It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
We're here because of sheer biology. The whole intercourse, conception, development, and birth process is all science. You choose to see significance in places that I see as entirely natural and self-perpetuating. It's science, dude.
My point exactly. Would your god still exist after all of its believers died? Or would it die along with their belief in it? If your god is a distinct, independent entity, it would be forced to reveal itself or be forced to forfeit our world. How else does it replenish its stock of believers?
Does God need people in order for Him to exist? No, and certainly the Big Bang didn't need people for it to have happened either.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
Does God need people in order for Him to exist? No, and certainly the Big Bang didn't need people for it to have happened either.
So that's it. We kill all the believers and let God either come out to play or find some other world to pick on.
Nah, just kidding. But at that point, it would be proven. God must either reveal his hand or let us go.
That's a nice smile, and I got the joke. No harm, no foul. But what is the difference in you and I, we are both humans with human intelligence, so how is it your understanding is so vastly different than mine, and yet we both have the exact same makeup and chromosome structure?
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
Does God need people in order for Him to exist? No, and certainly the Big Bang didn't need people for it to have happened either.
So that's it. We kill all the believers and let God either come out to play or find some other world to pick on.
Nah, just kidding. But at that point, it would be proven. God must either reveal his hand or let us go.
He's already revealed his hand, you're just too blind to see it. In your zeal to bite the hand that feeds you, you do not recognize whose hand that is you're biting.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
That's a nice smile, and I got the joke. No harm, no foul. But what is the difference in you and I, we are both humans with human intelligence, so how is it your understanding is so vastly different than mine, and yet we both have the exact same makeup and chromosome structure?
We love and fear different things.
Yes, but why? What do we love and fear that is so different?
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
Yes, but why? What do we love and fear that is so different?
I don't know you, so I can't really say.
charles1952
I'm not trying to be mushy, but I feel a special connection to you. I'm really grateful for the time you took with your answer. I know I agree with you in some areas. Forgive me for jumping around.
charles1952
Inner v. Outer Truth.
I think you've got this one down pretty well. I see an entire Universe of truth available to us. Some we don't know, and some, we may have but don't understand or can't make use of. Will you accept Inner Truth to be the truth we've recognized, accepted, and made a part of our very being? That would include the truth we've discovered for ourselves, such as the truth of the beauty of some poetry, music, or emotion.
charles
Bible Copyrights.
Some versions of the Bible are copyrighted and some are not. A very quick check showed me that the
Bible in Basic English, King James Version, World English Bible, American Standard (1901), and the NET Bible were all free of copyright, and I'm sure there are others. One that particularly impressed me is the Catholic Public Domain Version. I'm impressed, not by the translation as I haven't read it, but by the translator's statement in putting it in the public domain. He made a point of saying that God's Word shouldn't be copyright. It's a fascinating statement, you'll find it here:
www.sacredbible.org...
charles
On the other hand, putting together a new translation can take years of work, and hundreds of translators. They deserve to be paid. I hope some reasonable compromise can be found.
charles1952
Christian persecution.
I found an interesting BBC article discussing the subject. It may not be the sort of thing most people know about.
Basically, the article recounts the furious persecution under Nero (64 A.D.), sporadic persecution for the next hundred years, then back to serious persecution from about 150 A.D. to Constantine's declaration that Christianity was legal. As you'll recall, Christianity wasn't declared the official religion until 380 A.D., well after Constantine was dead. The Council that he called, that of Nicea, didn't even address the question of what books were in the Bible.
charles1952
Confession and Blackmail.
You say it happens regularly and is a basis for Catholic power. I hate to be blunt, but I don't believe it. The Seal of the Confessional is absolute, and breaking it is grounds for immediate, well, everything bad that you can imagine happening to a priest and a Catholic.
charles1952
The Beauty of the Bible.
I agree with you, there is much beauty and poetry there. I believe it also reports events and words which have made a profound difference to the world. Purpose of the Bible.
I think I agree with you here. I do have a problem, therefore, with just discarding the parts that don't resonate. I suspect they will later, but they're there for a purpose.
charles
The Corruption of Jesus' Religion.
I'm having trouble understanding the idea that we know the kind of religion Jesus intended, but the people He spoke to, lived with, didn't. If He was founding a religion (which I think He was), I'd think His first step was to make sure that His followers got it right. You believe that would have only happened had he written everything down. A Christian might say that He did, through the writers inspired by the Holy Spirit. He did say:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26
Canon 21 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), binding on the whole church, laid down the obligation of secrecy in the following words:
"Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance"
— Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles" at the year 1215; Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.
Canon 21 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), binding on the whole church, laid down the obligation of secrecy in the following words:
"Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance"
— Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles" at the year 1215; Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.
SyphonNexus
Why do perfect beings need the worship of imperfect beings?
You have one response, may I offer another?
Why do perfect beings need the worship of imperfect beings?