plane crash or helping rich auntie Nora to recover from a sore hip. But when it comes to actual real problems like hunger, slavery, mass killings etc then he seems too busy.

one world order

Jesus had and continues to have a big affect. When people truely put their trust in Jesus, it results in a changed heart. No longer are they held captive to the trappings of this world but the spirit that lives through them gives them new desires. There will continue to be temptations and struggles but now there's a real battle to live life according to Jesus.

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wasn't Jesus sent down because of the evil in the world? So it seem a bit rich to blame the media, music and film.

Jesus was gods secret weapon and yet you seem to think he was completely ineffectual. So Adam ruined it, his chosen people didn't stick with Him, he killed everyone except Noah and family to start again, and yet still the place is a dump.

At what point to do start to question this supposed god of yours?

I thought evolution was meant to improve everything, make us better? Seems like it hasn't and the third law of thermodynamics is correct unlike evolution.

So we start with a perfect world and rebellion and the fall of mankind. Sin and death having entered creation, everything descends into chaos.Things get so bad that He wipes out humanity and starts again. (How many times have we wished someone who does wrong would step under a bus? )

He established a covenant with a man and his family and promised to bless them as long as they walk-in obedience to Through that man, He promised a Redeemer. In the time appointed to set everything in order again,God sends His Son. He performed miracles but when He proclaimed Himself to be God, the religious wanted him dead and when He failed to deliver the people from Rome, they wanted Him dead.

He rose, redeemed a fallen world and establishes a people who know Him and will walk with Him. He made it possible for mankind to know its creator.
His own didn't believe in Him when He came to them, things haven't changed much in 2000 years. People are still looking to kill the Christians.

But He's working in each generation to separate a people for Himself and will come again to judge the world and restore everything. Those who believed and walked with Him will know it, those who rejected Him in this life will know it.

You don't believe in God, that's OK.

I don't have to defend Him.

I just have to bear witness to Him and what He's done in my life. 35 years is too long a story to tell on a forum, but He's proven Himself to be who He said He was. He's changed my life and is still changing it.
If you want to live without God, that's your choice. He never forced anyone to believe unlike the religious of every generation.
You don't believe in God, grand, get on with your life. Why the desire of all these years to tear Him down and tear down those who are Christians?

You spend a lot of time and energy fighting someone you don't believe in.

If you want to get to know Him, ask Him, read the book He have us, find out about Him and leave your prejudice at the door. But stop fighting Him, you will lose.

Leroy42

one world order wrote: »

Jesus had and continues to have a big affect. When people truely put their trust in Jesus, it results in a changed heart. No longer are they held captive to the trappings of this world but the spirit that lives through them gives them new desires. There will continue to be temptations and struggles but now there's a real battle to live life according to Jesus.

You said

The evil that controls the world who are working behind the scenes have been turning us to a godless society through the use of the mainstream media, music and film industries.

Since they are all post Jesus that it must surely follow that things have gotten worse since he arrived. SInce he was sent down to help us turn away from sin, then by any measure he has failed.

You can claim man, whom god created, but it doesn't change your position that Jesus failed. I pointed out other failures in Gods history, which you have ignored, but your god is either incompetent, useless or doesn't exist.

one world order

Leroy42 wrote: »

You said

Since they are all post Jesus that it must surely follow that things have gotten worse since he arrived. SInce he was sent down to help us turn away from sin, then by any measure he has failed.

You can claim man, whom god created, but it doesn't change your position that Jesus failed. I pointed out other failures in Gods history, which you have ignored, but your god is either incompetent, useless or doesn't exist.

Jesus hasn't failed at all. It's like the parable he told when scattering seeds. Some seeds got eaten by birds, some fell on shallow ground that grew up but got burned by the sun, some fell in briars that produced no seed and some fell in good soil that produced good crops. Some people hear the message and reject it, some accept it but soon forget it, some don't understand it and some accept it and live their lives by it. As our time on earth is small in comparison to our total existence, Jesus time on earth has helped many people to be put right in the eyes of God.

hinault

tonybtonyb wrote: »

Hi folks,

I don’t really know why I am posting this, perhaps to get it off my chest or just look for thoughts on my situation, if people ever felt the same etc

I always held my christian beliefs as my compass in life, i always did my best for others and showed a helping hand when I could, I remember through my twenties i was quite a happy chap, I was never an avid mass goer and partied like many did my age but always believed in the man above and that force was looking out for me and I did my best to always live with the do unto others philosophy, I was very popular with my peers because I was a positive, confident, decent person to be around and never spoke ill of people. I could look in the mirror and feel proud of myself. I would give my friends the shirt off my back if it would help them.

Then a couple of things happened to me that completely shattered my faith, perhaps depression creeped in also, deaths of close relatives in quick succession, and i had a couple of incidents with close relatives that showed me the vast majority of people including close relatives don’t share my world view of things and are only really out for themselves.

The above changed me, like a lightbulb going off in a bad way, i began to scoff at the idea of there being an afterlife or there being something more than life here and took the view that we’re basically smart animals, who when it comes down to it would step on their neighbor to get ahead. Ive become far more guarded and closed off, I’ve carried that view since then but I feel an emptiness, like I’ve lost a piece of myself, there is depression in the mix but I think the root of it is a loss of faith. To add I’m now in my early forties.

Anyone else ever feel that way?

In my experience faith can ebb and flow. Certainly there are times when my faith seems to be stronger than at other times.

Throughout I make sure to receive the sacraments (attend daily/weekly Mass, attend confession) as regularly as possible, especially when my faith starts to weaken. I find this practice helps to strengthen and restore my failing faith.

The sacraments transmit God's salvic grace to us as individuals and to humanity. Jesus bequeathed those sacraments to His church because He loves us and He wants to give us His grace so that we may be saved.

I can well understand how setbacks and obstacles can lead a person to lose their faith. Life isn't easy Life is a test in many ways.
Membership of His church is no guarantee against the trials and tribulations of this life.

Try to put your trust and faith in God by returning to the Catholic Church.

I wish you well.

pauldla

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

I thought evolution was meant to improve everything, make us better? Seems like it hasn't and the third law of thermodynamics is correct unlike evolution.

...

Then it would seem you have been misinformed. Evolution through natural selection doesn't have a purpose. It cannot be 'meant to improve everything'.

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

Then it would seem you have been misinformed. Evolution through natural selection doesn't have a purpose. It cannot be 'meant to improve everything'.

Something that need be remembered when people talk of the ever onwards and upwards march of humanity. Pointing to things like 'human rights', as if present day views on 'equality' represent an 'improvement' on what went before, is rendered an utter crock by evolution.

There is no good or bad. No improvement. Just what will be will be. If the present view of an 'improved' humanity (say the view that secularism represents an improvement on a theocracy, or technologicalism represents an improvement on agregarianism) proves to be unfit then eradicated it shall be.

Indeed, it is becoming evermore clear that our present ways are driving us off the edge of an existential cliff.

I often wonder why naturalists ignore the fact they and all their views are the product of and subject to, the blind, purposeless process of evolution.

They are like the occupants of a moving bus. They suppose themselves (and mankind) as moving forward as they move towards the front seat, unaware that it is the direction the bus is travelling in that matters.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no good or bad. No improvement. Just what will be will be. If the present view of an 'improved' humanity (say the view that secularism represents an improvement on a theocracy, or technologicalism represents an improvement on agregarianism) proves to be unfit then eradicated it shall be.

No such words as technologicalism or agregarianism, you might want to clarify what you mean there. Guessing for the former an ideology where society is led by technology, but not sure such an ideology exists, let alone the corresponding society. For the latter you're either referring to agrarianism, though an agrarian society can still use technology, or have made up some word based on aggregation which corresponds to utilitarianism and to a lesser extent, collectivism.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

...

I often wonder why naturalists ignore the fact they and all their views are the product of and subject to, the blind, purposeless process of evolution.

They are like the occupants of a moving bus. They suppose themselves (and mankind) as moving forward as they move towards the front seat, unaware that it is the direction the bus is travelling in that matters.

You could ask them..?