By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I don't exactly see why anyone would have a problem with this kind of stuff. He's a human being and he's allowed to say what he wants (even if it is bollocks). People on this board were falling over themselves to defend him when he said far worse.
St Augustine. Accepted as catholic doctrine at council of Ephesus, 431 AD as per my post. No presbyterians back then. I'm ploughing through Peter Brown's biog of Augustine right now, alongside of Augustine's "Confessions", which are brilliant but bloody hard going.
Presbyterians have an extreme form of the doctrine, derived from Calvin, but its right there in catholicism.
It's actually a logical consequence of any of the monotheistic religions, whether or not it's in the official line, which is exactly why Augustine, who was a very sound logician, put forward the doctrine. God is both omniscient and omnipotent, according to all Christians, Jews and Muslims. He is also not constrained by time. Therefore He must know everything that is going to happen - you can't have an omniscient God who didn't know the Israelis would bomb Gaza - and be capable of stopping it, otherwise He's not omnipotent. Logically, the only explanation is that every baby shredded by a bomb is all part of God's wonderful plan. Presumably they get to heaven so that's all right. Bit of a problem for the shredder who may well go to hell.
It's all perfectly logical if you accept the basic premise, which all the monotheistic religions do. Personally I don't believe in God but it seems logical to me that if he does exist He's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or is a bit of a bastard.
Apart from logical cogency, there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin and the H bomb. - Bertrand Russell
He no doubt would have added the Israeli state, Islam, middle eastern war and all other forms of religious fundamentalism to this devastating observation.
St Augustine. Accepted as catholic doctrine at council of Ephesus, 431 AD as per my post. No presbyterians back then. I'm ploughing through Peter Brown's biog of Augustine right now, alongside of Augustine's "Confessions", which are brilliant but bloody hard going.
Presbyterians have an extreme form of the doctrine, derived from Calvin, but its right there in catholicism.
It's actually a logical consequence of any of the monotheistic religions, whether or not it's in the official line, which is exactly why Augustine, who was a very sound logician, put forward the doctrine. God is both omniscient and omnipotent, according to all Christians, Jews and Muslims. He is also not constrained by time. Therefore He must know everything that is going to happen - you can't have an omniscient God who didn't know the Israelis would bomb Gaza - and be capable of stopping it, otherwise He's not omnipotent. Logically, the only explanation is that every baby shredded by a bomb is all part of God's wonderful plan. Presumably they get to heaven so that's all right. Bit of a problem for the shredder who may well go to hell.
It's all perfectly logical if you accept the basic premise, which all the monotheistic religions do. Personally I don't believe in God but it seems logical to me that if he does exist He's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or is a bit of a bastard.
That's all fine, but I hope you do realise that 'Nope' is an Americanism, for a start.
It looks like I agree with most of what you're saying CIder, but you do have to apply all that historical knowledge to the here and now.
Yes you can say what you think these religions should logically conform to, based on something that 50% of them will reject. But it's no longer relevant or possibly was never relevant to them now. (Do you really think a Presbyterian will agree with a Catholic? Not where I'm from.)
It's about how it's interpreted now, in the modern era, and how that religious veneer is used as a proxy for land and wealth. That's the fcuking problem.
I don't go out of my way to look at anything Barton tweets or says - he's welcome to say what he likes about god although it's always a sign of a certain amount of intelligence if you are in the public eye to be a bit diplomatic on such points. What I've always been taught, however, is that it is for the living to afford the dead a certain respect and to allow them some dignity and privacy in death and I can never understand why anyone would feel the need to include such pictures of the dead, children or adults, for some sort of shock value
St Augustine. Accepted as catholic doctrine at council of Ephesus, 431 AD as per my post. No presbyterians back then. I'm ploughing through Peter Brown's biog of Augustine right now, alongside of Augustine's "Confessions", which are brilliant but bloody hard going.
Presbyterians have an extreme form of the doctrine, derived from Calvin, but its right there in catholicism.
It's actually a logical consequence of any of the monotheistic religions, whether or not it's in the official line, which is exactly why Augustine, who was a very sound logician, put forward the doctrine. God is both omniscient and omnipotent, according to all Christians, Jews and Muslims. He is also not constrained by time. Therefore He must know everything that is going to happen - you can't have an omniscient God who didn't know the Israelis would bomb Gaza - and be capable of stopping it, otherwise He's not omnipotent. Logically, the only explanation is that every baby shredded by a bomb is all part of God's wonderful plan. Presumably they get to heaven so that's all right. Bit of a problem for the shredder who may well go to hell.
It's all perfectly logical if you accept the basic premise, which all the monotheistic religions do. Personally I don't believe in God but it seems logical to me that if he does exist He's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or is a bit of a bastard.
Yes there is pre destination in catholism but it is nuanced. God offers grace to all and gives them the free will to do as they wish but it is a bit like he has already read the last page of the book.therefore the offer of redemption was there for say Hitler right up to the final moment if he had experienced genuine remorse at his actions.but god knew he wouldn't.god alone knows this not his followers hence Catholics are urged to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Calvinists go in for double pre destination hence you are already saved or damned to them - hence Ian Paisleys disturbing sense of certainty.
I don't go out of my way to look at anything Barton tweets or says - he's welcome to say what he likes about god although it's always a sign of a certain amount of intelligence if you are in the public eye to be a bit diplomatic on such points. What I've always been taught, however, is that it is for the living to afford the dead a certain respect and to allow them some dignity and privacy in death and I can never understand why anyone would feel the need to include such pictures of the dead, children or adults, for some sort of shock value
[Post edited 2 Aug 2014 1:43]
surely "for the shock value" is the justification for showing such images.
That's all fine, but I hope you do realise that 'Nope' is an Americanism, for a start.
It looks like I agree with most of what you're saying CIder, but you do have to apply all that historical knowledge to the here and now.
Yes you can say what you think these religions should logically conform to, based on something that 50% of them will reject. But it's no longer relevant or possibly was never relevant to them now. (Do you really think a Presbyterian will agree with a Catholic? Not where I'm from.)
It's about how it's interpreted now, in the modern era, and how that religious veneer is used as a proxy for land and wealth. That's the fcuking problem.
Quite right, Bklyn, I was being a smartarse, but I just happen to be reading about St Augustine now and am having to get my head around the theology - which I'm not really into, Augustine just happened to live right through a period I'm fascinated by and was one of the first men to ever write an auto-biography.
I do find it interesting that Calvinists and Catholics were later on killing each other over a doctrine that derives from a bloke who is often regarded as the founder of Catholicism.
One of the interesting things about Augustine and his era was that people weren't just born into Catholicism or Presbyterianism or whatever - they genuinely were trying to work it out from first principles. Augustine went through several different religions before settling on his particular form of Christianity, and even then he was working out for himself exactly what Christianity meant.
As you say, things are different now. The main interest in history for me is looking at the past and every now and again finding something you think of as natural - e.g. the power structures and tribalism of religion - isn't actually a given.
Yes there is pre destination in catholism but it is nuanced. God offers grace to all and gives them the free will to do as they wish but it is a bit like he has already read the last page of the book.therefore the offer of redemption was there for say Hitler right up to the final moment if he had experienced genuine remorse at his actions.but god knew he wouldn't.god alone knows this not his followers hence Catholics are urged to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Calvinists go in for double pre destination hence you are already saved or damned to them - hence Ian Paisleys disturbing sense of certainty.
The black and white opinions of jb and many others on Twitter and elsewhere about Gaza and peace are generally infuriating, Joey should stop being such a prat or find someone to vet what he says. As far as religion goes, I don't believe in magic. So.Yeah.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
