The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Northern Davincia]

Madoka Magica is loosely based on Faust, which is a rather important Christian tale as it warns against making deals with the devil. Trinity Blood has a Catholic priest for a protagonist.

All Arch needs to know is Madoka did nothing wrong.

Amen. On the topic of Christianity in anime, Samurai Champloo does not shy away from the historical persecution of Japanese Christians.

[Luminesa]

All Arch needs to know is Madoka did nothing wrong.

Amen. On the topic of Christianity in anime, Samurai Champloo does not shy away from the historical persecution of Japanese Christians.

Another show to add to the list of shows I need to watch. Darn it. Thanks for reminding me. >.<

[Tarsonis]

Had more to do with the clown from Germany than anything to do with the theory itself

Germans really ought to stop destroying Europe.

I drove a German woman to the airport this morning and she was of the same mind.

[Salus Maior]

Ffs, can you get anymore butthurt and arrogant?

1.Honestly, from where I'm sitting, that could apply to the rest of this thread.

They're not.

2.You're not. See, I can play that game, too.

Get in a theology debate with Gren and you'll see.

Although don't, you won't get anywhere worthwhile.

3.I guess the United Church of Christ aren't actual Christians, either.

Typical Catholic arrogance. Only your hierarchy can define who is and who is not a true Christian, apparently.

1.Honestly, everyone here has been very patient with you. It's only turned to agitation because you're pulling the discussion in circles and essentially calling others stupid and uneducated because they don't happen to agree with you.

Of course, you've made yourself the eternal victim so of course you can't see your own mistakes and issues. It's always everyone else and those who don't agree with you.


2.Alright, I'll bite. By what standard am I not a Christian? Go ahead and explain it to me.

3. If they're anything like you I'd put a big "X to doubt" on that.

Oh please, even before I was Catholic I would have said the same. And for the record, I imagine the Catholic hierarchy to some extent see you and your lot as actual Christians. Believe it or not, we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore, and a lot of people don't take "Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus" seriously anymore. And furthermore, I do consider many Protestants and other Christian sects to be sincere Christians. My criticism of your take on Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that you're not under Apostolic authority.

[Lord Dominator]

I mean, he was executed, I don't understand why I wouldn't say he was.

Indeed, Galileo was put under house arrest in 1633, which is quite important, because he published his letter on Sunspots in 1613, and these outlined his heliocentrism. In 1615 when the inquisition court was called against Galileo, it was the expert Jesuit judges, who ruled in favour of Galileo, that ended his first trial against him, even though it was clear he presented Heliocentric views. Indeed, his ideas went by without the bat of an eye, and indeed enjoyed support, Cardinal Barberini congratulated him on it, in fact. In 1623, the future Pope Urban VIII, who was a cardinal at this time, wrote in homage of Galileo in 1623(!) 10 years after his "heresy" was clearly known. Indeed, the problem was not that the idea itself was heretical, but to present it as beyond a mere hypothesis, was the real issue, indeed at the time there was no evidence of a Copernican system, not until the time of Johannes Keplar, and after his discovery the Church wasn't bothered. Copernicus' hypothesis was used in prior time by the Church, it was simply that it had to be maintained as just an hypothesis, unless evidence could be used to prove it, which eventually happened. With Galileo's tide experiments being incapable to support his hypothesis, there was no reason to believe Copernicus' modal any more than Brahe's modal. Yet, Galileo continued to mock his opponents and this created him a number of life long enemies, and eventually the Pope himself.

When the complaint to the inquisition was filed in 1615, it was actually rejected (thanks to the Jesuits), and indeed, Galileo continued to be a free man between 1613 to 1632, one has to wonder why he was given 20 years of down time for a "heresy" that was clearly identified in at least 1615 and published, himself, in 1613? One has to wonder. The problem with the idea that Galileo was executed for just his ideas is the huge inconsistency, if Galileo was producing this heresy, why wait? If his heresy was so clearly maligned by the church, why befriend him? Unless something latter in life, like his arrogance about his own convictions and his continued production of life-long enemies, began to present Galileo as prideful, rude, unreasonable and arrogant. Galileo eventually turned his friendship into hatred with Urban VIII, when he published his Dialogo, in this work he bi-passed the Papal censorship and put arguments which were very similar to Urban's arguments against Copernicus into the mouth of a character called Simplicio (literally meaning simpleton, and would be the equivalent of calling someone an idiot (or worse) today). Urban always suspected that Simplicio was a caricature of himself, though this wasn't Galileo's intention. Indeed Galileo is a classic example of poor timing, he would eventually be tried by Pope Urban VIII, a pope who would consistently fail in his papacy and was exceeding in nepotism. Indeed if anything the reason for this debacle can be laced with Urban, who as an individual Pope, caused a scientific stagnation of his own accord and will, by both his vanity and greed.

As further confirmation of my point, in 1655 observations were made in the Cathedral of Bologna by Giovanni Cassini to give concrete proof of Kepler's ideas. He showed that Kepler was right and Ptolemy was not. How could the Church see Copernican ideas as heretical but then supply a Cathedral to find evidence in support of it? It's quite clear that it was not Copernican theory itself that was heretical but that to claim it as fact without evidence was where the problem began, even here, however, it took poor circumstance as in Galileo's case to actually be convicted of 'heresy' for it.

Galileo went as far as to not present his discoveries to other scientists of the time, even to Johannes Kepler and believed he was the only one who could make valid discoveries. Quite clear is this fact that Galileo refused to give Kepler one of his telescopes, even though he gave them out to political entities. He ignored Kepler's works and wrote his treatise to Kepler in anagrams. Indeed, Galileo was not experimental in practice and made no critical experimental deduction to prove his hypothesis. The only reason we celebrate Galileo in this area is hindsight, not actual merit, because his attempts to prove Heliocentrism (not that he really tried to) were all failures, these achievements go to Kepler. When Cardinal Bellarmine was conducting the court of inquisition, asked Galileo for evidence to which Galileo refused and had no evidence. When Galileo eventually defended his ideas, he always defended with ideas which had been outdated by Kepler's research, indeed he defended his tides idea until the very end, even though this was clearly incapable as proof. When the Jesuit astronomer Grassi observed comets and claimed them as distant flying objects, Galileo's explanation that they were actually mere reflections of light caused people to abandon Fassi's hypothesis. A clear example of Galileo's distinct lack of respect for evidence.

When the day came for his final trial, Galileo did the utterly unthinkable, and contradicted himself numerous times, even after he was given time to prepare a defence. Galileo stated of his Dialogo that what it is believed to have been said, was actually the opposite, the idea that Dialogo was actual a refutation of Copernicus was clearly deceitful, the judge, and jury, new that Galileo was lying, but instead of showing this clearly by presenting his own letters and books against him, all the court did was require his signature for deposition. His defence of himself would stand in no trial. For he was clearly lying.

Also because I hate these irritating Wikipedia hyperlinks How about I play the game, shall we? Wait? Wikipedia saying something I've been saying for a while? No. That Copernican ideals were aactually fine, but that to present them as truth without evidence was wrong. say what?

From your own source:

Religious opposition to heliocentrism arose from Biblical references such as Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 which include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."[68]

[...]

Galileo defended heliocentrism based on his astronomical observations of 1609 (Sidereus Nuncius 1610). In December 1613, the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence confronted one of Galileo's friends and followers, Benedetto Castelli, with biblical objections to the motion of the earth. According to Maurice Finocchiaro, this was done in a friendly and gracious manner, out of curiosity. Prompted by this incident, Galileo wrote a letter to Castelli in which he argued that heliocentrism was actually not contrary to biblical texts, and that the bible was an authority on faith and morals, not on science. This letter was not published, but circulated widely.[69]

By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism.[70] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to Castelli.[71]

[...]

In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith".[76] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[77])

[...]

Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, "Simplicio" in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[81] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio.

Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[82] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy.

[...]

Dava Sobel argues that prior to Galileo's 1633 trial and judgement for heresy, Pope Urban VIII had become preoccupied with court intrigue and problems of state, and began to fear persecution or threats to his own life. In this context, Sobel argues that the problem of Galileo was presented to the pope by court insiders and enemies of Galileo. Having been accused of weakness in defending the church, Urban reacted against Galileo out of anger and fear.[91]

Also, your source very clearly contradicts your claim that Galileo was executed:

Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77.[9][92]

The quoted material speaks for itself. I rest my case.

I think I have the sixth sense, because when I made that comment I knew they would say: Bruno! Bruno was a narcissistic nut case. He loved Hermetic Magic and which can be summed up as, well read it for yourself (it's utter nonsense) he also rejected the core Christian teachings and it is this that would get him finally executed. You present a false syllogism, Bruno held heretical doctrine (abandoned the trintiy, and christology), he also held Heliocentrism, he was executed, therefore, he was executed for his heliocentrism; classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Bruno also presented no evidence for his ideas, evidence which Kepler had began to accumulate in the early 1600's, Bruno's heresy's are what killed him, and Galileo's arrogance and poor timing that killed him. I'm sure I could find a list of Heliocentrist's which were hardly bothered between 1550 and 1642 and they all died of natural deaths for the time: plague, cholera, maybe old age, you'know the usual, but execution? Unlikely.

You say all of that as if it actually justifies Bruno's imprisonment, conviction, and execution. You wanted somebody who was persecuted by the Catholic Church, and I gave it to you. And instead of conceding the point, you doubled down, and cited his very persecution as proof he wasn't persecuted.

It is quite clear that Copernican ideas were controversial, but not in and of themselves heretical. That it was used by their detractors as a weapon to dispense with personal grudges, hatreds, and desires, as with Galileo. The idea that the Church persecuted the sciences of it's day? Lacking. The idea that Popes abused their position for power which caused scientific stagnation? Likely.

I just demonstrated, using your own fucking source, that Copernican ideas were considered heretical. You don't have an intellectually honest leg to stand on, m8.

As far as I know, no one has argued that either person should have been persecuted, merely that there were more reasons than heliocentrism, which itself was used in one of it's forms as a heretical idea against political/social opponents.

[Luminesa]

1.Honestly, from where I'm sitting, that could apply to the rest of this thread.





2.You're not. See, I can play that game, too.



3.I guess the United Church of Christ aren't actual Christians, either.

Typical Catholic arrogance. Only your hierarchy can define who is and who is not a true Christian, apparently.

1.Honestly, everyone here has been very patient with you. It's only turned to agitation because you're pulling the discussion in circles and essentially calling others stupid and uneducated because they don't happen to agree with you.

Of course, you've made yourself the eternal victim so of course you can't see your own mistakes and issues. It's always everyone else and those who don't agree with you.


2.Alright, I'll bite. By what standard am I not a Christian? Go ahead and explain it to me.

3. If they're anything like you I'd put a big "X to doubt" on that.

Oh please, even before I was Catholic I would have said the same. And for the record, I imagine the Catholic hierarchy to some extent see you and your lot as actual Christians. Believe it or not, we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore, and a lot of people don't take "Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus" seriously anymore. And furthermore, I do consider many Protestants and other Christian sects to be sincere Christians. My criticism of your take on Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that you're not under Apostolic authority.

Really Gren is the aggravated one, based on the fact that nobody here actually feels their faith is being threatened by, “But muh God of the Gaps!” and “Catholics are arrogant, grr!” Honestly at this point it’s just become an entire thread waiting to see how many more insults Gren is going to throw before they realize this is going nowhere.

[Grenartia]

My only problems with Catholicism stems from its hierarchy.

How exactly does that work? Church hierarchy has existed since the earliest days of the religion. Is it just Catholicism in general or what?

Its a bunch of things about the organization and its beliefs. Suffice it to say I'm anti-Catholicism, because outside of a few small islets of mutual agreement (such as the recent change on capital punishment), the institution as a whole stands against everything I stand for. I have absolutely no problem with individual Catholics, unless they stand with the hierarchy on matters I disagree with it on. If the entire hierarchy just evaporated into thin air tomorrow, I cannot imagine many downsides.

So, its a problem to bring physical terms into a discussion involving a field that claims to attempt to give meaning to the physical.

<image>

I'm fully aware of this. I embrace that dichotomy myself. However, where that "why" concerns itself with the "how", I will stand there to correct the "why" when it messes up the "how".



I'm not doing any of that.

The problem is that the cosmological argument of God doesn't concern itself with the "how". It concerns itself with the "why".

And yet, it inherently involves the "how" in its discussion of the "why".

Giving meaning to the physical is not, in itself, explaining the physical.

Yet, it still involves the physical, and therefore, the fields that specialize in explaining the physical definitely have the right to give input. They are inherently involving themselves in our jurisdiction, so therefore, we should have some say in regards to that involvement.

Saying "the universe was created because of God" is not the same as "God created the universe through such and such means".

The former one is, indeed, totally benign to say. The problem comes when they say the latter and get the "such and such means" wrong. As what happened in this case.

Even if we go with the natural science explanation of the Big Bang, what happened at an indeterminate time before the big bang, and so on, it would not stop being just a mechanical process, a mechanical process which theology argues was initiated by God for whichever reason.

The Cosmological arguments is not a "Lord of the Gaps" argument because the Lord of the Gaps argument is literally reducing God as the materialistic processes are proved to be something not of a divine nature, but of a material nature. In other words, the Lord of the Gaps is a way to keep an Interventionist God in the picture. Cosmological arguments argue the "why" and, for it to argue a "why" it has to be perceived as a priori statement that God created the universe, because it is the theological terminator of the sequence of creation, unless you wish to try infinite regression of processes.

Infinite regression of processes is literally half the point of the field of cosmology.

Arguing that this is a Lord of the Gaps argument would make every other possible deity form (Clockwork, etc.) besides Interventionist completely ludicrous. This is not in dispute, really, given you have not given another explanation as to why should we reject the cosmological argument, or another model, as it were, of a non-interventionist deity in the universe.

Am I required to give another argument? I'm not aware of that rule if I am. I have the right to refute and dispute any argument I find objectionable. Substituting an alternative is not obligated.

If, and only if, you decide that God is nothing but a convenient myth can you reject even the clockwork conception of a deity in that God is a non-interference factor at all in the universe because it is all just a myth anyways, and that puts you in the same bind you say you're not trying to do, which is removing meaning out of the universe and hence giving God a non-trivial place in the universe, by doing such, you are rejecting the main lynchpin of Christian faith, and in doing so, you are not only casting doubt into your faith, but you are also casting doubt into whether or not you are even a Christian at all.

I don't buy into the argument supporting your conclusion. I can, and should, refute and dispute arguments for God's existence that I find to be bad, and I am not required to posit an alternative. I've already stated that Jesus himself stated that proof isn't necessary to be a Christian, only faith. It is easy to believe in something when you think you have proof of it. Its far more meaningful, however, to have faith in something that doesn't have proof for it (unless its something blatantly bad or incorrect, like being a Flat-earther or anti-vaxxer).

Does it not occur to you that one can be a Christian without accepting stupid arguments that claim to be able to prove the existence of God? We don't need proof of God's existence. Jesus Himself says that only faith is sufficient for that. If anything, proof of God's existence weakens faith in God.

I stand on the idea that christianity is defined by the following of some principles and ways to understand the world. Anything which stands outside or even in opposition to those principles can't be called christian, if not in name only, but not in substance.

Things like saying Giordano Bruno was a martyr of free-thinking, should be at least eyebrown raising for any christian, or for anyone with a wider historical view of the time.

Why is this such a controversial thing to say here?

An other thing is having total distrust of the church, which isn't so uncommon for christians of protestant origin, but the idea is bad because at its roots it means: The apostles of Jesus were failures, they failed the duty Jesus had entrusted them to become a church, they failed to establish a continuous legacy on earth connecting the past of Jesus to the present, they failed to transmit the message of Jesus in its entirety of meaning (which goes past anything a book can contain).

The Roman institution hasn't been able to legitimately claim to be "The Church" in the better part of a millenium and a half.

The cosmological argument whose Tarsonis re-explained multiple times, isn't about proving anything. Not in the physical sense anyway.

Then it shouldn't need to make claims about the physical world to do so.

It is all about trying to answer the question of "What is the origin of the world?" (or "why the world exists?") and the answer any christian comes to is "God".
To which, by faith alone as you say, you should agree on that answer too.
The thing is though, you seems to be taking by faith an answer, which was originally achieved by (philosophical) reasoning.
While, the components of the argument, which made it possible to reach that answer, are as much important, but by discarting the reasoning which connects the question to the answer, what is lost, is a deeper understanding of the answer. In this case, what is lost, is a deeper understanding of God.

I fail to see how.

You say that trying to explain the answer weakens the faith, but to me it seems that ignoring the process to the answer makes the answer less meaningful, and the faith less rich.

Read the last part of my response to Soldati, and try to tell me that again.

Faith should be developed too, it shouldn't be just a prepackaged item.

Which is what any branch of christianity with apostolic succession has been doing for the longest time, developing the faith, all the way from Jesus to us in the present.

I fail to see how anything I've stated inherently makes faith "undeveloped" and "just a prepackaged item".

If you have a problem with me defending Tars, Gren, all I have to say is too bad. Maybe don’t base your argument around how a Yale grad is supposed to entertain a person who doesn’t want an answer.

You keep asserting that about me, but you've consistently failed to back up that assertion whenever I challenge you to do so.

Now do you have anything productive to say, or are you just going to loop everyone in a circle?

I've been saying plenty of productive things. Simply because you don't want to acknowledge them as such, doesn't mean I'm being unproductive.

Furthermore, I will answer a question to your debate however I want. I will answer with quotes from the Catechism, with the Bible, and with what I have taught, either directly quoted or in my own words. And I will not entertain foolishness. I will teach, because I am a teacher. I don’t prescribe to a sophomoric style of debating. I do my research, I read what my Church says, and I agree with Her. Wholeheartedly. If you think you can come in here and tell me how to talk about my Church, you truly do believe you have far more influence over me than you actually have.

All I'm saying is that you're clearly intelligent enough to write your own arguments without plagiarizing (as a teacher, you should know what this entails) them from the Pope and his spokespersons.

Although, since you keep trying to bring up this tangent, I am curious. What will you do when you inevitably encounter an issue that you cannot agree with the Catholic hierarchy on? You claim you think for yourself (and believe it or not, I actually believe you), so there will inevitably be something that comes up (if it hasn't already and you don't want to admit it).

Now are you going to chop this all apart and make some snarky comments, or are you going to step-up? I’ll keep asking until you do it, and if you don’t want to, perhaps you need to find another thread to argue in.

People get triggered when I "chop up" posts, they get triggered when I number each point I would like to address, they get triggered when I don't do anything and then assume I was addressing one thing when I was addressing another. Damned if I do one, damned if I do another, damned if I do neither. So I'll take a page from your book, and tell you that I'll respond to your posts (and everyone else's) however I want (within the realm of what is allowed on the forum). If you don't like it, all I have to say is too bad. I wonder if you're going to report me for saying that, too.

Because I find said arguments to be terrible.

Wouldn't time and energy be spent better arguing or doing good works for the sake of Christ, rather than assaulting an online Christian community? I must compliment you for your energy and your comprehensive work, but I implore you to use it for better activities than denying a common Christian argument, denouncing the Church, and misrepresenting historical theology.

Believe it or not, I already do a lot other than rant on this forum. And if by "denouncing the Church" you mean the Roman institution, then yes, though I have plenty of reasons to. If, instead, you mean the entire body of believerdom, then I have done no such thing. And I have no idea how I've misrepresented historical theology.

Does it not occur to you that one can be a Christian without accepting stupid arguments that claim to be able to prove the existence of God? We don't need proof of God's existence. Jesus Himself says that only faith is sufficient for that. If anything, proof of God's existence weakens faith in God.

Faith is certainly sufficient, but some people like to use the intellect that God has given us to make philosophical reasons as well. I grow tired of apologetics, but many Christians like them and prefer to use secular philosophy to buttress the religious philosophy. Developing a proof for God does not weaken faith, since the people that seek them strengthen their faith from the proof. In other words, perhaps you don't need a proof or the Cosmological Argument, but many other Christians do, and your arguments against it put you in the bin full of atheists and secularists that seek to destroy our faith.

I'd like to also direct you to my response to Soldati. Also, at the risk of being branded a heretic (yet again) what's wrong with secularism?

I guess the United Church of Christ aren't actual Christians, either.

Typical Catholic arrogance. Only your hierarchy can define who is and who is not a true Christian, apparently.

The UCC appears to be a standard mainline Protestant Church. I'm currently Methodist, so that makes me similar to you , though I'm moving towards Catholicism. We can judge who is and is not Christian by comparing what they profess to what Christians profess. In other words, we compare personal confession to established religious confession, like the Nicene Creed. If someone claims to be Christian, yet does not believe what Christians believe, they are not Christian. If someone claims to be Christian, yet does not believe in Christ's teachings and the continuous Apostolic succession of these teachings, they are not Christian.

Really, the church I go to is a Unitarian Universalist church, though that's simply because its the closest church to my beliefs in my area (everything else is either Southern Baptist or Catholic, or equivalent in non-compatibility with my beliefs). The closest undeniably Christian denomination to my beliefs, however is the UCC. Another matter that will undoubtedly get me re-branded a heretic and tarred and feathered is that I am a universalist.

1.Honestly, from where I'm sitting, that could apply to the rest of this thread.





2.You're not. See, I can play that game, too.



3.I guess the United Church of Christ aren't actual Christians, either.

Typical Catholic arrogance. Only your hierarchy can define who is and who is not a true Christian, apparently.

1.Honestly, everyone here has been very patient with you. It's only turned to agitation because you're pulling the discussion in circles and essentially calling others stupid and uneducated because they don't happen to agree with you.

Of course, you've made yourself the eternal victim so of course you can't see your own mistakes and issues. It's always everyone else and those who don't agree with you.


2.Alright, I'll bite. By what standard am I not a Christian? Go ahead and explain it to me.

3. If they're anything like you I'd put a big "X to doubt" on that.

4. Oh please, even before I was Catholic I would have said the same. And for the record, I imagine the Catholic hierarchy to some extent see you and your lot as actual Christians. Believe it or not, we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore, and a lot of people don't take "Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus" seriously anymore. And furthermore, I do consider many Protestants and other Christian sects to be sincere Christians. My criticism of your take on Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that you're not under Apostolic authority.

1. You haven't. Lumi hasn't. And Tarsonis certainly hasn't. And I did not instigate any hostility. As I said in Lumi's report thread, I will fully admit to not being the most civil person in this thread, but I'm not alone. You, Lumi, and Tars have all been less than civil to me (and, in fact, Tars' uncivility caused me to respond accordingly). If you three want specific instances, I can provide evidence.

2. You missed the point. Entirely. So let me spell it out. You have no more standing to say I'm not a Christian than I have standing to say you're not a Christian.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ

4. Could've fooled me.

1.Honestly, everyone here has been very patient with you. It's only turned to agitation because you're pulling the discussion in circles and essentially calling others stupid and uneducated because they don't happen to agree with you.

Of course, you've made yourself the eternal victim so of course you can't see your own mistakes and issues. It's always everyone else and those who don't agree with you.


2.Alright, I'll bite. By what standard am I not a Christian? Go ahead and explain it to me.

3. If they're anything like you I'd put a big "X to doubt" on that.

Oh please, even before I was Catholic I would have said the same. And for the record, I imagine the Catholic hierarchy to some extent see you and your lot as actual Christians. Believe it or not, we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore, and a lot of people don't take "Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus" seriously anymore. And furthermore, I do consider many Protestants and other Christian sects to be sincere Christians. My criticism of your take on Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that you're not under Apostolic authority.

Really Gren is the aggravated one, based on the fact that nobody here actually feels their faith is being threatened by, “But muh God of the Gaps!” and “Catholics are arrogant, grr!” Honestly at this point it’s just become an entire thread waiting to see how many more insults Gren is going to throw before they realize this is going nowhere.

If I were the aggravated one, then how come I wasn't the one to make a report in Moderation? Speaking of, allow me to address your last post in that report thread in the venue where it should actually be addressed:

As I have tried to explain more than once, the reference to Tarsonis' alma mater and major are to remind him of the level of discourse he should be maintaining in the discussion. I will be first to admit that I haven't been the most civil poster, however, I am not the only one in that department, as Tarsonis and Lumi have both gotten in more than their fair share of digs at me in that thread, as has Salus. I believe all comments from all sides to be within acceptable boundaries for NSG.

As for the "typical Catholic arrogance" bit, that isn't me attacking Catholic individuals, its me attacking the institution, which seems to arrogantly think it speaks for all Christians. Certain posters (certainly not all Catholics, not even all of them on this forum) seem to buy into that line, from my perspective. I was unaware Salus isn't Catholic, but his rhetoric was certainly reminiscent of rhetoric coming from the Catholic Church.

What are you reminding him of?

That his educational background demands more skillful articulation of his points than he had provided.

He knows how to debate,

That was never in question.

you simply don’t like his answers,

His answers weren't good enough. Believe it or not, I would have accepted a good enough answer even if I didn't like it. I would have still challenged said unliked answer, but I would've accepted it as a valid one.

or any of the answers that have been given to you,

Have you ever stopped to consider that none of the answers that I have been given thus far have been good enough? Yall have been trying to pass off a dried-out bit of shoe leather as filet mignon. I might have been born at night, but I wasn't born last night.

and have refused to give any sort of productive alternative to the given theories.

Newsflash, sister: I'm not required to.

Instead you’ve jabbed at his credentials,

Yes, and? If someone claiming to have Bachelors' in Math from MIT walked into your classroom and started trying to teach your students that 1+1=15, would you not question his credentials?

and at the “intellectual dishonesty” of other posters (simply for not giving you the response you would like),

No, the intellectual dishonesty comes from them claiming that they've made good arguments, and that I've made no good arguments.

and have accused everyone of having a “martyr complex” for being annoyed with the comments.

The only person I've accused of having a martyr complex is you, and that's because you came across as if you had one.

Nobody asked you to moderate the “level of discourse”,

They didn't have to.

as your name does not happen to be in red text.

It doesn't have to be.

I haven’t done any flaming.

You've certainly engaged in what can arguably be described as flamebaiting, and I can cite specific parts of specific posts to back that up.

While I have called-out your posts and your desire to make a pointless circle-jerk, I have not attacked you personally.

Again, I can cite specific posts to the contrary.

You said that specifically to Salus, who you presumed to be Catholic.

According to his last post, my presumption appears to have been correct.

You never specified that you didn’t think all Catholics were arrogant, and it doesn’t take away from what you posted.

I've made it abundantly clear throughout this thread that my problem is with the institution, not the individual believers.

[Grenartia]

From your own source:

Also, your source very clearly contradicts your claim that Galileo was executed:

The quoted material speaks for itself. I rest my case.



You say all of that as if it actually justifies Bruno's imprisonment, conviction, and execution. You wanted somebody who was persecuted by the Catholic Church, and I gave it to you. And instead of conceding the point, you doubled down, and cited his very persecution as proof he wasn't persecuted.



I just demonstrated, using your own fucking source, that Copernican ideas were considered heretical. You don't have an intellectually honest leg to stand on, m8.

As far as I know, no one has argued that either person should have been persecuted, merely that there were more reasons than heliocentrism, which itself was used in one of it's forms as a heretical idea against political/social opponents.

I mean, when somebody says "Both admirers and critics of Giordano Bruno basically agree that he was pompous and arrogant, highly valuing his opinions and showing little patience with anyone who even mildly disagreed with him." in the context of his persecution and execution, that's at least dangerously close to justifying his persecution and execution, if not outright doing so.

I still have no idea what's so controversial about my saying that Bruno was a martyr for free thought, especially when the apologists shout that he was "obviously a heretic for other reasons". Freedom of thought inherently and necessarily includes freedom of heresy.

[Lost Memories]

Things like saying Giordano Bruno was a martyr of free-thinking, should be at least eyebrown raising for any christian, or for anyone with a wider historical view of the time.

Why is this such a controversial thing to say here?

Because Giordano Bruno was condemned, among other things, of supporting pantheism.

Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern,[4] as was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul.
Bruno was burned to death at the stake for his pantheistic stance and cosmic perspective.

While most academics note Bruno's theological position as pantheism, physicist and philosopher Max Bernhard Weinstein in his Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature"), wrote that the theological model of pandeism was strongly expressed in the teachings of Bruno, especially with respect to the vision of a deity which had no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than any other, and was immanent, as present on Earth as in the Heavens, subsuming in itself the multiplicity of existence.

How can that be considered "nothing wrong" when it's a priest to say that? That's so clearly heretical.
Saying Bruno did nothing wrong, is stating that his pantheism was right too, which isn't christian.

Also keep in mind, the process to Bruno wasn't a swift matter where some random accuses were tossed at him and the following day they sentenced him. The process to Giordano Bruno did last 7 years.
That isn't the behaviour of someone tyrannical who removes the threats to their power, a bad church as you believe wouldn't have spent 7 years trying to make sure the matter of Bruno wasn't just a big misunderstanding.

Imprisonment, trial and execution, 1593–1600

During the seven years of his trial in Rome, Bruno was held in confinement, lastly in the Tower of Nona. Some important documents about the trial are lost, but others have been preserved, among them a summary of the proceedings that was rediscovered in 1940. The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo speculates the charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition were:

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
dealing in magics and divination.

Bruno defended himself as he had in Venice, insisting that he accepted the Church's dogmatic teachings, but trying to preserve the basis of his philosophy. In particular, he held firm to his belief in the plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. On 20 January 1600, Pope Clement VIII declared Bruno a heretic and the Inquisition issued a sentence of death.

He was turned over to the secular authorities. On Ash Wednesday, 17 February 1600, in the Campo de' Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his "tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words". He was hung upside down naked before he was finally burned at the stake. His ashes were thrown into the Tiber river. All of Bruno's works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603.

Late Vatican position

The Vatican has published few official statements about Bruno's trial and execution. In 1942, Cardinal Giovanni Mercati, who discovered a number of lost documents relating to Bruno's trial, stated that the Church was perfectly justified in condemning him. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode" but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno's prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life". In the same year, Pope John Paul II made a general apology for "the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth".

So, isn't your dislike for the catholic clergy and hierarchy coming partly from prejudice?

Scrap that above.

I still have no idea what's so controversial about my saying that Bruno was a martyr for free thought, especially when the apologists shout that he was "obviously a heretic for other reasons". Freedom of thought inherently and necessarily includes freedom of heresy.

Let's try to make things a tiny bit more clear, do you agree or not that Bruno was heretical for what concerns his religious views?

It is all about trying to answer the question of "What is the origin of the world?" (or "why the world exists?") and the answer any christian comes to is "God".
To which, by faith alone as you say, you should agree on that answer too.
The thing is though, you seems to be taking by faith an answer, which was originally achieved by (philosophical) reasoning.
While, the components of the argument, which made it possible to reach that answer, are as much important, but by discarting the reasoning which connects the question to the answer, what is lost, is a deeper understanding of the answer. In this case, what is lost, is a deeper understanding of God.

I fail to see how.

Yes, I think it has been crystal clear that you don't see it.

Its far more meaningful, however, to have faith in something that doesn't have proof for it

Do you think there is no faith in giving importance to the question of "Why the world exists?" ?

Faith isn't only about believing an answer, but also about giving importance to the right questions.
Reasoning isn't counter to faith, reasoning is just a tool to find answers, and it can be used to explore faith and understand it more deeply.

I fail to see how anything I've stated inherently makes faith "undeveloped" and "just a prepackaged item".

What is your idea of development of faith then? Do you believe your faith should grow or not?
Because I'm failing to see, how you would go around it, if you by default remove any form of investigation, or reflection. (which includes prayer)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yet, it still involves the physical, and therefore, the fields that specialize in explaining the physical definitely have the right to give input. They are inherently involving themselves in our jurisdiction, so therefore, we should have some say in regards to that involvement.

Of course the physical sciences have an input in metaphysics, this is not into question.

What is in question is using physical sciences to try to disprove a "why", when the physical sciences concern themselves with the "how", or the explanation of processes we do not understand. It's easy to fall into the trap of explaining meaning through the processes of how things work, if you are a scientist, which is why a lot of scientists are not good philosophers.

This is not to say that scientists cannot be good philosophers, just that the nature of philosophy is quite different from that of science. If you adhere to science to answer philosophical questions, you're ignoring half the argument, namely, you are merely explaining a process and trying to argue there doesn't need to be a meaningful reason for it to exist.

Metaphysics, and theology in particular, concern themselves with the "why" of things, the nature of things and why things happen. It's trying to establish meaning, even if you are an atheist, to the questions about nature and life that cannot be explained by science itself. If metaphysics was the same as the natural sciences, it would not be a separate philosophical inquiry.

And, frankly, I understand the frustration, "why are they talking about shit I know how it works in completely wrong terms? THESE are the right terms of discussion about this". And that's fine, but the limitation of science is that it really, truly, doesn't provide meaning to the universe. Under a completely scientific model of the universe, the universe has no prime cause nor reason to exist, because science doesn't concern itself with the metaphysical. And this is not a condemnation of science by any means, as science does well without trying to explain metaphysics, but rather pointing the limitation of science around the issue of trying to explain metaphysical inquiries.

Science, contrary to the belief of many, has a hard limit, and this is trying to explain things beyond the physical. Science cannot provide meaning to the universe, or life itself, because science just doesn't have the tools to do it. You can, of course, explain how life works in scientific terms, but science cannot ascribe meaning to life, that is something beyond the physical that science cannot answer.

[Forestavia]

The persecution complex continues. Why would I say that when I myself am a Christian?..

I don't mean to get involved between you and Luminesa but I want to say something about the persecution complex because this is something that used to bother me about Christians until I understood what it was.

It really goes back to what happened at the cross. One of Christ's own disciples betrayed him (talk about persecution), the Jews wanted him out of the way, and the Pagans went along with it. And the persecution didn't stop there. Christianity is a religion that was literally BORN out of persecution. Once Christianity became the official state religion the tables were turned so that for a few centuries the Christians were the ones dishing out the persecution to others (and ironically enough, they started with their fellow Christians). Now in modern times, we see the tables turned once again. Just look at what is happening to Christians in Africa. Even in the western world, many media outlets have become hostile to the Christian point-of-view.

The reason why persecution comes up so often with this religion is because persecution is literally part of the blood of Christianity. It is a karmic energy consciousness that has been, is, and could be associated with Christianity for many more centuries to come. But there is a way to transcend it. It starts with directly attacking the victim mentality and we can do that by remembering what Jesus actually accomplished for us. Jesus died for our sins and therefore the debt has been paid. If we hold this to be true, then we don't need to carry the unnecessary burden of guilt, shame, and anger that comes with persecution. It starts and it stops with us vs. them. It starts with something Jesus taught us: forgiveness. Forgiveness has the power to eradicate the karmic energy of persecution and the pain of victimization.

[Luminesa]

...While I’m not sure about the “karmic energy bit”...There’s a saying that the blood of martyrs is the cornerstone of the Church. I am of course paraphrasing, but yes, our Church is rich with the history of men and women who have died defending. And Christ did indeed die for us that we might be free from sin and sorrow.

However...I don’t think a “persecution complex” was happening here from me. Gren was bothered by my response and accused me of pulling from the Catechism...which really is not an insult to me. Then I was told to not quote integral parts of my faith because it’s “intellectually dishonest” or something. I responded saying that my faith is a part of me, and I’m not going to listen to someone telling me to not represent my faith. But I see...some of your point. I might be a bit tired and may have missed some of it, nothing personal.

[Forestavia]

...While I’m not sure about the “karmic energy bit”...There’s a saying that the blood of martyrs is the cornerstone of the Church. I am of course paraphrasing, but yes, our Church is rich with the history of men and women who have died defending. And Christ did indeed die for us that we might be free from sin and sorrow.

However...I don’t think a “persecution complex” was happening here from me. Gren was bothered by my response and accused me of pulling from the Catechism...which really is not an insult to me. Then I was told to not quote integral parts of my faith because it’s “intellectually dishonest” or something. I responded saying that my faith is a part of me, and I’m not going to listen to someone telling me to not represent my faith. But I see...some of your point. I might be a bit tired and may have missed some of it, nothing personal.

Yeah, I wasn't specifically pointing you out with the complex thing. What I'm doing is pointing out a general observation that I've noticed about Christianity overall. And even the language is so based around a victim/persecution mentality. I'll use the examples you gave just now (I know it's paraphrased but let's just go with that). "The blood of martyrs is the cornerstone of the Church" and "our Church is rich with the history of men and women who have died defending." This wording makes it sound like persecution is a good thing.

Why do Christians celebrate persecution? Where I'm going with this is I have a theory. If the church didn't make persecution such a big thing, then I have a feeling that Christians worldwide would experience an overall decrease in persecution. What I'm advocating for is a major shift in perspective. I hope someone is getting this because this could be a huge breakthrough for Christians on both a personal level and on a global level.

If I could change one thing about Christianity, this would be it. The persecution complex is the number one biggest weakness in the Christian faith and the good news is it has a solution. And that's why I picked that one comment to respond to out of the entire page.

(I don't mean to completely derail the previous conversation. But I felt moved to share this.)

[Grenartia]

Why is this such a controversial thing to say here?

Because Giordano Bruno was condemned, among other things, of supporting pantheism.

Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern,[4] as was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul.
Bruno was burned to death at the stake for his pantheistic stance and cosmic perspective.

While most academics note Bruno's theological position as pantheism, physicist and philosopher Max Bernhard Weinstein in his Welt- und Lebensanschauungen, Hervorgegangen aus Religion, Philosophie und Naturerkenntnis ("World and Life Views, Emerging From Religion, Philosophy and Nature"), wrote that the theological model of pandeism was strongly expressed in the teachings of Bruno, especially with respect to the vision of a deity which had no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than any other, and was immanent, as present on Earth as in the Heavens, subsuming in itself the multiplicity of existence.

How can that be considered "nothing wrong" when it's a priest to say that?

All I've been hearing is that the Inquisition determined he was a pantheist/pandeist, but I hear no supporting evidence of that. For all we know, they took some extensive liberties with his words, and exaggerated his more controversial theological perspectives.

That's so clearly heretical.
Saying Bruno did nothing wrong, is stating that his pantheism was right too, which isn't christian.

And even if he was a pantheist, that doesn't fucking justify being burned at the fucking stake. In fact, it isn't even wrong. It is simply a matter of having a different opinion. At worst, he should have been simply excommunicated.

Also keep in mind, the process to Bruno wasn't a swift matter where some random accuses were tossed at him and the following day they sentenced him. The process to Giordano Bruno did last 7 years.

As if that makes it any better.

That isn't the behaviour of someone tyrannical who removes the threats to their power, a bad church as you believe wouldn't have spent 7 years trying to make sure the matter of Bruno wasn't just a big misunderstanding.

Or, its the behavior of closed-minded tyrants who seek to prolong someone's psychological torture by unnecessarily extending their legal troubles. There's a reason the United States guarantees the right to a fair and speedy trial.

Imprisonment, trial and execution, 1593–1600

During the seven years of his trial in Rome, Bruno was held in confinement, lastly in the Tower of Nona. Some important documents about the trial are lost, but others have been preserved, among them a summary of the proceedings that was rediscovered in 1940. The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo speculates the charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition were:

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
dealing in magics and divination.

Bruno defended himself as he had in Venice, insisting that he accepted the Church's dogmatic teachings, but trying to preserve the basis of his philosophy. In particular, he held firm to his belief in the plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. On 20 January 1600, Pope Clement VIII declared Bruno a heretic and the Inquisition issued a sentence of death.

He was turned over to the secular authorities. On Ash Wednesday, 17 February 1600, in the Campo de' Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his "tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words". He was hung upside down naked before he was finally burned at the stake. His ashes were thrown into the Tiber river. All of Bruno's works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603.

The "secular" authorities of that time were simply extensions of the Catholic hierarchy's will, puppets, essentially, as evidenced by the very fact that they were conducting his execution for crimes against Catholic dogma.

Late Vatican position

The Vatican has published few official statements about Bruno's trial and execution. In 1942, Cardinal Giovanni Mercati, who discovered a number of lost documents relating to Bruno's trial, stated that the Church was perfectly justified in condemning him. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode" but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno's prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life". In the same year, Pope John Paul II made a general apology for "the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth".

So, isn't your dislike for the catholic clergy and hierarchy coming partly from prejudice?

Those individuals are hardly independent or unbiased. In particular, if the Inquisition truly "had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good" and was willing to do "everything possible to save his life", then they wouldn't have imprisoned him for 7 fucking years for him daring to exercise the very freedom the Cardinal says they wanted to defend, and they certainly wouldn't have ordered his execution.

As for my "prejudice", you say that as if my disregard for the institution is irrational and unjustified. I assure you, it is neither.

Scrap that above.

I still have no idea what's so controversial about my saying that Bruno was a martyr for free thought, especially when the apologists shout that he was "obviously a heretic for other reasons". Freedom of thought inherently and necessarily includes freedom of heresy.

Let's try to make things a tiny bit more clear, do you agree or not that Bruno was heretical for what concerns his religious views?

I fail to see how pantheism is inherently heretical. I fail to see how it is heretical to say that God is "as present on Earth as in the Heavens" (that's LITERALLY the entire point of omnipresence). I also fail to see how a deity with "no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than any other" is heretical, either (there's nothing in Scripture that says that God didn't create aliens, and especially nothing that says that God loves said aliens any less than humans).

I can certainly acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the time would think those ideas were heretical, but at the same time, I will say that the Catholic Church of the time was fucking wrong. Bruno's treatment was entirely unjustified.

I fail to see how.

Yes, I think it has been crystal clear that you don't see it.

You haven't done a very good job of explaining it.

Its far more meaningful, however, to have faith in something that doesn't have proof for it

Do you think there is no faith in giving importance to the question of "Why the world exists?" ?

Faith isn't only about believing an answer, but also about giving importance to the right questions.
Reasoning isn't counter to faith, reasoning is just a tool to find answers, and it can be used to explore faith and understand it more deeply.

That's all good, well, and fine, but my contention is that the tool is being improperly used.

I fail to see how anything I've stated inherently makes faith "undeveloped" and "just a prepackaged item".

What is your idea of development of faith then? Do you believe your faith should grow or not?
Because I'm failing to see, how you would go around it, if you by default remove any form of investigation, or reflection. (which includes prayer)

I have done no such thing.

[Lost Memories]

"The blood of martyrs is the cornerstone of the Church" and "our Church is rich with the history of men and women who have died defending." This wording makes it sound like persecution is a good thing.

It isn't about persecution being a good thing, rather than the ability of overturning a bad thing into reason of inspiration and spiritual growth, to be a good thing.
(that is the core of the concept of hope, to always find at least a little thing to go on, even into the worst possible events, such as persecution)

Why do Christians celebrate persecution?

Christians don't celebrate persecution, but they celebrate who didn't bend their beliefs even when faced with persecution, martyrs aren't celebrated because they were persecuted, they are celebrated because they didn't compromise their beliefs, they're an example of courage and determination, but most of all an example of deep faith.

While the "martyrs" who were victims of persecution, but more in an unwilling way than a direct one (as the example of those christians in egypt who were killed while they were on a bus trip), are still good to remember regardless, both for the respect any deceased should get and for the injustice which happened then.

[Grenartia]

Yet, it still involves the physical, and therefore, the fields that specialize in explaining the physical definitely have the right to give input. They are inherently involving themselves in our jurisdiction, so therefore, we should have some say in regards to that involvement.

Of course the physical sciences have an input in metaphysics, this is not into question.

What is in question is using physical sciences to try to disprove a "why", when the physical sciences concern themselves with the "how", or the explanation of processes we do not understand. It's easy to fall into the trap of explaining meaning through the processes of how things work, if you are a scientist, which is why a lot of scientists are not good philosophers.

Actually, that last one reminds me of this: Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, Or: Why Mathematicians and Scientists don't like Philosophy but do it anyway

This is not to say that scientists cannot be good philosophers, just that the nature of philosophy is quite different from that of science. If you adhere to science to answer philosophical questions, you're ignoring half the argument, namely, you are merely explaining a process and trying to argue there doesn't need to be a meaningful reason for it to exist.

Metaphysics, and theology in particular, concern themselves with the "why" of things, the nature of things and why things happen. It's trying to establish meaning, even if you are an atheist, to the questions about nature and life that cannot be explained by science itself. If metaphysics was the same as the natural sciences, it would not be a separate philosophical inquiry.

And, frankly, I understand the frustration, "why are they talking about shit I know how it works in completely wrong terms? THESE are the right terms of discussion about this". And that's fine, but the limitation of science is that it really, truly, doesn't provide meaning to the universe. Under a completely scientific model of the universe, the universe has no prime cause nor reason to exist, because science doesn't concern itself with the metaphysical. And this is not a condemnation of science by any means, as science does well without trying to explain metaphysics, but rather pointing the limitation of science around the issue of trying to explain metaphysical inquiries.

I'm aware of this. As noted about Newton's Flaming Laser Sword: "It undoubtedly cuts out the crap, it also seems to cut out almost everything else as well".

Science, contrary to the belief of many, has a hard limit, and this is trying to explain things beyond the physical. Science cannot provide meaning to the universe, or life itself, because science just doesn't have the tools to do it. You can, of course, explain how life works in scientific terms, but science cannot ascribe meaning to life, that is something beyond the physical that science cannot answer.

Again, I know that, however, I believe in this case, the tools in metaphysics are being misused, especially in areas where said tools rely on questions science has answered or can answer.

[Lost Memories]

Let's try to make things a tiny bit more clear, do you agree or not that Bruno was heretical for what concerns his religious views?

I fail to see how pantheism is inherently heretical. I fail to see how it is heretical to say that God is "as present on Earth as in the Heavens" (that's LITERALLY the entire point of omnipresence). I also fail to see how a deity with "no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than any other" is heretical, either (there's nothing in Scripture that says that God didn't create aliens, and especially nothing that says that God loves said aliens any less than humans).

I'll leave explaining why pantheism isn't a christian belief to others who can articulate this better than me, but well, that isn't a christian belief..

Just a short note, pantheism isn't the same as omnipresence, pantheism is the idea that everything is god, omnipresence is about god being present everywhere, but in omnipresence god isn't everything (since believing universe=god would assume the universe is a part of god, like the universe being the mind of god, or the stomach of god, a tree being god, a rock being god, an animal/insect being god, or that every person is in entirety a fragment of god, that isn't what christians believe in)

[Grenartia]

The persecution complex continues. Why would I say that when I myself am a Christian?..

I don't mean to get involved between you and Luminesa but I want to say something about the persecution complex because this is something that used to bother me about Christians until I understood what it was.

It really goes back to what happened at the cross. One of Christ's own disciples betrayed him (talk about persecution), the Jews wanted him out of the way, and the Pagans went along with it. And the persecution didn't stop there. Christianity is a religion that was literally BORN out of persecution. Once Christianity became the official state religion the tables were turned so that for a few centuries the Christians were the ones dishing out the persecution to others (and ironically enough, they started with their fellow Christians). Now in modern times, we see the tables turned once again. Just look at what is happening to Christians in Africa. Even in the western world, many media outlets have become hostile to the Christian point-of-view.

As a Christian in the western world, I take extreme issue with being told that I'm being persecuted similarly to Christians in Africa because some media outlets here are anti-fundamentalist, and said outlets think its silly that people are trying to make discrimination an issue of religious liberty. Jesus never said "Do not bakest for thine gay neighbors a wedding cake".

I have not seen any hostility to "the Christian point of view" from even the most liberal of media outlets. Unless the Religious Right has some kind of monopoly on "the Christian point of view", but even then, most of said outlets seem to actively pussyfoot around certain controversial issues out of fear of pissing those types of people off by covering those issues with any degree of depth. Certainly not anything like every outlet being a 24/7 Richard Dawkins mouthpiece, which is what you seem to be implying.

The reason why persecution comes up so often with this religion is because persecution is literally part of the blood of Christianity. It is a karmic energy consciousness that has been, is, and could be associated with Christianity for many more centuries to come. But there is a way to transcend it. It starts with directly attacking the victim mentality and we can do that by remembering what Jesus actually accomplished for us. Jesus died for our sins and therefore the debt has been paid. If we hold this to be true, then we don't need to carry the unnecessary burden of guilt, shame, and anger that comes with persecution. It starts and it stops with us vs. them. It starts with something Jesus taught us: forgiveness. Forgiveness has the power to eradicate the karmic energy of persecution and the pain of victimization.

"Karmic energy consciousness" sounds like an awful lot of woo-woo to me, but I actually do agree that persecution has been too much ingrained into Christian consciousness, and that needs to change.

[Grenartia]

I fail to see how pantheism is inherently heretical. I fail to see how it is heretical to say that God is "as present on Earth as in the Heavens" (that's LITERALLY the entire point of omnipresence). I also fail to see how a deity with "no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than any other" is heretical, either (there's nothing in Scripture that says that God didn't create aliens, and especially nothing that says that God loves said aliens any less than humans).

I'll leave explaining why pantheism isn't a christian belief to others who can articulate this better than me, but well, that isn't a christian belief..

Just a short note, pantheism isn't the same as omnipresence, pantheism is the idea that everything is god, omnipresence is about god being present everywhere, but in omnipresence god isn't everything (since believing universe=god would assume the universe is a part of god, like the universe being the mind of god, or the stomach of god, a tree being god, a rock being god, an animal/insect being god, or that every person is in entirety a fragment of god, that isn't what christians believe in)

I'm aware of the differences, hence why I didn't mention them in the same sentence. However, I'd like to point out that any sufficiently motivated person or group of persons could easily twist a someone's thoughts about omnipresence into a statement of support for pantheism.

[Forestavia]

"The blood of martyrs is the cornerstone of the Church" and "our Church is rich with the history of men and women who have died defending." This wording makes it sound like persecution is a good thing.

It isn't about persecution being a good thing, rather than the ability of overturning a bad thing into reason of inspiration and spiritual growth, to be a good thing.
(that is the core of the concept of hope, to always find at least a little thing to go on, even into the worst possible events, such as persecution)

Why do Christians celebrate persecution?

Christians don't celebrate persecution, but they celebrate who didn't bend their beliefs even when faced with persecution, martyrs aren't celebrated because they were persecuted, they are celebrated because they didn't compromise their beliefs, they're an example of courage and determination, but most of all an example of deep faith.

While the "martyrs" who were victims of persecution, but more in an unwilling way than a direct one (as the example of those christians in egypt who were killed while they were on a bus trip), are still good to remember regardless, both for the respect any deceased should get and for the injustice which happened then.

If you're already in that situation, then you have to make do with what you have. So you're right about keeping hope alive. It takes a lot of strength and faith of steel but persecution can be looked at as an opportunity for love and forgiveness. And certainly the people who do die should be remembered and honored and justice should be sought for everyone who is unjustly persecuted. But this is after the fact - after persecution already has happened.

What I'm getting at is what are Christians doing about persecution before it happens? Can the body of Christ change its thoughts, attitudes, and language in such a way that persecution is reduced and stopped before it even has a chance to get started? I think the answer is yes. I think too often the Christian's reverence for those who didn't compromise their beliefs leaks over into what can be called a persecution complex. Back when I used to still be a Christian, I remember hearing certain sermons about persecution and about how it was inevitable and that there is some risk inherent to being a Christian. I've heard so many sermons from different pastors about how opposed to the world Christianity is and over time this message slides into an "us versus the world" mentality. Christianity versus other religions. The Christian worldview as opposed to the wider culture. etc. This perspective isn't healthy. This sets the Christian up for future persecution.

[Tarsonis]

So status update: Bit of a mixed bag. Interview felt like it went well. But I hydroplaned on my way back skidding into the guard rail of I-93. I’m fine but my car has a bit of a bloody nose.

[Lost Memories]

So status update: Bit of a mixed bag. Interview felt like it went well. But I hydroplaned on my way back skidding into the guard rail of I-93. I’m fine but my car has a bit of a bloody nose.

Woah, not the best way to celebrate a good interview. Good thing you're fine, that's what really matters.

[Forestavia]

As a Christian in the western world, I take extreme issue with being told that I'm being persecuted similarly to Christians in Africa because some media outlets here are anti-fundamentalist, and said outlets think its silly that people are trying to make discrimination an issue of religious liberty. Jesus never said "Do not bakest for thine gay neighbors a wedding cake".

I have not seen any hostility to "the Christian point of view" from even the most liberal of media outlets. Unless the Religious Right has some kind of monopoly on "the Christian point of view", but even then, most of said outlets seem to actively pussyfoot around certain controversial issues out of fear of pissing those types of people off by covering those issues with any degree of depth. Certainly not anything like every outlet being a 24/7 Richard Dawkins mouthpiece, which is what you seem to be implying.

Jesus also never advocated for a victim mentality. Okay, let's do the wedding cake example. That's a perfect example. Because everyone in that situation was a victim. Everyone had a persecution complex. Everyone was a bad guy. Everyone wanted justice. Everyone was wrong.

I can sum up the wedding cake situation with one word: Immaturity. Immaturity is what happens when a free society can't handle being free.

The Christian baker is in the business to make money. Why does he care what other people are doing in the bedroom as long as he's getting paid?
And as for the gay couple, why didn't they just take their business somewhere else?

The evil Christian baker was persecuting the poor gay couple who just wanted a wedding cake (even though he lives in a free country where one is free to make risky business decisions). The gays in this situation could have decided to go to another bakery but instead they decided to have a persecution complex.

And the evil gay couple with their evil gay agenda was persecuting the poor Christian family bakery (even though it's possible to be gay and Christian). Many Christians throughout the country saw this as an attack on their religious rights. Instead of living a live-and-let-live philosophy, the Christians at that bakery decided to have a persecution complex.

Because both of these sides had a persecution complex in this situation, both sides experienced persecution. (Surprise!)

But what if they had a healthy attitude about persecution from the start? If this was the case then the gay couple would have had a wedding cake from a willing baker and a Christian family bakery wouldn't have had to lose business from boycotts and negative publicity. Everyone would have been happy and the entire drama never would have had to happen.

[Rage Issues]

Theoretically speaking, what would you do if I said I was an atheist...

[Northern Davincia]

Theoretically speaking, what would you do if I said I was an atheist...

Offer you a drink and a seat among friends.