Red: I thought the problems with the Orthodox Church were based on theological disagreements on the Trinity. That's a tricky concept, I concede that fully. But other than that the Orthodox Church teaches the same thing as the Catholics.....on the important issues they are essentially the same. The Protestant Reformation was more about corruption and politics and breaking Rome's secular influence. The Anglican church is coming back to the Catholic Church now, so I think the Catholic Church and theology has stood the test of time much better than the Protestants. I don't know of anybody that can claim to have improved on Catholic teaching. About the celibacy....that's not really a theological thing, as far as I know. At some point in the past the church decided one non-married priest could do the work of four married priests. They could change that rule tomorrow and it doesn't really affect the church's teaching at all. But I'll leave that for another discussion.
My point being only that as far as the theology goes it makes sense. There is a clear thought process for confession, celebrating the mass, marriage between man and woman only, mortal sin, venial sin, etc. etc. You may not agree with it but it is a logical system of thought. But back to the point of the thread. As far as I can tell there are two main questions: 1) Is there more to this existence than the material world? 2) If you decide yes, then the next question is was Jesus the Son of God? If you can come to a conclusion on those two issues then to be honest, your done for. You have no other choice than to end up a catholic.
You and I have very different ideas about what a logical thought process is, Hoss. Mine does not include imaginary elements or dogmatic rituals. None that we know of. But there are several thousand religious beliefs concerning such existence. Why would that be the next question? :huh: There are several thousand other supernatural religious traditions in which Jesus Christ does not appear? Is Thor not the son of Odin? What does he have to do with the existence of the supernatural? The criteria to establish natural existence is no less stringent for Son-O-God than for Almighty God. It cannot even be addressed with the main issue still at question. What nonsense. I have reached conclusions on both questions and it certainly doesn't make me a catholic.
Red: your still confusing imaginary and immaterial....but whatever, we went over that. Thor was an actual human being that walked the planet? Really? You know that is not the case. Those are myths, you're an intelligent man, you should be able to tell the difference. News flash....Zeus wasn't up on Mount Olympia either. That is the critical difference between Christianity and the other myths....Jesus did exist, it's not a fairy tale. And He didn't really say that people should behave that differently than most other religions and philosophers. I am not aware of any religion that says you should cheat on your wife, lie, cheat, murder, etc. They all say the same thing, basically. Except one major point. He was the only one that said He was the Son of God. Nobody else said that....no other religion claims that. It's a pretty outlandish claim, actually. That's where I agree with martin. Either He was crazy or else He really was the Son of God. There is no in between on that question. If I understand what your saying correctly, I agree. You have to decide whether you believe the supernatural exists, first. Correct. This is the problem that martin has...he can't get past the first question so it's all magic and ignorance. The problem with that is that those people weren't really ignorant. They built amazing cultures....wrote about law and democracy, poetry, built pyramids, figured out mathematics, geometry and astronomy....hell one guy back then even calculated the size of the earth. He was damn close, too. That's pretty impressive. I'd like to see how we would do without electricity and then see how "ignorant" they were and smart we are. People in the modern world don't give those people enough credit. Like the people back then were all running around chasing rain, grunting and didn't know women don't get pregnant unless they have "known" a man(in the biblical sense). What bullchit. I meant if you answer yes to both questions.....then you are done for.
Everything he is purported to have said comes to us in the form of hearsay written by primitive middle eastern types 40+ years after his death. That's a pretty big "in between" you're ignoring.
tima: Yeah, ok...thanks for that. What do you mean by that, anyway? They didn't wear Tag Heuer watches and drive BMWs? Which part of their culture was so "primitive"? I'm curious though...was it part of their "primitive" culture that made it possible for them to believe in the Virgin Birth, or raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, casting out demons.....which thing is it that you attribute to their "primitive" nature. the episcopalians are trying to get back into the Catholic Church. "The Anglican Experiment" is over. As far as the baptists and methodists go....when were they founded by the way? You have any info on that?
I guess the single most defining characteristic is that when confronted with phenomena they couldn't explain, instead of asking "Why is it like this?", they asked "Who is responsible?", and they found their answers in the supernatural. A related trait is that the higher-ups found it useful to define "god's law", from which they derived authority to organize and control society, which was useful in keeping themselves the higher-ups.
"You're". I went to great lengths to demonstrate that it is you who conflate the two terms. In any case this doesn't address what you call a "logical thought process" in the slightest. I do. Hebrew and Christian mythology follow the same rules as Norse or Roman or Greek Mythology. There is exactly the same historical and archaeological evidence that Jesus walked the planet that there is for Thor. Which is none. You still want to prop up your faith with evidence instead of just taking it on faith. But I shall hold you to the rules of logic, truth, and natural laws if you make such claims. Prove it. Only Jesus never claimed to be the son of God or the Messiah in any statement he made in the Bible. It was attributed to him after his death by the writers of the gospels hundreds of years later. This is not true. It's an erroneous assumption based on a sample size of one. Thor, Baldur, and Vali were the sons of Odin. Zeus had about 30 sons, some by female gods some by mortal women. Some were divine like Apollo and some were mortal like Hercules. Sons of Gods are a quite common religious story. Native American religions are full of them. Not if you use proper logic. When someone claims to be the Son of God, we really only have three options - he thought he was but wasn't (he is a lunatic), he knew he wasn't but said it anyway (he is a liar) or he was telling the truth (he is not just a man). That is not what I said. I said that you cannot offer Son-O-God as proof of God when you have not first proven God. It is a logical non-sequitor. Well, I disagree with martin who equates faith with ignorance. I do not. I equate trying to prove supernatural beliefs regarding mythology by natural laws, logic, or science to be useless and futile. I have a supernatural belief that I will win the Powerball. I simply do not have a need to prop up that belief with flawed science, illogic, and supernatural explanations. Not bloody likely, amigo.
