Anytime a person makes a comment on theological matters, there is always a possibility of error. Theologians observe God's patterns of behavior and draw conclusions.
Here is my take. This is the period where God has entrusted the world to us to do our absolute damnedest best to straighten out a big mess. Some of us will become heroes by our efforts to set things right. All of us will learn by failures to recognize our desperate need for God's help.
This interpretation is supported by Jesus' Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30.). The master (God) goes away on an extended journey. He entrusts all his property (the world) to three servants (humanity). Two of the servants work boldly and diligently and improve things (gain a profit). The third servant does nothing. When the master returns (Second Coming of Christ), he rewards the people who have cared well for his property (world) and condemns the servant who did nothing.
Interpretation: We are living in an era when God has chosen to be distant from the world. If God keeps intervening, human responsibility is severely downgraded. We are here to rise to a challenge, not to be coddled and saved from every mistake.
Christianity is really interesting. I have a neighbor who believes Trump was ordained by God.
One of the things I learned in the Trump era, the Bible will tell you anything you want to hear. And given our current SCOTUS, the US constitution will too.
I've heard that parable many times and interpreted many ways. But I always wondered why the parable did not include the 4th option where the servant took the money, invested it, but still lost half of it. I wonder how he would have faired, relative to the servant who hid the money and returned it in full.
I've been a practicing Catholic all my life and still am. I often wonder why I stayed, given Christianity has absolutely no basis in fact. I used to value the test of time, until I saw how many people supported and continue to support Trump, in obvious opposition to many facts. Beliefs are really strong.
There are so many flavors of Christianity that no one could possibly keep track of them. That variety shows that God has left us pretty much on our own to choose our paths in this world. I also am a Catholic—became one at age 28.
I don't see why you say Christianity has no basis in fact—almost every historian believes that Jesus actually existed. And there are strong historical arguments that the resurrection really happened.
I was not aware there are any writings or artifacts of Jesus as there are of many other people and events of the time, other than the Bible which was put together 300 years later by an emperor.
I'd be interested knowing of books written in that period or artifacts about Jesus other than the Bible. If you know of some examples let me know. I was not aware of any.
The Bible was not put together by an emperor. We have manuscripts of the Bible that go back to 120 / 140 from Egypt. We have quotations from Biblical books in other writings of the 100s. Originally, each bishop decided for himself what books would be read in the local church. Later on, the bishops of a region would gather in a meeting called a synod that decided what books would be read in their region. No Roman Emperor ever had the slightest thing to do with the list of books of Scripture. The technical term for the group of books recognized as the Bible is the canon.
There are very few physical objects connected with any specific person from ancient times except for Roman emperors. For instance, a big tomb was erected for Alexander the Great in in Alexandria but it no longer exists. In fact, I'm not sure that any physical object exists from a lifetime of Alexander the Great that attests to his existence. Most of the evidence for his life and achievements comes in histories written after his death.
The Jewish historian Josephus made a reference to James, the brother of Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, written about 80 AD. This passage is one of the few non-Christian references to Jesus and his family from that time period.
"Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, [the high priest Ananus] brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of ‘having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death."
So, in the 80s AD, a Jewish writer knows about Jesus and his brother James who continued to be a church leader until sometime in the 60s..
I was not aware that Paul and James were not believers until after Jesus resurrection.
The first link seemed to be to buy a book. I didn't see much of what the book was going to say, but may have missed it.
The second link tried to use some logic not to prove the existence of Jesus but prove the existence of Jesus was possible. (It was interesting to note that the possibility of the Muslim religion was not possible because it was a thought - the logic was lost on me)
The strongest point seemed to be that because Paul and James wrote about it in the Bible and were not believers, that made their claim more credible. It seems a very far stretch to me.
As part of the explanation there was this section that proved the existence of God. It was extremely difficult to read. I tried to follow the logic and summarize.
----------------------------
God as pure actuality
Change occurs when a potential X becomes an actual Y. This can be interior change, such as growth, or exterior change such as movement. But no potential X can become an actual Y on its own any more than water can freeze itself or a train car could propel itself. Instead, something like a freezer or a locomotive must actualize the potential for change in these objects. But of course, those actualizers change only because something else actualized their potential for change.
Could an infinite series explain this kind of change?
No. Just as an infinitely long train of boxcars would sit motionless without a locomotive, an infinite number of things that must be actualized by something else would be changeless unless there was a cause of the series that is just pure actuality. Just as a locomotive pulls without being pulled, this uncaused cause would actualize everything without being actualized by anything.
And since the universe contains a mixture of potential and actual, it is not the purely actual, uncaused cause we’re looking for. But if there is a cause of the universe that is pure actuality, then what is it like?
Well, because it has no potential, it couldn’t be subject to change. Because it is changeless, it would be immaterial and timeless, since material, temporal objects always undergo change. The cause would also not be limited in power, knowledge, or existence, since limits imply potentials the cause does not have. This means the cause would be omnipotent, omniscient, and have necessary existence. It would also be all good, since evil is just a lack of goodness and the cause lacks nothing.
Also, the cause would be personal and not a mere force, because the only immaterial things that exist are minds and abstract entities such as numbers. But since abstract entities can’t cause anything to exist, this means the ultimate cause of the universe must be similar to a mind and exist in an unlimited way. For most people, that is what they mean by the word God.
And if God exists, then you should then seriously consider the truth and meaning behind God becoming the man Jesus Christ and rising from the dead in order to ensure we too can share in the gift of eternal life.
-----------------------------------------
It tries to prove there must be something called "pure actuality". The argument seems to be if you have a bunch of potential energy there must be something that acted on that potential energy to cause it to be released and change into something else. And that something had to be "pure actuality".
And the "pure actuality" must have always been there because the "pure actuality" could not be changeable (always was and always will be ...)
And the "pure actuality" would be omnipotent and omniscient because only potential stuff can have limits. And "pure actuality" has no limits.
And further the "pure actuality" is what most people mean by God because the "pure actuality" had to be personal (not just a force), because the "pure actuality" is immaterial and the only immaterial things that exists are minds and abstract concepts like numbers.
And abstract things cannot cause potential to actualize, therefore "pure actuality" must be mind, which is personal and what people mean by God.
A mind is an abstract concept that they never defined.
What is personal? Human?
Why does "pure actuality" have to be immaterial? Why does it have to be limitless? It could be anything we don't understand, even if there is such a thing.
There are a lot of unexplained assumptions and definitions.
This is a really involved explanation to say something must have started the universe and most people think it was personal and call it God.
But we don't know what started the universe. We don't even know what the universe is. It's an unknown at this time.
And if you think it was started by God, then the obvious question is what started God. Their answer would be "pure actuality" or God always was and always will be.
We are all different and that is a good thing. If everyone was like me the world would be a very boring place.
Skip the intro and read section I ~pages 4-10. Most of it is foot notes, so it's really not a lot to read. It's enlightening. This was not a series of opportunities Trump took advantage of. He had a plan with contingency plans and co-conspirators. It was not haphazard.
I do so hope that you're correct.
According to Christian belief, we are called to struggle to establish justice in this world, but God will have the last word.
Why doesn't God step in now and fix things? He certainly has the power.
Anytime a person makes a comment on theological matters, there is always a possibility of error. Theologians observe God's patterns of behavior and draw conclusions.
Here is my take. This is the period where God has entrusted the world to us to do our absolute damnedest best to straighten out a big mess. Some of us will become heroes by our efforts to set things right. All of us will learn by failures to recognize our desperate need for God's help.
This interpretation is supported by Jesus' Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30.). The master (God) goes away on an extended journey. He entrusts all his property (the world) to three servants (humanity). Two of the servants work boldly and diligently and improve things (gain a profit). The third servant does nothing. When the master returns (Second Coming of Christ), he rewards the people who have cared well for his property (world) and condemns the servant who did nothing.
Interpretation: We are living in an era when God has chosen to be distant from the world. If God keeps intervening, human responsibility is severely downgraded. We are here to rise to a challenge, not to be coddled and saved from every mistake.
Christianity is really interesting. I have a neighbor who believes Trump was ordained by God.
One of the things I learned in the Trump era, the Bible will tell you anything you want to hear. And given our current SCOTUS, the US constitution will too.
I've heard that parable many times and interpreted many ways. But I always wondered why the parable did not include the 4th option where the servant took the money, invested it, but still lost half of it. I wonder how he would have faired, relative to the servant who hid the money and returned it in full.
I've been a practicing Catholic all my life and still am. I often wonder why I stayed, given Christianity has absolutely no basis in fact. I used to value the test of time, until I saw how many people supported and continue to support Trump, in obvious opposition to many facts. Beliefs are really strong.
There are so many flavors of Christianity that no one could possibly keep track of them. That variety shows that God has left us pretty much on our own to choose our paths in this world. I also am a Catholic—became one at age 28.
I don't see why you say Christianity has no basis in fact—almost every historian believes that Jesus actually existed. And there are strong historical arguments that the resurrection really happened.
I was not aware there are any writings or artifacts of Jesus as there are of many other people and events of the time, other than the Bible which was put together 300 years later by an emperor.
I'd be interested knowing of books written in that period or artifacts about Jesus other than the Bible. If you know of some examples let me know. I was not aware of any.
The Catholic Answers Website also has a call in show that is going on right now. They're used to questions like yours. 888 718 7884.
The Bible was not put together by an emperor. We have manuscripts of the Bible that go back to 120 / 140 from Egypt. We have quotations from Biblical books in other writings of the 100s. Originally, each bishop decided for himself what books would be read in the local church. Later on, the bishops of a region would gather in a meeting called a synod that decided what books would be read in their region. No Roman Emperor ever had the slightest thing to do with the list of books of Scripture. The technical term for the group of books recognized as the Bible is the canon.
There are very few physical objects connected with any specific person from ancient times except for Roman emperors. For instance, a big tomb was erected for Alexander the Great in in Alexandria but it no longer exists. In fact, I'm not sure that any physical object exists from a lifetime of Alexander the Great that attests to his existence. Most of the evidence for his life and achievements comes in histories written after his death.
The Jewish historian Josephus made a reference to James, the brother of Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, written about 80 AD. This passage is one of the few non-Christian references to Jesus and his family from that time period.
"Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, [the high priest Ananus] brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of ‘having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death."
So, in the 80s AD, a Jewish writer knows about Jesus and his brother James who continued to be a church leader until sometime in the 60s..
https://archive.org/details/josephusessentia0000jose/page/276/mode/1up
The following website specializes in why we can believe that we have a fairly accurate account of the life and resurrection of Jesus.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-belief-in-the-resurrection-reasonable
I was not aware that Paul and James were not believers until after Jesus resurrection.
The first link seemed to be to buy a book. I didn't see much of what the book was going to say, but may have missed it.
The second link tried to use some logic not to prove the existence of Jesus but prove the existence of Jesus was possible. (It was interesting to note that the possibility of the Muslim religion was not possible because it was a thought - the logic was lost on me)
The strongest point seemed to be that because Paul and James wrote about it in the Bible and were not believers, that made their claim more credible. It seems a very far stretch to me.
As part of the explanation there was this section that proved the existence of God. It was extremely difficult to read. I tried to follow the logic and summarize.
----------------------------
God as pure actuality
Change occurs when a potential X becomes an actual Y. This can be interior change, such as growth, or exterior change such as movement. But no potential X can become an actual Y on its own any more than water can freeze itself or a train car could propel itself. Instead, something like a freezer or a locomotive must actualize the potential for change in these objects. But of course, those actualizers change only because something else actualized their potential for change.
Could an infinite series explain this kind of change?
No. Just as an infinitely long train of boxcars would sit motionless without a locomotive, an infinite number of things that must be actualized by something else would be changeless unless there was a cause of the series that is just pure actuality. Just as a locomotive pulls without being pulled, this uncaused cause would actualize everything without being actualized by anything.
And since the universe contains a mixture of potential and actual, it is not the purely actual, uncaused cause we’re looking for. But if there is a cause of the universe that is pure actuality, then what is it like?
Well, because it has no potential, it couldn’t be subject to change. Because it is changeless, it would be immaterial and timeless, since material, temporal objects always undergo change. The cause would also not be limited in power, knowledge, or existence, since limits imply potentials the cause does not have. This means the cause would be omnipotent, omniscient, and have necessary existence. It would also be all good, since evil is just a lack of goodness and the cause lacks nothing.
Also, the cause would be personal and not a mere force, because the only immaterial things that exist are minds and abstract entities such as numbers. But since abstract entities can’t cause anything to exist, this means the ultimate cause of the universe must be similar to a mind and exist in an unlimited way. For most people, that is what they mean by the word God.
And if God exists, then you should then seriously consider the truth and meaning behind God becoming the man Jesus Christ and rising from the dead in order to ensure we too can share in the gift of eternal life.
-----------------------------------------
It tries to prove there must be something called "pure actuality". The argument seems to be if you have a bunch of potential energy there must be something that acted on that potential energy to cause it to be released and change into something else. And that something had to be "pure actuality".
And the "pure actuality" must have always been there because the "pure actuality" could not be changeable (always was and always will be ...)
And the "pure actuality" would be omnipotent and omniscient because only potential stuff can have limits. And "pure actuality" has no limits.
And further the "pure actuality" is what most people mean by God because the "pure actuality" had to be personal (not just a force), because the "pure actuality" is immaterial and the only immaterial things that exists are minds and abstract concepts like numbers.
And abstract things cannot cause potential to actualize, therefore "pure actuality" must be mind, which is personal and what people mean by God.
A mind is an abstract concept that they never defined.
What is personal? Human?
Why does "pure actuality" have to be immaterial? Why does it have to be limitless? It could be anything we don't understand, even if there is such a thing.
There are a lot of unexplained assumptions and definitions.
This is a really involved explanation to say something must have started the universe and most people think it was personal and call it God.
But we don't know what started the universe. We don't even know what the universe is. It's an unknown at this time.
And if you think it was started by God, then the obvious question is what started God. Their answer would be "pure actuality" or God always was and always will be.
We are all different and that is a good thing. If everyone was like me the world would be a very boring place.
From your lips to the DOJ ears!
Skip the intro and read section I ~pages 4-10. Most of it is foot notes, so it's really not a lot to read. It's enlightening. This was not a series of opportunities Trump took advantage of. He had a plan with contingency plans and co-conspirators. It was not haphazard.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/76c2c1e8fe2e5ae7/d2d77a9c-full.pdf