Doesn't change the fact that Romeo loved Juliet.

Now may I respectfully ask you to stay out of this thread? Surely there's some place else where you can exhibit your -- what did zumby call you? ah right -- pillockness to your heart's delight?

By way of clarification:

What I meant to communicate earlier is that I understand Satan as a theology. I still believe that Satan exists in reality. Satan is not just a theology. Satan is a real spiritual being who functions in a personal and rational way. I agree that it is difficult to conceptualize Satan as a real "person" because the theology seems so far from real life.

I think the theology of Satan is important.
Our theology of Satan also reflects on ourselves in regard to how highly we view scripture.

Truly mind boggling. I take it that in the same way that you believe in the god most prevalent in your own culture, that you don't believe in any of the 'bad guys' from any of the other religions? Or is Satan some kind of amalgamation?

Is Satan even willing to ask for forgiveness?

Ya, I wasn't trying to say that the devil is a mere construct. When I was babtized, I was asked which babtism formula I wanted to have used - the old one with "do you renounce the devil" in it or the more modern one (gentified latte macciato-mothers don't approve of devils) that has "do you resist evil influences" or some tamed-down crap like that.

Obv. I chose the old one.

Same character.
When god is mad he turns into an *******. Therefore he become satan.

Frito,

if you stick around I hope to have some good debates re theology. I haven't really discussed theology with Catholics before. I live in Canada now but as a kid I lived in the Philippines. In the Philippines Catholicism is syncretized and gets pretty crazy (flagalantes spelling?). I presume the form of Catholicism you believe is more logical and reasonable.

I don't really feel I have a culture as I moved around a fair bit as a kid. I kind of alluded to that in my post to Frito. In any case I believe the OT and NT. We can discuss exegesis of specific passages if that is instructive.

IMO the "bad guys" in other religions are sometimes real or based on real spirits (ie evil spirits aka demons).

MB, you have often expressed disbelief at those who subscribe to Christianity. What do YOU believe?

Outside of the nature of "G-d", the main questions would be:

1) What is "love" in the context of the question?
2) Who/What is the nature of Ha-satan?

It seems that fretelöo doesn't believe Ha-satan is a personal being, so the meaning of "love" ( for the question to make sense ) needs to be clarified. For those "Christians" that believe in a personal Ha-satan, and believe "G-d loves Ha-satan", how does one reconcile that belief with some biblical passages such as Rev 20?

Why do I have to believe something? I think that's what might really differ in our world view. I have a lot of questions too, but I'm content to wait for rigorous and unbiased, unhindered research, backed by evidence, to explain and answer them, I'm not willing to fill the gaps in my knowledge with what I see as mystical mumbo jumbo. I have a very Materialistic outlook, currently.

I don't think that would be a problem. In a sense, what the devil "becomes" is similar to a combination of the conception of structural sin on the one hand and simply personal sinning on the other. Structural sin is a reality, as is personal sinning, so you wouldn't lose the reality-referred-to-by-the-bible-as-satan/diabolos. All you lose is the "evil plotting mind" in the background, so to speak. From a p.o.v. that stresses free will and our ability to change, that can't be a bad thing as it ultimately rootes all evil in relationships of persons with other persons (and, by extension, with god).

Gods "love" towards any of that would then be akin to his stance towards any human in a moment of said human sinning. He wouldn't approve, yet would love him despite his flaws blablablub - the usual sermon.

Why do I have to believe something?

IMO everyone holds some type of belief around the following questions:

1. Where did we come from?
2. What is the purpose of our life?
3. What happens to us after we die?

IMO science is never going to answer any of these questions conclusively.
I think materialism is a reasonable conclusion but still doesn't answer the above questions very well.

Whatever we choose to believe there is not going to be absoltue consensus or proof available.

Do you acknowledge you might be wrong?

If so, then are we not in the same position of believing something but also acknowledging we may be incorrect?

Even if I grant you that science won't/hasn't answered these questions, I can't see that theism has answered them either.

It does provide a very handy vocabulary to voice/discuss them, though. Which seems to be a first step if we are to come closer to an answer. (I'm not saying its the only possible vocab)

Someone in SMP recently said something like "It's tempting to disagree early on for fear that one's assent will be misused" which I think is an insightful statement.

Given that, I'm going to ask for a bit more detail on what you mean.

"It's tempting to disagree early on for fear that one's assent will be misused"

Yes, this is a good point (please don't misuse my approval later on).

edit: I obv don't mean this in a GTFO kind of way but my above post about the meaning of life was really meant for MB. The point I want to make is no one is sure about the origins of life, meaning of life, and what happens after death. In previous discussions it seemed to be a big deal that Christians weren't 100% sure they were right. In actuality no one is 100% sure they are correct when seeking answers to lifes most important and most difficult questions.

Theism provides reasonable answers IMO

zumby,

different vocabularies (or language games, if you prefer) are good at doing different things. A theological vocab is pretty badly suited for talking about BvB rebluffing strategies. A hardcore materialistic vocab is very ill-suited for expressing concerns and questions of things that are not of materialistic nature such as the possibility of an afterlife, meaning of life, what does it all mean, where do we come from, blabla, stuff like that.

Different sub-sets of these questions may be well discussed in other vocabs (philosophical, sociological, scientific etc.), of course, but still, the religious vocab is the one we often turn to to discuss many of the "what does it all mean"-type questions. Partially, no doubt, because the religious vocab uses a lot of metaphors and imagery, which makes it easier accessible for the non-expert to join the discussion.

No problem, as long as you don't have any follow-up responses I will leave you and MB to it.



I think if you were to be objective you would recognize that there is a substantial difference between what you consider a reasonable theistic explanation and what you would demand from a scientific explanation. Have a think about exactly what sort of evidence and level of detail in the explanation you would want to see from a scientist on, say, the origin of the universe, compared to the evidence and level of detail in, say, the Bible.

zumby, I think that's fairly thin ice there. What scientifically valid claims can science make about life/existence of the soul after death? Or the origin of the universe before the big bang? Science works within a framework in which certain axioms hold true (or w/e the correct phrasing of this point would be). Once you transcend the reality in which those axioms hold true, science becomes as much a story as the bible.

Eh? I didn't say that science can or has made valid claims about those things. I said that, to the extent that science hasn't answered them, theism hasn't answered them either. Probably worth being explicit that I'm using a definition of "answered" that includes at least some sort of of tentative verification... obviously theism has, in one sense, given answers. But "God did it" as the answer to the question of cosmogeny is no more of an answer than "nature did it" would be.

My point is that if you apply this to the existence of the soul after death, your point becomes moot. It's impossible to say "this or that would be a thorough scientific explanation of e.o.s.a.d" as it's impossible to state what - a scientific explanation would look like even on a formal level (i.e. what kind of explanatory criteria it would have to fulfill, how/if it would have to be testable, whta it'd have to explain etc.).

You're saying: Science can explain worldly phenomeon x in excruciating detail. Then you assume that would have to be true for a scientific explanation of e.o.s.a.d as well - but it's not immediately clear that this would have to be so. I.o.w: What would count as a scientific explanation then might look completely different (and have completely different formal characteristics) than what counts as a scientific explanation now.

Or even shorter:

Really? How you know? Why?

I'm tempted to just do an OrP-style "Okay.", but I'm going with

You are reading more into what I've said than I am saying.

I am saying that

- Theism does not answer the questions Lemonzest claims it does. This rests on my using a definition of "answer" that implies some sort of verification. Lemonzest is free to reject that definitions... perhaps he merely wants to say that theism 'gives it a go' rather than 'satisfactorily explains'.
- Science does have reasonable answers to where we came from, partly depending on the context Lemonzest intends i.e. evolution explains where we come from in one sense, though I've applied the principle of charity and given cosmogeny as the example so as not to make his claim too easy for me to dismiss.

Nowhere have I said that science answers the question of what happens after death, so stop with the Mightyboosh impression :P

Fair enough in regard to your last paragraph.
Science is just more exact and testable by nature, which is a good thing.

Not sure what the confusion is about.

In your last quote you seem to imply that one would demand different things from a scientific explanation of, for example, life after death (if it were possible to somehow do scientific research post-death), than people currently usually demand from a theological explanation.

Correct so far?

If so, I'd assume that by "demand different things" you mean stuff like explanatory power, testability of results, predicitve ability etc.

Correct again?

If so, then I'd ask why you'd find it plausible to assume that it's realistic to demand such things from a scientific explanation that is somehow trying to answer questions that pertain to a reality of a completely different kind?

Suppose we both die tomorrow, meet in heaven and remember this conversation. We decide to do some heaven science. But, alas, we have no body. Somehow the whole time thing is messed up. There doesn't seem to be an obvious way to document test results. Etc. Suppose now that through sheer perseverance and steadfastness of will we come up with a way to do science despite all odds. Chances are, what counts as "science" and what counts as "scientific explanation" will be vastly different. If that is so, then your quote above loses its force.

PS: MB jokes aren't funny. That guy is so much beyond... that being compared to him is actually mean.