declare your bias … what are you afraid of?
In the last wee while, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend for Christians to be given a platform in secular debate without explicitly declaring their religious bias. Please don’t get me wrong, I insist all voices have a right to be heard, but I do think there is a necessity to declare all factors of outside influence, especially when discussing matters such as women’s rights to have access to family planning.
For instance, Catholic doctrine states that any sex without breeding intentions is evil, yes – EVIL, even within marriage:
some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. (catholic.com)
Therefore, a Catholic entering a discussion about family planning and contraception is saddled by the notion that any couple using natural human technological advances to plan carefully for when they can best provide for children, is commiting grave and even mortally sinful acts. For most humans, this is not a sound basis for a logical discussion, and I believe it is a serious bias that should always be declared.
In the spirit of being fair and transparent about bias, let me declare my own factors of outside influence. I want the kindest and fairest society for everyone I love who exists in this world (and indeed for myself) and this influences my decision to evaluate every subject on which I form an opinion, based on the evidence available. This means I am open to changing my mind on any subject because only I evaluate my own opinion. This also means I can listen to expert organisations who collect and evaluate the latest information on every subject, as well as religious bodies formed centuries ago who invented their opinions in times of great ignorance, based on how selected men interpreted the will of invisible gods. (When it comes to the Catholic Church, it’s particularly comical that the men who developed these opinions on family planning were forbidden from having sex, but that’s another story or ten.)
The nut of this problem is that Catholics, and many other people from other religions, by definition can’t be open to changing their minds on many, many subjects. Because to do so, in spite of overwhelming facts that indicate they are wrong, would be a grave and mortal sin, or would suggest that perhaps their ‘ancient laws’ are nothing more than ’empty traditions’ – and not the will of any invisible god.
But, who knows? I wouldn’t like to make that call. All I’m asking is that if you do have an underlying bias contributing to your opinion on a serious subject, please don’t be afraid to state it.
The Catholic doctrine on family is not an example of bias.
You declare it so, simply because you disagree with the doctrine.
THAT, is an example of bias.
LikeLike
I’ll remember to declare my bias against religious doctrines … based on the evidence that they’re nonsense. 😀 Or do you follow the Koran too?
LikeLike
Violet,
Again, you express only your bias (bigotry) against religion.
What makes you think your bias is better than a religious person’s adherence to logic, faith and traditions that have civilized mankind?
LikeLike
I can change my mind if the evidence points to the contrary.
LikeLike
Violet,
Again you express nothing but mindless bias.
It’s amazing that you have no idea how critically overcome by bias you are.
LikeLike
I see. So you’re suggesting I can’t change my mind if evidence points to the contrary? What evidence led you to that conclusion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
You really aren’t interested in evidence.
If you were, you’d be Catholic.
LikeLike
So I’d be pregnant again! Lucky escape for me I guess.
LikeLike
Civilized mankind? Nobody needed us til we showed up. You think the Africans needed us after millennia of thriving. We changed the rules, created a void, made life miserable for them, then stepped in to help what we should have never fucked with in the first place. Jesus has civilized nothing
LikeLike
Jim,
You might want to note the mass, global scale migration from Africa and Latin America, north to the North America and Europe.
Also, Asians are migrating in mass to Western countries.
Evidence would indicate that “nobody” needs us a great deal.
LikeLike
God has openly and freely declared His bias,too. There is a slight possibility that He “wants the kindest and fairest society for everyone He loves who exists in this world,” also. In which case, our own definitions of “love, kindness,and fairness” may be deeply flawed. That takes some tremendous intellectual humility to see and understand, but it is true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insanity,
Where did God declare his bias?
Or are you the self-appointed voice of God for this New Age?
LikeLike
No, actually King David is the self appointed voice today, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”
If you have any questions about God’s bias, I suggest you just ask Him yourself. He likes to explain things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Invisible, undetectable creatures are the best at informing your bias – ask anyone of any religion! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
God is not a creature and he not undetectable.
LikeLike
Is ‘thing’ a better word? Please clarify what detects this thing.
LikeLike
Violet,
Since God is not created, he cannot be a thing.
Sorry to say, but you and Insanity are two sides of the same ignorant coin.
LikeLike
Is the thing a ‘god’? Like all the gods of mythology?
LikeLike
Violet,
In the Western Tradition, the Tradition that gave us Christianity, modern science, advanced technology and universal prosperity…
…God is referred to as First Cause.
First Cause is no myth, it is a logical conclusion.
LikeLike
Okay, got it. So the First Cause is detectable as a logical conclusion? Such a shame the whole scientific community disagrees with you. But don’t be put off by trifling little details like that.
LikeLike
Violet,
Science and logic agree, that God does indeed exist.
LikeLike
I don’t think that’s quite right.
LikeLike
Why not?
LikeLike
Scientists generally don’t believe in gods (some do, granted) and it’s illogical to look at the history of the world, both physical and political, and conclude any god was involved – but particularly impossible to believe logically that the god the Catholic Church depicts exists.
LikeLike
Violet,
How do you know that?
In truth, nobody knows how all scientists believe about God, or even how a majority of scientists believe about God.
All we really know is what the leftist media tells us to believe.
And you fall for it because the leftist media feeds into your bias.
And you, bringing up logic in reference to the Catholic Church is oxymoron.
The Catholic Church has worked for 2000 years explaining the teachings of Christ in a logical, reasonable manner.
The Catholic doctrines on family are the teachings of Jesus on the family.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Insanity,
By definition, God can have no bias.
That is because he is the center, the definition of reality.
Bias is what causes man to depart from God’s Way to pursue his own way.
LikeLike
My bias is God’s bias, SOM. You develop that when you build a relationship with Him and begin to align yourself to His will.
LikeLike
Insanitybytes22, how do you know what is the will of your god to align yourself with it? You once told me, that a verse in the Bible was not really an expression of the will of the Biblical god, rather a “revenge fantasy” of an individual writer who rejoised in killing babies, as if it was what his/your god wanted. Do you remember?
You claim you have a “relationship” with a god, but how do you know you have an actual relationship with a god? Does this god speak to you and tell wich verses in the Bible are actually divinely inspired and wich are mere revenge fantasies, or other bogus as told by the superstitious people of ancient Levant? Are we talking about your inner monologue or some unnatural agent beyond time-space? Wich is more likely if someone tells us their god enjoys people killing babies?
Is killing babies wrong, if the person engaged in such or fantasizing about such believes they have a relationship with a god, that tells them to do so? Is there a higher set of morals, than that what people believe their god wants of them? Secular morals perhaps?
LikeLike
Insanity,
Since God, by nature cannot have bias, whatever relationship you have is only with yourself.
Believe me, I know from experience.
LikeLike
“Believe me, I know from experience.”
LOL! I know SOM, trust me, I know. That fact is quite apparent to some of us. You are trapped in solipsism. I have no idea why. Pride perhaps.
The thing is, God is not me, God exists outside of me and I can see that quite clearly in His synchronicity, in His music and His math. Don’t kid yourself, God has biases. He is no centrist.
LikeLike
Insanity,
The spiritual gifts that you assign to yourself are quite impressive.
What I express is Catholic faith and doctrine, no my own warped understanding.
LikeLike
Ah yes, a voice of reason amidst the maelstrom of Dopiness which makes the little dwarf look quite smart in comparison.
It is one thing to know that imperfect humans are flawed and fall short; it is quite another to recognize that we have offended His glory. Therein is the issue of the ages.
‘We have ALL come short of the glory of God,’ so sez the truth of life and confirmed by the good book.
Nice work ib pointing it out.
LikeLike
Ah, here comes the emperor’s tailor now! Good timing ColorStorm, Insanity needed some more stitching, and you’ve done a lovely job here. 😀
LikeLike
Hi Vi-
No tailor here. And the good lady needs no help from me.
And to your friend SoM, I actually did read……. 😉
And followed up with a biting word of agreement to YOUR question.
Thus do blogs and comments have a life of their own. Geez man.
LikeLike
True, she does a great job on her own. But your invisible fringing is astounding!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Storm,
Thanks, but wrong blog.
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with this post.
Did you even pay good Violet respect by reading her post before commenting?
Sadly, the answer is a big NO-zilla.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lovely comment SOM, you’re doing a great job today .. on both sides! 🙂
LikeLike
Violet,
You have just commended me for demonstrating no bias.
Thank you.
At least you recognize it when you see it.
LikeLike
Boom! He does it again. See what you can do when it’s not the middle of the night?
LikeLike
It must be the wine. A good one from Texas.
LikeLike
Wine from Texas, sounds divine. Weird it never makes it over the pond, you must keep all the good stuff there. I’ll stick to Italian and Argentinian ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually it isn’t…
…divine.
But though it is cheap, it is quite tasty.
LikeLike
As long as it gives you a nice feeling it’s doing a good job. Just don’t stay up to 5am drinking more and arguing with your blog buddies.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, for once, I agree with you. Where indeed was any bias from a god declared and by whom? How could we even begin to evaluate wether some bias as expressed in old books or by some ancient tradition is actually a declaration from a god?
Should we not be first able to even recognize, that such an entity that is deserving of being called a god actually exist beyond any books and human imagination? I think religions – all of them – have utterly failed to do so. On the contrary, they demand blind faith. But faith would be purposless if a god – any god at all, that mattered beyond making empty claims about irrelevant gods, like that the sun is a god, or that a god created everything – could be observed in any even remotely reliable manner.
LikeLike
Intriguing mix of nonsense there Insanity. As SOM says, you seem to think you have a special revelation. Why would our understanding of such basic things be flawed? And what is ‘tremendous intellectual humility’? Sounds like a phrase invented to throw people off the nonsense scent. I would suggest it takes the emperor’s new clothes to see and understand what you want to believe. And unfortunately for humanity, many people fall for it in spite of the obvious.
LikeLike
Read Habakkuk. I would summarise it- God really does have a vast eternal plan, it’s just taking longer than we might like!
LikeLike
My bias in this discussion is, that as I have been raised in a relatively secular society and both my parents and grandparents were atheists, I have been an outsider to the religious faith. I do not have the same insight to it as the religious and deconverted atheists have.
To me religious faith is an absurd and empty claim about nothing. A fairytale. A cultural tradition of imaginary stories, that the religious people take so seriously, that some of them are willing to set much of their social morals and behaviour according to some ancient and obviously arbitrary rules, but also to defend this identity so desperately, that they deny scientific and researched facts about history, biology, geology and even cosmology. I find this disturbing as much as I find it particularly disturbing how eager they often are to controll the lives of other people according to what they think is “sinfull” regardless wether the “sin” in question could even harm any outsiders. It seems sometimes, that the religious person has been taught to remove responsibility of their choises to a god character who bears the burden of evaluating wether those descisions were harmfull or beneficial. A form of infantillism, to be exact.
I have a bias about the word “sin” because it is an arbitrary declaration of what is wrong in the opinion of a particular god. As it happens, the religious person is always in agreement with their particular god what is wrong and it seems they are simply trying to justify their arbitrary concept of wrong by appealing to an authority. This is a logical fallacy. Even if they happen to agree with some ancient literature about what a god wants to the letter. They rarely do even that much. It is as if they had just drawn the ancients to back up their pre-existing cultural expectations of what the ancients wrote, instead of actually reading the text. Why the ancient opinions should be authorative about what divinities, that are playing hide and seek with humans want is a nother matter. If we could ever verify wether there are any gods, then we should also be able to evaluate wether what they want is actually good. If what gods want is explicitly good then do these gods have “free will” at all, or are they simply putting forward as good what they want by the right of might? How could any moral person claim that the right of might is actually right? Or is there a third option?
LikeLike
This idea that there is a ‘correct’ and ‘good’ option for every choice of actions is in itself absurd – absolute morality is sheer absurdity. As if life is a series of choices as cut and dried as ‘shall I steal or not?’ or ‘shall I eat this pig or not?’. But you’re right, Christians believe that in utopia they will have ‘free will’ to be robots doing what a creator wants them to do. Maybe they sense they will be relieved to no longer make choices of their own – thinking is quite tiring.
LikeLike
Is thinking hard? Is thinking not who we are? “Gogito ergo sum.” If I do not think, do I even exist? The mind needs to rest, like all physical properties and that is why we have sleep, but otherwise we are all the time engaged in thinking. I think (haha) that the removal of responsibility is more of a result of fear of thinking somehow wrong, rather than intellectual laziness as such. But that would mean the Theist escapes the responsibility of moral choises to arbitrary commands by divinities out of fear rather than laziness. However, as I already stated, I am an outsider in this game, and I can only describe what it looks like from the outside.
I agree with you. Even though, perhaps there is some absolute truth about everything, even morals, but in reality we are not able to evaluate every mover in the equation, hence we may only move closer to objective truths and morals. Objectivity is about evaluating facts and I think that is where the best possible morals comes from. Having had so limited view on facts, it is only natural that humankind has relied on metaphysical assumptions for ages. Such assumptions about gods have served as explanations to our feelings of empathy, fear and hatred. But I do not see such as necessary in the material observable universe we live in, once we realise, that the facts are the necessary information on wich we must base our morals – Facts, like that we are social co-dependant animals, that by far better explains our need for morals, than any gods could ever do.
LikeLike
I have to say that this is a flawed idea in terms of Christian faith, although it does exist within the faith. It’s a shame that it does, because the God of the Bible wanted friends, not robots. But yes, many Christians follow a false doctrine that says God wants to tell them what do do all the time. Actually, that’s the subject of my post https://realhoperising.com/2017/07/17/why-you-cant-find-your-way/
My bias is currently that I know God and have a relationship with Him btw. I like the Bible too, it can be helpful when interpreted in line with who God actually is.
LikeLike
God wanted friends?
That’s an interesting angle. It works well with the creation of the angels, but doesn’t explain man, created after the angels had fallen.
LikeLike
Well biblically it does, when you look at how angels are discribed and what God actually says about man. “Angels” means “messengers.” They are pictured as servants doing God’s bidding at pretty much all times. Which seems to be fine for most of them, I mean if the creator of the universe gives you the most privileged seat available, and you have the sacred duty of accomplishing His will, it would probably be a pretty cool job.
Obviously Lucifer wasn’t a fan though.
Enter humans. Not made servants, and not made different from God, but rather made “in Our own Image” (God’s words, although it is debatable whether he is using the Royal We here or if this is a trinitarian reference). Formed by hand with his breath animating Adam’s form. The beings that God chooses to walk in the garden in the cool of the day with and carry on conversations with. The being that Jesus later specifically says “I do not call you slaves, but friends.”
Its not an angle, its just the way the Bible presents things. He created the angels as messengers and workers to do His will. He created humans to have friends that were like Him in some ways. Actually, one could argue that he created man BECAUSE thale angels had fallen. Servants were not enough, he wanted friends. So he started over again not with creatures made to be messengers, but with beings made in his image, made to be friends.
LikeLike
No, biblically it doesn’t.
God didn’t create equals, and man is lower than angels. If you want friends, you create equals. Peers. And unless stained with some unignorable character flaws, you certainly don’t create something for the sole purpose of venerating yourself.
I’m sorry, but your personal theology is riddled with inconsistencies.
LikeLike
“Lower” is not quite so flat and one dimensional as you would like it to be. In terms of rank in heaven, sure, we are lower. but biblically, yeah, what I’m saying is accurate.
Although you do present an amusing logical impossibility. How does the one who is all powerful and greater than all things create an equal exactly? Obviously it’s impossible. But then is He all powerful if something is impossible? The delemma itself is entertaining, since it ilustrates how silly and arrogant it is to pretend that a God beyond us can fit into our box.
Lastly, the verse you mentioned does say that God made man “a little lower than the angels” but Jesus is also fully man and fully God, and he tells us that he is our example to follow after and to do the same things as he did. We are called “co-creators and co-rulers” by Paul, so again, taking that one single verse out of context isn’t really enough to defend your inconsistent interpretation of the text as a whole. I do appreciate the direct use of scripture though. It’s uncommon for someone to be familiar enough to know a verse like that. Definitely a worthy point to take the time to properly examine. Thanks for the comment! 🙂
LikeLike
I didn’t cite any verse. And I’m not sure what you find amusing, I was simply pointing out the flaw in your personal theology.
LikeLike
oh, sorry. I thought you were familiar with the text you were referring to.
The verse you accidentally cited is Hebrews 2, which states that man is made a little lower than the angels, but has been given authority over all things.
So I was trying to help point out the flaw in your personal theology, since Biblical scripture doesn’t align with what you’re stating.
LikeLike
Yes, it does. Man was created lower than angels, and one must assume angels were created lower than the creator.
Friends are peers, they do not hide from one another, they do not keep secrets, and they certainly do not prepare a place of eternal torture for their ‘friends’ just in case they don’t love them back.
But hey, despite it’s inconsistencies, your personal theology is full of the warm and fuzzy , so if it works for you, great.
LikeLike
Man is often described biblically as being humble vessel, or a “weak” or frail creature. Angels are built of stronger stock, you might say. That makes us “lower” but not inferior. And the rest of the Hebrews 2 makes that point abundantly clear. Right after saying we are “lower” we are placed on the same level as Jesus, ruling over all things. Jesus, is of course part of the trinity and God. Made lower, placed as equals. It’s Hebrews man. And most of the Pauline epistles teach this as well. So again, not inconsistent, but rather what the Bible presents.
Hell is of course another subject entirely. I’m writing a book on it actually. But for now, i’d point you towards C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce, Rob Bell’s Love Wins (not very scholarly but a good introduction to some broad concepts that are valuable) and to the Bible itself. Most of what the church teaches about hell comes from misinterpreting a parable Jesus gave as if it were somehow factual information, and from the teachings of some of the Catholic church fathers such as Augustine. It’s pretty messed up stuff, I’ll give you that. It is incredibly frustrating that something so antithetical to scripture and the nature of God has become so predominant within the Christian church. But hey, we were dumb enough to think God sanctioned black people to be slaves at one point too, and we did eventually figure that one out. Theology sometimes changes slowly, but it does change. In the meantime, we just have to keep doubting, keep challenging, and keep seeking Truth at all costs.
LikeLike
Look, Karsten, you seem to be a fairly innocuous fellow, but your theology is not only a mess of savage contradictions, but it’s also quite clear that you’re just making it up as you go along. By your narrative, Yhwh did not create equals to be friends with him (which would denote he was lonely). Friends do not demand total obedience on threat of punishment:
Deuteronomy 28:1 If you fully obey the Lord…
James 4:7 Submit yourselves, then, to God.
Jeremiah 7:23 “obey My voice…
Luke 11:28 Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obeyit.
Deuteronomy 28:1 If you fully obey the Lord your God…
Deuteronomy 5:33 Walk in obedience to all that the Lord your God has commanded you…
Acts 5:32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.
And let there be no confusion, Yhwh is not only judge, but executioner whom we are told to be frightened of: fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28 ).
Psalm 75:7 But God is the Judge
Psalm 50:6 For God Himself is judge
Isaiah 66:16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh
Hebrews 12:23 …..and to God, the Judge of all…
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy
Isaiah 3:13 The LORD arises to contend, And stands to judge the people.
Psalm 50:4 He summons the heavens above, And the earth, to judge His people:
Psalm 82:1 God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
Psalm 9:8 And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.
Psalm 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth!
And the punishment for failure to obey, as commanded, the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
Revelation 20:15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Mark 9:43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction
John 5:29 And come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Revelation 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy
Romans 2:6-8 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
That’s quite clear. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
The punishment delivered by Yhwh for not submitting to Yhwh is the the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.
That is what the narrative says. That is the threat. “Friends” do not behave this way. By your narrative, you are not free. Not free at all. Failure to act in a certain way will result in torture… for ever.
Now, considering what the punishment is for failure to obey, it raises the question: is Yhwh’s hiddenness ethical behaviour?
Said another way: given Yhwh is the Judge and Executioner, dispensing his sentences according the whether or not someone believes in him, is his hiddenness ethical?
I would say, No, but you might have a different take on it…?
And I’m not interested in a 20th Century apologist’s opinions. If you believe the bible to be true, then you have your scripture above to embrace, or jettison… the choice is yours.
LikeLike
Oh absolutely, if hell were what you’re viewing it as, and if the moment of death is the moment we lose the ability to say yes to God, and if Jesus is really so narrow and small of a path that someone following God who has not yet embraced a particular religious path or prayed a particular prayer then they also aren’t in, then you would be absolutely right. It would be pretty unethical.
I’m not trying to do away with scripture, and I love the verses you’ve pointed out. I’m quite familiar with them. To try to work through a literal book worth of content on a post just isn’t possible though, nor would it be wise. To explain this requires much more care and scholarship than I can fit inside of one comment.
I think your doctrine of salvation is a bit off, and sounds largely like an Old Testament Law based model rather than a Pauline or Johanine model, which I think is influencing how you interpret the text.
When I finished the book, I would be glad to send you a copy, but its currently a side project as I am also a financial advisor and much of my time is taken up serving my clients. But I have no interest to do away with or explain away most of scripture because there is no need to. Some of it I think we get pretty wrong, but understanding hell is really more about following metaphor and symbol through the metanarrative of the text. Which apparently Christians suck at, since our current evangelical doctrine is basically horse shit.
LikeLike
Ah, a metaphor.
Good luck with the book, though.
LikeLike
I didnt call hell a metaphor.
LikeLike
It is worse than that. My morality is a hodgepodge of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Catholic morality is deontology, with a small amount of virtue ethics. When Bentham and Mill came up with Utilitarianism, the Catholic church rejected it- so it is conservative nutters from the 18th and 19th century who have cursed the church, not just moralists from the 13th century.
LikeLike
Clair,
If you read Violet’s post you will learn the truth about the source of Catholic doctrine.
It comes directly from Jesus and has been taught by the Church since the Christianity began.
LikeLike
Hello again VW I didn’t know the church thought it evil to have sex for pleasure was evil.God’s word suggests it is good to have pleasure regardless of pro creating it’s actually due to the couple from each other,except if they agree to abstain.The clinch is marriage,staying faithful to the partner,that’s what God states.
There is a lot of hurt from broken relationships,of course it is worst when children are involved,the cost involved is astronomical.Passion is like a fire and not much thought about it till it has run its course,seeing all the damage left behind.No it will be a big problem for the world for a while yet.By the way the church has changed course many time over the years and it’s a hard thing or even impossible for some,but if it’s teaching sway away from the Word it’s actually up to the individual whether they stay or not.Some ministers are still teaching the truth!
LikeLike
Then why does your sect need “doctors”? Why do you reject sola scriptura for a “Magisterium”?
LikeLike
Clair,
Catholics need doctors for the same reason everyone else does.
Did you know that Christianity was going strong over 300 years before the Bible was published?
Sola scriptura is for people who just like to make things up as they go.
That’s why there are literally 1000’s of sects who believe in sola scriptura.
LikeLike
Doctors! Like Therese of Lisieux! You have heard of “doctors of the church”, haven’t you? Three out of the 33 are women!
I don’t think “published” is the right word. You’re not very good at clear thinking, are you?
LikeLike
Clare,
You are a troll.
Quit wasting my time on stupid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You aren’t really carving a clear argument here Clare.
LikeLike
If you read the thread, perhaps you would understand.
LikeLike
I was surprised that SOM affected not to understand the term “doctor” when related to his sect. Your google term for complete avoidance of doubt is “Doctors of the Church”.
LikeLike
I read the thread. I just wish you’d clarified your meaning. There are also “doctors” of theology, which are simply those that have obtained a doctorate in theology. My guess was that you didnt mean the medical kind, but I was still a bit unclear on your meaning. Even so, your argument is a bit convoluted. It seems you might just be trying to attack without a real argument in general. I get that. Sometimes it feels good. 🙂
LikeLike
I was pointing out to SOM, a Catholic who should know this stuff, that his church’s position has moved on, that “doctors” have taught it new stuff, to contradict what he had said from within his own world view. Why don’t you think that’s an argument?
LikeLike
Jesus never taught on contraception at all, and this is only a teaching within the Catholic church. Not actually a biblical teaching either. 🙂
LikeLike
Karsten,
How do you know what Jesus taught?
LikeLike
Well, I will rephrase if you like: according to the Bible, Jesus never taught that.
LikeLike
Karsten,
The Bible wasn’t published until over 350 years after Jesus died.
No “New Testament” scripture was written until decades after Jesus died.
It is a myth that the Bible completely defines Christianity.
LikeLike
Thats fine. I just wanted to clarify. Your timeline is a little off, but textual criticism is more of an art than a science so it isnt worth arguing over.
LikeLike
Karsten,
My point is that Christianity originated out of the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus never wrote a word.
LikeLike
Right. Very true in a sense. Jesus is the teacher that the Apostles based Christianity on, but the Bible is where we get the teachings of Jesus according to those that knew him. Without the Bible, we have no idea what Jesus taught, and frankly what he taught is pretty irrelevant. Because the church was built around the letters of Paul, and the ministry of Paul (and Peter). Yes, the gospels came later, and yes the whole thing was canonized a few hundred years later, but we have Pauline letters dated to 70A.D. and the works that were canonized got in not because they were new, but because they were already in common use. So really, you could say that Paul and the other New Testament writers defined Christianity, and that Jesus’ teaching outside the writings of the New Testament is irrelevant. But either way, you claimed that Jesus taught something, and by your own admission via the points you have highlighted in this conversation, you have absolutely no idea if he taught that. It isn’t in the gospels, and none of the New Testament writers ever claimed that he said anything of that sort. plus, according to your admission, Jesus never wrote a word.
So, in conclusion, I stand by my original statement. As you helped me point out, Jesus never said anything about contraception. And the doctrine arose much later than his time. Later than the time of Biblical canonization as well, or at the very least we can say later than the time those books were written, whenever that may be, since not one of the NT books actually mentions it.
LikeLike
Karsten,
The Catholic Church was built around the teachings of all the Apostles, not just Paul.
Incorporated into Christianity is the Old Testament.
Jesus’ last words were from Psalm 22.
In Psalms are also the doctrine that human life begins in womb.
Abortion is a travesty, a grave sin, a brutality beyond measure.
LikeLike
…you dont seem to be following. I mentioned in my comment that the catholic church was built around more than the teachings of Paul. I actually mentioned peter and the Apostles, so this seems like a very odd thing to attempt to argue about, since its what I said.
Yes, incorporated into Christianity is the Old Testament. Cool dudes!
Yep, his last words sure were (if you now are agreeing with me that we must in fact base our ideas of what he said off of the Bible, that is).
Sort of on this one. The doctrine that Human life begins in the womb is loosely presented. It states “you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Conservatives take this to mean that a human being becomes a human being at the moment of conception. This of course is not actually a biblical statement, but rather a doctrine derived from biblical interpretation. Its one that you can build a decent case for, but thats not the same as an actual statement the Bible directly makes.
Okay, you lost me on this last one. Are you stating your opinion? Are you trying to say that you think Psalms teaches this? What are you going for here?
LikeLike
Karsten,
Catholic doctrine, from the Apostles, teaches that life is precious.
Birth control, a modern device, is abortion which violates the sanctity of life.
The point of Jesus being born of woman is that woman, her womb and the unborn child are sacred.
LikeLike
Okay got it. Yes. that is a catholic doctrine. Can’t argue with you there. Catholics definitely think that. And they definitely choose to believe that birth control is abortion.
I always found this a bit fascinating personally, since it obviously isn’t. I mean even catholics concede that a life is only formed once conception takes place. You could argue that birth control thwarts conception I suppose, but that isn’t the same as abortive. Abortion requires you to “abort” what already is, not to stop it from ever being. In order to call contraception abortion, we would have to either change the definition of abortion or change the definition of conception.
After all, a woman “aborts” an unborn child every month by your definition. Every time an egg is lost in a period, she has “aborted” that egg in the exact same was a man “aborts” his sperm when he uses a condom. So really, having a period violates the sanctity of life, and God has set women up to commit a sin every month just by being born female. Man, that version of God is real patriarchal asshole.
LikeLike
Karsten,
A male and female gamete (sperm and egg) are not human beings.
The human comes into being at conception.
Abortion pills kill human beings, since they kill human beings who have just been conceived.
LikeLike
Right. So explain why condoms are wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus never taught on contraception at all
Absolute nonsense. In the Gospel of the Egyptians, Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha. Nice one. Lol. So I guess we can say that the Jesus that actually has something to do with religion and actually was the driving force behind the creation of the Christian church never taught on contraception at all. But the one of a book that Christians dont have anything to do with and dont use to form doctrine on any level apparently has a character that does. Lol. No wonder it didnt make the cut too, it doesn’t reflect anything else we know of him at any point ever. I mean he literally traveled with women and even gave them privilege over men repeatedly. Sure, the book has nothing to do with the church, but just based on the content it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with Jesus either. Whoever wrote it must really not like women though. Man, Jesus must find that book really annoying.
LikeLike
There are over 70 so-named apocryphal books. Just because you chose to only read the few anonymously-written books selected by men hundreds of years after the character was said to have lived does not mean the others are fiction. I like to look at the entire “Jesus Story,” not simply the censored version you have chosen.
LikeLike
Well now I guess your just trying to be mean? haha. Yeah, turns out I use the most well documented and relevant texts to interpret what Jesus taught. This is because I’m a Christian. Although, it does make me laugh a bit how people keep bringing up the “hundreds of years” thing as if they are stating some revolutionary fact. Sure, the bible wasn’t officially in it’s current form in a document until about 305 C.E. when Lucian of Antioch makes his New Testament, but Justin Martyr’s writings in the early 2nd century make it clear that the gospels were already being commonly read as early as the 1st century, and we have Pauline manuscripts that date back to the 1st century as well. Even Marcion puts together a canon that looks similar to the final “Biblical Canon” around 140 C.E. It doesn’t have a bunch of apocryphal gospels either. So no, the Bible is not some random assortment of books selected hundreds of years later. It’s pretty much the collection of books that the early church used. The commonly circulated letters, and the “memoirs of the Apostles” that the early church viewed as scipturally authoritative. I’m sure plenty of people wrote apocyphal fiction that they very much enjoyed sharing, and good for them. But it’s pretty irrelevant in discussing anything related to the actual teachings of Jesus. Even liberal athiest textual critics and Bible scholars will acknowledge that. We’re just talking basic scholarly foundations here at this point.
I mean, if you enjoy a fun “Jesus Story” and you’re looking for enjoyable fiction that isn’t relevant, read away! Go for it, man. Read the book of Mormon while you’re at it. It’s incredibly entertaining. It just isn’t helpful to any real discussion of the teachings of Jesus.
LikeLike
Yes, thanks, I know the history of the bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The important part her is they create a rules system that they Know will be broken. Then the provide absolution from the sin. The end game is power over the people
LikeLiked by 1 person
I definitely think that’s a main reason for the success of Christianity – but I’m not sure if it’s deliberate or contrived in any way. It’s just a winning formula for adherence. It would be great to know how many leaders chose it with that in mind though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dude. This is so good. I think that is what SO much of religion does. It’s exhausting, and definitely an effective tool for control. Islam, Judaism, and MUCH of Christianity follows this. Although that is the exact opposite of New Testament teaching and completely violates the heart of Christianity, it is SO rampant within religion, and it is a poison to society.
LikeLike
Then why no god appears to tell the sincere believers and the rest of us even this much? Are we talking about an impotent god, who is unable to stop the suffering wich directly follows from this? If a god can not fix this issue, it means that such a god is as irrelevant, to the reality in wich we live in, as a god that never even existed. Does it not?
Infact, since there is no evidence, that any gods ever existed, it is hardly likely – putting these two things together, that it is either an unspeakably evil, or impotent god to the obvious lack of evidence – that we are warranted to assume there are any gods.
LikeLike
Obviously what you must mean is that there is no evidence to suit what you define as evidence. The scientific method is great for understanding the observable world, but when it comes to religious questions, it isnt exactly built for it. I mean you have Christianity for example, which holds that God does not want to force Himself on people, but rather works through his friends (humans) on a person to person level, showing His love and winning people over like a suitor wins over his love. Then we wonder why this God doesn’t intentionally reveal Himself in a Lab, which would effectively force people to believe in and ascent to His existence. Well, if they have to acknowledge Him as ultimate creator and source, now they are forced to make a choice that they were not ready to make. Rather than God doing what he Has demonstrated for the whole of Christianity, he would now be acting against his nature, forcing conversion or rejection, and driving millions of people that he desires to win to his heart via a relational journey permenantly away from Him due to His sudden irrefutable proof of existence. Now THIS God would be difficult indeed. Not to mention, He would completely ruin what he claims to be about.
I’m aware that the way God set up the system isn’t really great for those that insist on forcing him to prove Himself in a lab, but since His goal is friendship, and people are discovering that friendship with him daily, He seems to be doing okay at accomplishing his purposes even if they aren’t my purposes.
And the classic impotence or evil argument is really nothing more than a false premise. The Genesis myth states that Adam is given authority to rule over the earth and bring it into alignment with God’s will, but of course Adam would rather be his own God than be friends with God, so that authority is taken from him. Then Jesus comes as a man, welding that authority once again and demonstrating what it looks like, and according to Paul in his letters, he is the “second Adam” who restores that authority. To assume that a situation has something to do with God not being powerful enough or being evil is a false premise, as it is mankind’s job to demonstrate and walk out His authority.
You may think mankind is doing a crappy job at it. I agree. But some of us take our friendship with him seriously, and so we engage in conversations, pray for the sick and the broken, speak what we hear Him saying to people, things like that. Not all Christians do that. frankly most would rather hold to their doctrines rather than their God. But He is absolutely accomplishing what He wants every time one of us lives according to that authority. Its on us to be in charge of our world, and to partner with Him to demonstrate His love via personal interaction. No one will probably ever prove Him in a lab, because that has nothing to do with relationship. But He is powerful, and when Christians choose to actually live out that power, many amazing things happen.
By the way, it should be noted that I have no interest in converting you, or in trying to prove God’s existence to you. He is perfectly capable of managing His own relationship with you. But I get to play a role in helping share His heart, and also in learning as I interact with others which I love to do. Even if you dont like the answers, there are answers to the questions you’re presenting; and I think its worth it to present them. They probably won’t be heard or received, but maybe someone will read them and it will help.
By the way, there is a tremendous amount of proof of God that can be easily found, but evidence that can be duplicated in a lab doesn’t exist because of what I stated before. That does NOT mean that evidence VERIFIED by labs doesn’t exist, as there are piles upon piles of documented medical “miracles” where someone was prayed for and then healed. I’ve personally witnessed two legs instantaneously grow out, one back with scoliosis instantly straighten after a lifetime of being crooked, and a broken foot instantly heal followed by the muscle instantaneously regenerating. God works in tangible and verifiable ways all the time. He just isn’t in the business of forcing himself on people by removing all doubt in a replicable lab setting. But if you genuinely want to know Him, start pursuing Him. You’ll find Him.
LikeLike
Jim,
For crying out loud!
Bigot much?
Get out a little and go visit a Catholic Church during Sunday or daily Mass.
You will find yourself sitting in a crowd of ordinary people.
They have family, jobs and most importantly, a brain of their own.
LikeLike
I see. Asses like yourself? Bigot yourself prick
LikeLike
Jim,
Yes, asses like me.
Holy and perfect people like you and Violet don’t need Jesus.
LikeLike
Violet is much kinder than you. You over opinionated and smug in your know it all attitude. Name calling the people you want to convince is a liberal tactic that loses all respect.
LikeLike
Jim,
I am merely a voice for the Western Heritage a most wonderful heritage that brought the world Christian Western Civilization.
The Muslims, the Chinese, the East Indians all envy it for it was something their cultures could never achieve.
LikeLike
Absolutely. The religious should stay the hell out scientific issues, such as climate change. They have proven (if they wear their religious hat into the issue) to be of thoroughly unsound mind. Case in point, The Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which says, to paraphrase, man-caused climate change is false, and Yhwh won’t allow man to destroy the planet.
LikeLike
I don’t think they need to stay out of it, just make it abundantly clear when they comment or contribute to discussions. And the media needs to state it too when they ask them for quotes. All too often they are presented as some sort of ‘balance’ to a debate without explicitly stating their religious affiliation, when it is clearly a main factor in the opinion.
LikeLike
No, if they’re opposed to something solely based on their religion, and have no supporting facts, then they should stay out.
LikeLike
That’s the point though – they do have supporting facts but it’s all supporting the religion ultimately.
LikeLike
Read this and show me why these folk should be invited into a “Future of the Planet” meeting
The Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:
WHAT WE BELIEVE
1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
WHAT WE DENY
1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
A CALL TO ACTION
In light of these facts,
1. We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
2. We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.
3. We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.
LikeLike
How many of them are there?
LikeLike
That is now taken as the general evangelical statement on climate change.
LikeLike
Violet,
There are tens of millions of us.
We are the ones who sent Crooked Hillary packing so that THE Donald, a fine, dashing and superbly competent fellow could guide the United States away from yet more European folly.
LikeLike
John,
You don’t need to be religious to know that climate change is a hoax.
All you need is a brain of your own.
LikeLike
John,
Gosh, maybe then science should stay out of politics.
Then hoaxes like global warming would die on the vine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, many everyday Catholics reject church dogma, at least in practice. Birth control is one of them. Many church going Catholic women are on birth control. So, I don’t think it is necessary for them to state that they are Catholics when discussing that topic.
LikeLike