1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf time permits, Bob, take a look at the discussion going on here and comment about anything that catches your attention:
He has always been fair since Eden with the first man and woman and is fair today...
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=815898
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IINice try, Paul, but I will humour you anyway.
CalJust, since you named this thread 'An Experiment,' I would like to propose an experiment...
Pray this way: "Lord, You know who the Christian blogger mentioned by Paul Dirac is. The blogger believes the original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant. But You have told me that this is not the case. I ask You to impress upon the blogger with Your Spirit that he is wrong about this, and to have him publish a retraction at His blog."
I really have no problem with what your Christian blogger believes. If he believes the original manuscripts were inerrant, then I say good for him! I have no intention whatsoever of trying to change his mind, and I would certainly not think that his belief is causing him any problems - either in the now or the hereafter.
There could possibly be a problem if his belief results in lovelessness and broken relationships, but from what you have told me so far it does not appear to be the case.
But even if that WERE so, I would only be prepared to interact with him (or with God on his behalf) if he requested me to do so.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIWow!!
I have linked to this before, but I don't know if you saw it:
http://funki.com.ua/ru/portfolio/lab/world-religions-tree/
If you click on the + sign to the left, the graphic zooms up such that you can read the lettering. It is a time chart of the history of schism within religion, with Christianity on the right side.
Sort of puts the whole thing in perspective...
3 edits
Originally posted by CalJustThat is an altogether lovely attitude on your part. But it is jarring to me in that I have heard so many sermons preached on the "solid rock of Christ," the bedrock Truth. "All other ground is sinking sand," or as one preacher put it years ago, "a house of cards built on jelly."
If he believes the original manuscripts were inerrant, then I say good for him! I have no intention whatsoever of trying to change his mind...
"No biggie, let him believe how he wants to" is not a common motif of radio preaching in the USA!
Preach to me a bit on Matthew 7:14. "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustThat was your response to my question of whether a dispute between two believers means at least one is wrong.
Only if you are stuck in dualistic thinking.
Some people living near Mount Parnassos in ancient Greek times thought the Delphic Oracle was a deity (Phoebe?) speaking to them from underground. They could ask a question to the deity, and wait for her answer.
I can imagine Anastasius asking what the weather will be tomorrow, and hearing a "rainy" answer, while an hour later Euthalia asks the same question and hears, "clear and sunny."
A philosopher who wanted to believe in the deity might have told folks, "Well if you are stuck in dualistic thinking, then we would have a contradiction. So the moral is, don't get stuck in dualistic thinking."
But a more modern interpretation is that the sounds coming up to the ground were caused by volcanic gasses burbling their way up, and were not actual Greek words. Any philosopher of the day who decided, "The underground deity is a fiction," is the one we would all side with today. Problem solved. 🙂
Originally posted by CalJustOriginally posted by CalJust
Aren't you a little out of date?
Wasn't the world supposed to be destroyed at the end of the LAST Millenium?
Remember Y2k?
Aren't you a little out of date?
Wasn't the world supposed to be destroyed at the end of the LAST Millenium?
Remember Y2k?
Revelation Chapter 21: "1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” New American Standard Bible
CalJust, an evasive/frivolous segue isn't in keeping with the tone of this thread or your demonstrated capacity for objectivity.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Cal, this post of mine seems to have been lost in the flow. Any comment?
Your reference to prayers being answered is a little puzzling to me, because it sounds like a line of argumentation based on looking for the most plausible explanation of unlikely events.
Yet I understand faith that is based on experience(s) is more immediately attained, without going though a reasoning process and assessment of likelihoods. It is like sat ...[text shortened]... the unlikelihood convinced you, or was the direct bestowal of faith one of the answered prayers?
Your reference to prayers being answered is a little puzzling to me, because it sounds like a line of argumentation based on looking for the most plausible explanation of unlikely events.
Yet I understand faith that is based on experience(s) is more immediately attained, without going though a reasoning process and assessment of likelihoods. It is like satori, enlightenment.
Such assessments [edit: assessments of likelihoods] are typically provisional and subject to revision based on new information. It seems quite indirect and mutable. Would you care to clear this up for me? Did you mean that the unlikelihood convinced you, or was the direct bestowal of faith one of the answered prayers?
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIPaul, these posters appear to be Catholic Answers Forum Members not unlike you and me here. There's no mention of any academic or other education; here's the member whose post is at the top of page one: "Aug 14, '13, 6:18 am James Urda New Member." Curiously all 6-7 texts I read contain opinion without scriptural reference or other source of authority.
If time permits, Bob, take a look at the discussion going on here and comment about anything that catches your attention:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=815898
Originally posted by wolfgang59GB asked a single brief question on page one.
Just like to say that this is a great thread Cal has created and
1. Could posters restrict themselves to single questions at a time?
2. Could GB and anyone else with out a question start their own thread.
Thumbs up Cal.
By the way, where are SwissGambit and FMF [MIA since April 30 and three days, respectively]?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI thought it interesting that there is such a range of theology among Roman Catholics. Some accept common ancestry of humans and other organisms, while others say God literally fashioned the first two humans from clay with His hands.
Paul, these posters appear to be Catholic Answers Forum Members not unlike you and me here. There's no mention of any academic or other education; here's the member whose post is at the top of page one: "Aug 14, '13, 6:18 am James Urda New Member." Curiously all 6-7 texts I read contain opinion without scriptural reference or other source of authority.
Originally posted by CalJustLivingstone, population 100,000 approx had about 150 denominations in the 90s. Not sure what it has now.
I once lived in a relatively small mining town (Population 12000) which had 27 (count them: twenty seven!) Christian churches, not counting the Mormons and Christian Scientists.
I once stayed in Hwange, a small mining town in Zimbabwe and there were 7 Churches in a row on the same street that I was staying on.
Originally posted by CalJustI don't think he was suggesting you revised the facts to fit your views, I think he was asking whether you are currently in a state whereby you would revise your views should new facts come to light.
All I can say is that these were not trivial occasions, they were certainly not revised later when more information was available, etc.
If for example I pointed you to a course on rational thinking and it convinced you that you may have been reading more into your prayers than was warranted, would you stop believing in God? Or did your prayers being answered change you into a state of 'faith' whereby you will not stop believing in God even if it turns out that your prayers were totally ineffective?
At least that's the way I read his post - which I did find a little difficult to follow.