Concerned Catholics

[JoltinJoe]

Lets apply logic to conversations about God and see what happens

A universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the universe.

Hey, you're a guy who frequently cites Occam's Razor, right? You've got to appreciate how simple that explanation is, am I double right? Count 'em: one assumption.

[Chizzang]

Lets apply logic to conversations about God and see what happens

A universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the universe.

Hey, you're a guy who frequently cites Occam's Razor, right? You've got to appreciate how simple that explanation is, am I double right? Count 'em: one assumption.

I love it..!!!
I'm a prime mover believer

Beyond that it gets pretty sketchy and a lot of other "grand Assumptions" get made
One assumption does not beget a second (said nobody in the business of religion ever)

Pretending to know things that we do not know is the lifeblood of organized religion

[JoltinJoe]

A universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the universe.

Hey, you're a guy who frequently cites Occam's Razor, right? You've got to appreciate how simple that explanation is, am I double right? Count 'em: one assumption.

I love it..!!!
I'm a prime mover believer

Beyond that it gets pretty sketchy and a lot of other "grand Assumptions" get made
One assumption does not beget a second (said nobody in the business of religion ever)

Pretending to know things that we do not know is the lifeblood of organized religion

Well, once you accept the assumption of the Prime Mover, and begin to ask questions about the nature of the Prime Mover, you are beginning to transition from metaphysics to theology.

Nonetheless, there are still some rational assumptions that reasonable people can intuit.

For example, Jefferson assumed that the Creator endowed each individual with certain unalienable or inalienable rights.

You accept that too, don't you?

[Pwns]

I reject godless universe because I reject the materialist/physicalist model of the universe. If metaphysical forces can subvert rules of the universe at will then a higher consciousness is as good an explanation as any.

I've found, though, that people are generally less interested in hearing my critiques of materialism than they are of even listening to bad arguments for intelligent design and God.

[Ibanez]

I love it..!!!
I'm a prime mover believer

Beyond that it gets pretty sketchy and a lot of other "grand Assumptions" get made
One assumption does not beget a second (said nobody in the business of religion ever)

Pretending to know things that we do not know is the lifeblood of organized religion

Well, once you accept the assumption of the Prime Mover, and begin to ask questions about the nature of the Prime Mover, you are beginning to transition from metaphysics to theology.

Nonetheless, there are still some rational assumptions that reasonable people can intuit.

For example, Jefferson assumed that the Creator endowed each individual with certain unalienable or inalienable rights.

You accept that too, don't you?

Except for Negroes.

And possibly women.

[CAA Flagship]

Well, once you accept the assumption of the Prime Mover, and begin to ask questions about the nature of the Prime Mover, you are beginning to transition from metaphysics to theology.

Nonetheless, there are still some rational assumptions that reasonable people can intuit.

For example, Jefferson assumed that the Creator endowed each individual with certain unalienable or inalienable rights.

You accept that too, don't you?

Except for Negroes.

And possibly women.

According to xvideos, blacks are well endowed.

[JoltinJoe]

I reject godless universe because I reject the materialist/physicalist model of the universe. If metaphysical forces can subvert rules of the universe at will then a higher consciousness is as good an explanation as any.

I've found, though, that people are generally less interested in hearing my critiques of materialism than they are of even listening to bad arguments for intelligent design and God.

Materialism is an idea.

An idea is not matter.

Therefore, materialism does not exist.

[Ibanez]

I reject godless universe because I reject the materialist/physicalist model of the universe. If metaphysical forces can subvert rules of the universe at will then a higher consciousness is as good an explanation as any.

I've found, though, that people are generally less interested in hearing my critiques of materialism than they are of even listening to bad arguments for intelligent design and God.

Materialism is an idea.

An idea is not matter.

Therefore, materialism does not exist.

Does that go for any philosophy?

[JoltinJoe]

Materialism is an idea.

An idea is not matter.

Therefore, materialism does not exist.

Does that go for any philosophy?

Well, yes, but it is most ironical in the case of materialism.

[Ibanez]

Does that go for any philosophy?

Well, yes, but it is most ironical in the case of materialism.

So no philosophies exist? I think i'm missing something. I'm not familiar with materialism and it's been 15 years since my philosophy classes (which I just found the text books when unpacking after my last move.)

I'm sure I know the answer but - does your position extend to Christian philosophy? For instance, the argument for the existence of God from the intelligibility of being a "thought being?"

[JoltinJoe]

Well, yes, but it is most ironical in the case of materialism.

So no philosophies exist? I think i'm missing something. I'm not familiar with materialism and it's been 15 years since my philosophy classes (which I just found the text books when unpacking after my last move.)

I'm sure I know the answer but - does your position extend to Christian philosophy? For instance, the argument for the existence of God from the intelligibility of being a "thought being?"

You're overthinking it. It was a joke.

[css75]

Jefferson is typically referred to as a "Christian Deist" because, although he did not accept Christ as divine and was thus not "Christian" or a member of any Christian church, he actively adopted Christian ethics as the foundation of societal law.

Did you know Jefferson actually "edited" the Gospels to create narratives of Jesus' life that included no references to his divinity or miracles -- distilled to include only Jesus' teachings? In a often-misquoted statement, Jefferson once wrote: ""[T]o the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, & believing he never claimed any other." (I probably don't have to point out which part of this quote is frequently taken out-of-context ).

Avery Dulles, S.J., an authority in 19th-century American religions and a theologian of world-wide notoriety, wrote: "In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

For these reasons, Jefferson is typically identified as a "Christian Deist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

Joe,
Christian ethics is a whole other conversation (please)

But back to Christian Deist
So Jefferson does NOT believe that Jesus is Christ
Therefore he cannot be any form of Christian

Being sympathetic to Christian doctrine is philosophical in nature not spiritual (such as myself)
But to be "Christian" one must believe the most basic tenant
Step one: "Jesus is Christ" if your answer is "Nope, he's not"

That's a deal breaker

Totally accurate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

Jefferson referring to his first attempt, the “Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth”:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Maybe the US was founded on Jesus’s principles (among others) instead of Christian principles?

Personally - this where people get confused. Our country, founded by men with religious beliefs most assuredly has religious principles in its founding laws. Those principles and beliefs helped craft the laws.

But that doesn't necessarily make a country Christian. Or religious. Especially if the very first right says the government will not stop you from believing anything you want nor will it require you to believe in something.

Accurate also.

I have heard mentioned multiple times that we are in the post Christian Era of our country as things have changed starting with Madelyn Murray back in the 50s.

Personally, I like to think our leaders have a belief in God or some higher power as it makes them accountable to their God/Higher power and keeps a bit of humility in them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

Accurate also.

I have heard mentioned multiple times that we are in the post Christian Era of our country as things have changed starting with Madelyn Murray back in the 50s.

Personally, I like to think our leaders have a belief in God or some higher power as it makes them accountable to their God/Higher power and keeps a bit of humility in them.

Their accountability is to the People; that's what good politicians understand.

Throughout history an "accountability" to God has meant little when power is involved. If anything, God ends up being a justification for doing some genuinely terrible things.

Additionally, God's been inserted into politics more than ever since the 50s, especially after the Red Scare.

[JoltinJoe]

I never said our government was "Christian." All I said was that it's not correct to say our government is "secular." In fact, that was the only comment from your initial post that I said I disagreed with.

I know you did. Your post came across that way, so I apologize.

Question - if we aren't a Theocracy and we aren't Secular...then what are we?

Or is the answer not that easy? Is or isn't it a binary condition (instead of we're kinda secular?)

You're right. Our government is not a theocracy or secular.

It is a government founded on natural law.

It is not secular in that our government is founded on the concept of a Creator who has caused individuals to have natural and inalienable rights.

It is not a theocracy. It is not founded on the beliefs of any particular religion or denomination.

Many Christians were involved in the founding of our country, but they chose not to make the government dependent on Christian religions. They rejected a national religion; sovereignty through divine right; or a civil law sovereign who also headed a national church.

[Chizzang]

I love it..!!!
I'm a prime mover believer

Beyond that it gets pretty sketchy and a lot of other "grand Assumptions" get made
One assumption does not beget a second (said nobody in the business of religion ever)

Pretending to know things that we do not know is the lifeblood of organized religion

Well, once you accept the assumption of the Prime Mover, and begin to ask questions about the nature of the Prime Mover, you are beginning to transition from metaphysics to theology.

Nonetheless, there are still some rational assumptions that reasonable people can intuit.

For example, Jefferson assumed that the Creator endowed each individual with certain unalienable or inalienable rights.

You accept that too, don't you?

Meh...
I believe there are universal laws related to physics
These laws will (could) reveal more about the creator at some point
But humans ability to organize and cooperate with each other is irrelevant
Jefferson was a student of human organization (so was Jesus) both different - both genius

The assumption that the Prime mover "cares" is cool, I like it for sure - I want it to be true
but there's no evidence that suggest this any more than cancer suggests there is a real "devil" with horns

[Ibanez]

I know you did. Your post came across that way, so I apologize.

Question - if we aren't a Theocracy and we aren't Secular...then what are we?

Or is the answer not that easy? Is or isn't it a binary condition (instead of we're kinda secular?)

You're right. Our government is not a theocracy or secular.

It is a government founded on natural law.

It is not secular in that our government is founded on the concept of a Creator who has caused individuals to have natural and inalienable rights.

It is not a theocracy. It is not founded on the beliefs of any particular religion or denomination.

Many Christians were involved in the founding of our country, but they chose not to make the government dependent on Christian religions. They rejected a national religion; sovereignty through divine right; or a civil law sovereign who also headed a national church.

The only thing I would change is that our founders thought White men had natural and inalienable rights.

Women and Negroes, not so much.

[BlueHen86]

Lets apply logic to conversations about God and see what happens

A universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the universe.

Hey, you're a guy who frequently cites Occam's Razor, right? You've got to appreciate how simple that explanation is, am I double right? Count 'em: one assumption.

A creator of the universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the creator.

[89Hen]

A universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the universe.

Hey, you're a guy who frequently cites Occam's Razor, right? You've got to appreciate how simple that explanation is, am I double right? Count 'em: one assumption.

A creator of the universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the creator.

[css75]

Accurate also.

I have heard mentioned multiple times that we are in the post Christian Era of our country as things have changed starting with Madelyn Murray back in the 50s.

Personally, I like to think our leaders have a belief in God or some higher power as it makes them accountable to their God/Higher power and keeps a bit of humility in them.

Their accountability is to the People; that's what good politicians understand.

Throughout history an "accountability" to God has meant little when power is involved. If anything, God ends up being a justification for doing some genuinely terrible things.

Additionally, God's been inserted into politics more than ever since the 50s, especially after the Red Scare.

What a crock, Stalin and Mao were atheist, Hitler was into the occult and mysticism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

Accurate also.

I have heard mentioned multiple times that we are in the post Christian Era of our country as things have changed starting with Madelyn Murray back in the 50s.

Personally, I like to think our leaders have a belief in God or some higher power as it makes them accountable to their God/Higher power and keeps a bit of humility in them.

Their accountability is to the People; that's what good politicians understand.

Throughout history an "accountability" to God has meant little when power is involved. If anything, God ends up being a justification for doing some genuinely terrible things.

Additionally, God's been inserted into politics more than ever since the 50s, especially after the Red Scare.

I don't know, Good Orderly Direction isn't bad. Since the 50's, we've had Roe v Wade, Gay Marriage, tons of religious symbols removed from public places. Although not saying these are bad, just that they are not supported by certain religions.

[Ibanez]

Accurate also.

I have heard mentioned multiple times that we are in the post Christian Era of our country as things have changed starting with Madelyn Murray back in the 50s.

Personally, I like to think our leaders have a belief in God or some higher power as it makes them accountable to their God/Higher power and keeps a bit of humility in them.

Their accountability is to the People; that's what good politicians understand.

Throughout history an "accountability" to God has meant little when power is involved. If anything, God ends up being a justification for doing some genuinely terrible things.

Additionally, God's been inserted into politics more than ever since the 50s, especially after the Red Scare.

Your last line it's a bit of an exaggeration. I'm not sure you can honestly assume that.

[kalm]

A universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the universe.

Hey, you're a guy who frequently cites Occam's Razor, right? You've got to appreciate how simple that explanation is, am I double right? Count 'em: one assumption.

A creator of the universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the creator.

Wait! You’re saying something/someone had to create the creator? When does the madness stop?!?

[css75]

A creator of the universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the creator.

Wait! You’re saying something/someone had to create the creator? When does the madness stop?!?

I don’t buy that either, The Creator created, no one created The Creator.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

A universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the universe.

Hey, you're a guy who frequently cites Occam's Razor, right? You've got to appreciate how simple that explanation is, am I double right? Count 'em: one assumption.

A creator of the universe exists.

Therefore, there is a creator for the creator.

But, technically, you've made two assumptions.