This is not a question bout faith but more to what one acknowledge and know ? please help. I am a born-Catholic,so dont have to concern but my lack of faith but instead please ponder on it, thank you

I hope to get many sincere answer.

Thank You

-- james (james_how1@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004

Answers

The title of your thread is also the first question in the old Baltimore Catechism. The answer given there, as I remember it, is - "God is the Supreme being who made all things".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2004.

I like my definition better: God is an invention of man to combat man's feelings of ignorance, loneliness, fear, and despair.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

Then, DC, you prefer the wrong answer... Man did not imagine God. I've seen ot much, and Know God is real. You, on the other hand, have only seen hollow ritual, and not the meanign behind it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 01, 2004.

Look in the Bible where it states that God is the Supreme Being. Examples include Psalm 95:3, Psalm 135:6, and Revelation 21:6. Also "Everything in the universe, whether in the outer reaches of space, or visible to the naked eye on earth, or visible only through the lens of an electron microscope, makes up an orderly whole." (Apostolate for Family Consecration's Catechism pg.13) If you think about it there is this unity even though there is great diversity in the world. There must be a Supreme Being who is God because of this.

-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

i can understand DC's position. sometimes it seems to me that the concept of God MUST be made up.

but then isnt that an arrogant attitude? i mean, LOOK at us (humanity). we are incredibly imperfect, with our wars, lust, jealousy, etc.

compared to the animals, though, we are amazing, complex creatures.

there MUST be a God, dont you think, DC? there is something so perfect about our imperfections. im NOT one of the more elaborate writers in this forum, so maybe someone can expand on this (if you know what im trying to say! lol).

thanks

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

Did a figment of our imaginations create the universe? Not likely since it was here long before we were.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 01, 2004.

jas,

I think that maybe I catch your drift. Do you mean that the only reason we have any hope of being "perfect" or a "good person" is because of God's perfection and His grace to share that with us. jas, I hope I got that right, but if not perhaps this can simply provide further reflection.

Hebrews 12 (KJV) 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

I think we can see from this passage that we can be made perfect throught the blood of Christ. But it requires that we live justly or righteously.

So James, I think that one of God's roles is a Father who loves us. He sees us in our brokenness (sin & it's effects) and wants us to enjoy life in Him. So He calls us to Himself and sacrifices so that this is possible. God invites us all to be His children, and He hopes that we accept. I cannot imagine anyone or anything more wonderful than our loving and gracious God.

But in reality James, there are so many things about God that as St. John said, all the books in the world could not hold it. Praise God for His goodness.

God bless you!

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

There is a difference between asking Who God is? and asking What God is.

If you want the quick answer to "what", he told us himself back in Sinai: "I AM WHO AM" - which translated into metaphysics is: "ippsum esse subsistens": his essence is to exist....not just the Supreme Being, God is BEING... which is why He can Create.

Now what creates? Spirit: the organizing principle of action...

OK but who is he?

When you ask "who" questions you are dealing with relationships. His "who"ness is triune, in that God is the eternal interpersonal relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Who is God? Father eternally begetting the Son who eternally loves the Father and from both of whom proceeds the Holy Spirit...

3 Who's in 1 What.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

If God exists then why is He so coy about it? All I know about God is from men. I've heard nothing from God Himself. So believing in God really comes down to believing in men who tell me about God. I can't do that anymore.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

I believe in God for three reasons:

1. The logical necessity. The universe had an origin. Someone had to be responsible.

2. Not the fact that others tell me there is a God, but rather the fact that these others have provided eye witness reports of events which could have happened only by the hand of God.

3. By personal interaction with Him. He has shown me directly that He hears me, that He responds to me, that He cares about me.

Any one of the above, standing alone, would be solid enough grounds for belief. But all three taken together leave no room for doubt.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 01, 2004.

The answer:

believers couldn't proof the existance ,

Non believers can't proof it doesn't exist

So , who's right & why ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 01, 2004.

Believers cannot necessarily prove the existence of God to non-believers, but at least it has been positively proven to them, based on what they have seen and experienced. Non-believers can't prove their position to believers either, but neither can they claim that the non-existence of God has been proven to them, since their position rests entirely on non-evidence and non-experience, neither of which can serve as proof of anything. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 01, 2004.

I believe in God for three reasons:

1. The logical necessity. The universe had an origin. Someone had to be responsible.

There is so much about the natural world that we need to learn that we are in no position to make such a statement. In fact, we now know that matter can appear out of nowhere spontaneously. ZAROVE mentioned this in a post a few weeks ago.

Here's a quote from Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, in an article he wrote, "What Happened Before the Big Bang?" which can be found at http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

The emphasis in bold letters is the author's, not mine:

"The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that 'just happens' need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event."

So there you have it, Paul. A naturally occurring uncaused event. No need to resort to a supernatural deity.

2. Not the fact that others tell me there is a God, but rather the fact that these others have provided eye witness reports of events which could have happened only by the hand of God.

If you are referring to events in the Bible such as the Resurrection, keep in mind that it is recorded nowhere else but in the Bible. As I mentioned before, considering all the suffering that Jesus went through to redeem mankind, why would He be so coy about His Resurrection? Didn't Jesus Himself say something about not hiding a light under a bushel? Why didn't He provide more widespread and permanent proof of His Resurrection? And why did He leave after only 40 days? Why not stay here on earth longer, even permanently?

As for extra-Biblical events, Lourdes and Fatima are no longer as compelling to me as I once thought. Millions of people have visited Lourdes every year for over 100 years yet there are a grand total of 66 healings regarded as miracles by the Church. The claim that Bernadette had no formal religious instruction and therefore could not have known what "I am the Immaculate Conception" meant overlooks the fact that just 4 years earlier Pius IX promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and it must have been widely mentioned in church.

Fatima has also been a disappointment. Supposedly large numbers of people witnessed the "miracle of the sun." But I read just recently that the Church's formal investigation contained only two eyewitness accounts of the event. I forget the source but I do remember that it was from a Catholic writer and believer in Fatima who was surprised by the failure of the Church to gather more corroboration.

Some people maintain that the Vatican has not fully revealed the "third secret." But I suspect that the reason the Vatican withheld the secret for so long was precisely because it was the gibberish that was released 4 years ago.

Furthermore, the prediction that "in Portugal the faith will always be preserved" is not holding up.

3. By personal interaction with Him. He has shown me directly that He hears me, that He responds to me, that He cares about me.

You're pushing my buttons, Paul. You know that I go ballistic when you write stuff like that. :) By the way, have you ever seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"?

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

1. There is so much about the natural world that we need to learn that we are in no position to make such a statement. In fact, we now know that matter can appear out of nowhere spontaneously ... Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

A: You miss the point here. Yes there is certainly a lot we don't know about "the natural world". "Nature" may indeed have the capacity for genuine spontaneity - now that it exists! However, it is no longer possible for matter to appear "out of nowhere", precisely because "nowhere" no longer exists. I'll bypass my usual arguments about "quantum physics" being a branch of philosophy, not science. But even if it is legitimate science, all science is bounded by the universe. If it isn't in the universe, it is not the subject of scientific investigation. Some sub-atomic particles may appear to come into existence "from nowhere", but that is simply a way of admitting we don't know where they come from. But wherever they come from, they only do so within the context of the physical laws of the universe, and they are part of the universe. Otherwise they would not fall within the realm of science at all. What I am talking about is the situation before the universe and its physical laws and its atoms and sub-atomic particles existed. Before energy existed. Before time itself existed. That's a whole different ballgame. Nothing that happens within an already existing universe can be taken as evidence of how the universe itself came into existence, TRULY from nothing and from nowhere and at no time, and not subject to any physical laws at all, since nothing physical yet existed.

2. If you are referring to events in the Bible such as the Resurrection, keep in mind that it is recorded nowhere else but in the Bible ... Why didn't He provide more widespread and permanent proof of His Resurrection?

A: I am not referring exclusively to Biblical references, though some of the historical events observed and recorded by those writers were surely impressive. God did not cease performing miracles after the Apostles died however. He continues to work in great power in every age, and miracles are frequent indications of His promise to be with His Church. However, miracles are not essential to the faith of those who truly know Him.

"And why did He leave after only 40 days? Why not stay here on earth longer, even permanently?"

A: Presumably because His purposes in coming had been fulfilled. The availability salvation to all men had been assured, and His Church was off and running, guided by the the Holy Spirit. Besides, He could not have stayed here permanently. He was a man. Men grow old and die.

"As for extra-Biblical events, Lourdes and Fatima are no longer as compelling to me as I once thought. Millions of people have visited Lourdes every year for over 100 years yet there are a grand total of 66 healings regarded as miracles by the Church. The claim that Bernadette had no formal religious instruction and therefore could not have known what "I am the Immaculate Conception" meant overlooks the fact that just 4 years earlier Pius IX promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and it must have been widely mentioned in church"

A: Well, my faith doesn't rest on Lourdes or Fatima, or any private revelation, not even partially. Still, a grand total of 66 miraculous healings sounds pretty impressive to me. Hopefully you do realize that there have been thousands of confirmed healings there. But only 66 have been officially declared "miraculous", which means that after thorough investigation it has been determined that such healings could not possibly have occurred through any natural means. That doesn't mean that many of the other healings were not also miraculous. However, the Church doesn't make such a pronouncement when there is even a remote possibility that non-miraculous factors could have accounted for the healing.

As for the Immaculate Conception thing, I am not in the habit of defending such reported events since as I said I don't consider them crucial or even important to faith. But I try to keep an open mind; and even though this doctrine was surely a hot topic among theologians of the day, I think it is probably unlikely that an uneducated peasant girl in a remote village was familiar with it.

3. You're pushing my buttons, Paul. You know that I go ballistic when you write stuff like that. :) By the way, have you ever seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"?

A: Yes, I have. If there were millions of people who claimed to have seen exactly what that gentleman claimed to have seen, I'd have to give the claims some very serious consideration, even if I hadn't seen it myself. People went ballistic when someone proposed that the earth was round, but that's understandable - millions of people did not yet know the facts by personal experience.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 01, 2004.

Besides, He could not have stayed here permanently. He was a man. Men grow old and die.

Yikes!!! I'm talking about Jesus after the Resurrection. His body would never grow old, let alone die. Not even 2000 years later. And since the Incarnation is permanent, why shouldn't the God-man spend His time bodily here on earth rather than ascend bodily into heaven?

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

Actually DC, on the one hand, Christ is ascended in the heavens and far above all things, yet on the other hand, He is here upon this earth. He indwells all His believers as the life giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45). By His indwelling us, and spreading His life throughout every part of our being, He is being manifested, and enlarged in His expression through man. This was His ultimate desire in His creation of man, to have a corporate vessel that would contain Him and express Him.

We are not here living on this Earth trying to do something for God, trying to do good things for Him, while He sits far away in the heavens. Rather, The crucified, resurrected, ascended, and enthroned Christ lives within us, and is lived out through us. By being daily washed and cleansed, nourished by His word, and watered by the spirit, we grow in the life of God. Spontaneously, this life accomplishes God's heart's desire, which is simply to be expressed through man.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), September 01, 2004.

At one time I would have agreed with you, Oliver. But no longer. A post like yours now strikes me as abstract fantasy.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.

DC, i have a question for you...

why is it that you say that you have lost faith in God because of your loss of faith in your fellow man, when the decision that the existance of man is seperate from a creator would seem, objectively, to be the ultimate pinnacle of faith in man.

i mean, i'm often horribly dissappointed by the failures of society as a whole, but that drives me to the belief that there is a perfect that must exist as well, since our knowledge of failure only comes from understanding of what success is. namely, without a logical good, there can be no understanding of the failure to meet that good.

further, science as stated by your physicist is a tool which predominantly lies in the court of the weilder... namely, one could use the string theorum (philotic connections) to argue that God does, not exist, however, one could also presuppose that the philotic connections ARE a physical aspect of God. namely, faith in science is a risky tool, because ultimately you are ascribing faith to one man's interpretation of data, when what you should be doing is reviewing the raw study and data and infering your own data... true science is, ultimately, presented without a theological or political agenda.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 02, 2004.

If God exists then why is He so coy about it? All I know about God is from men. I've heard nothing from God Himself. So believing in God really comes down to believing in men who tell me about God. I can't do that anymore.

The toruble is this. We know for a fact tjat God exists. we know for a fact semthign created the Universe. We knwo their are ofrces at play int ye universe that far exceed Human intellegence and Understanding. These forces guide, shape, and contorle all the events in existance. Thus, a central power, well known in Phsyics, as the source of all this, and as what gives power to all this, is the most logical conclusion. The only queasiton is tot he nature of this grand force that far exceeds humanity.

Soem beleive this force is not truely alive, an cannot think. The Univers eis God, indentical in every way, Indifferent, cold, nand simpley marching forwar to its own design. Other s beleive it is intellegent, and does make coices.

Some beelive the Universe itsself is identicle to God. Others think God is removed form it.

No matter, we have debates over the exacy natute of other things as well.

Rathe ror not God is natrualistic, intrinsic tot he Universe, a seperate ebign independant of all creation, or a co-dependant being, makes no difference. Oantheism, Penantheism, and Deism are all bantied about in regards to standard theism. Rather God is A Universal Mind, or a great swell of inconcious forces, is the queasiton to ask, not rather God exists or not.

But, few Physiists are true Atheists, they beelive OSEMTHING is guidign it all, rather its conciosu or not. If you ehre smart, yo woudl too.

As to why God has not spiken to you, well, he has tome. Perhaps you smpley need to ask.

Sporry for yhe hapshot of this post, a lot on my mund lately.

DC, Email me OK.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 02, 2004.

My response to paul h.:

DC, i have a question for you...

why is it that you say that you have lost faith in God because of your loss of faith in your fellow man, when the decision that the existance of man is seperate from a creator would seem, objectively, to be the ultimate pinnacle of faith in man.

Well, to be more precise about it, as a cradle Catholic my faith in God rested on my faith in the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church that taught me about God. It was through the Catholic Church that God manifested Himself to me. For various reasons that I won’t go into here, I have lost my faith in the Catholic Church. I no longer see her as the divinely created, divinely guided institution as I once had. I just don’t believe her anymore. I now see her as a purely man-made institution.

The effect on me is the same as the effect would be on a Protestant who no longer believed that the Bible was divinely inspired, but is simply a man-made work of literature.

One could say that just because the Catholic Church is a man-made institution, or the Bible a man-made work of literature, it does not mean that God does not exist. All it means is that I was looking for God in the wrong places. But after being fooled once I don’t want to be fooled again. If God wants me to acknowledge Him and pay homage to Him, He knows where to find me.

without a logical good, there can be no understanding of the failure to meet that good.

Agreed. But one could say, then, that God is the ideal good created by man. So man created God to satisfy man’s needs.

...science as stated by your physicist is a tool which predominantly lies in the court of the weilder... true science is, ultimately, presented without a theological or political agenda.

I wholeheartedly agree! I don’t know if the physicist I quoted has an agenda or not.

As for myself, I would prefer that God exist, especially as He is portrayed by the Catholic Church. I would be overjoyed to see good ultimately triumph over evil, all made possible by a God of justice tempered with mercy for those who are sincerely repentant.

But I fear that God does not exist, that those who do evil and get away with it really do get away with it. And those who do good but suffer terribly never do reap their just rewards. In other words, their is no settling of accounts in the hereafter.

I fear that those who went to church today are just wasting their time. They are praying to something that isn’t there.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

My response to ZAROVE:

The toruble is this. We know for a fact tjat God exists. we know for a fact semthign created the Universe.

No we don’t. How can you say that? Why can’t we accept the fact that we just don’t know the answers to some questions instead of conjuring up a supernatural being or beings in order to satisfy our need for an answer? Why is man so ashamed to admit that he is ignorant?

The Greeks had a highly developed theology of gods and goddesses. We laugh at it now, calling it Greek mythology. But are we any better? Are not today’s religions better characterized as Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Mormon mythology, etc?

But, few Physiists are true Atheists, they beelive OSEMTHING is guidign it all, rather its conciosu or not. If you ehre smart, yo woudl too.

If something is guiding the universe that is not a conscious being then I don’t think that we would call it “God.” But even if I were to believe that a conscious, intelligent being created the natural world, there is no reason to believe that such a being is actively involved in that world. Why couldn’t God have simply stepped aside and let His creation run its course?

In fact, if God is the all-powerful, all-knowing being that people claim He is, then the world He created would function exactly as He intended. There would be no need for Him to step in and fix things that went awry.

As to why God has not spiken to you, well, he has to me.

Oh, no!!! Et tu, Zarove??? :) First there was Paul M. Then I think someone else. Now you? Will all the visionaries on this board please stand up?

DC, Email me OK.

Thanks for the invitation. I really mean that. But I’m not ready to discuss this any more than what I post on this board.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

Hi DC Id love to dicsuss your points, most men at some stage will ask the same questions you do, all I ask is that dont close your mind off completley to the possibilty that God exists. "Proof" and "faith" is something I have also been reflecting on, if I get time to put my jumbled thoughts together I will post them.I have only a few minutes spare in my day,but try reading the first few chapters from Pope John Paul II book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope"- it may help point you in the direction of further reading . http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/toc.html

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 06, 2004.

“Why can’t we accept the fact that we just don’t know the answers to some questions instead of conjuring up a supernatural being or beings in order to satisfy our need for an answer? Why is man so ashamed to admit that he is ignorant?“

I happily admit that I am ignorant. I don’t “need” God to exist to explain things I don’t understand. My reason tells me that God exists and something of His nature. Sometimes I have wished God did not exist, to satisfy my selfish desires.

“The Greeks had a highly developed theology of gods and goddesses. We laugh at it now, calling it Greek mythology.”

We call it mythology because it consisted of a lot of myths or stories about their gods. But their theology was not “developed” at all, let alone “highly”. Their gods were basically just human beings who were very powerful and lived forever. They schemed against each other over petty issues, they fornicated with each other and with humans, etc. The Judaeo-Christian God is very different. Even so, I do not “laugh at” the ancient Greek religion. They were closer to the truth than atheists are.

“In fact, if God is the all-powerful, all-knowing being that people claim He is, then the world He created would function exactly as He intended. There would be no need for Him to step in and fix things that went awry.”

This is the temporal fallacy. From God’s perspective, God did not create the universe “then”, and intervene in it “later”. The past, present and future are all NOW from God’s perspective.

And yes I plead guilty that God has spoken to me. No I am not a visionary and no He hasn’t revealed any new doctrines or information to me. But if you are not aware of God speaking to you, that only shows that you are not listening.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 06, 2004.

I better clarify that I don't mean I hear voices like St Joan of Arc. But when I pray I hear a silent voice. You probably hear it too and think it's just your own thoughts. But I know they are not from me because I know they are not my thoughts. In fact they are often quite opposed to what I think and want. I see they come from the Other. And I see their goodness and rightness despite myself so I know they come from God. I'm probably not explaining this very well, but believe me, it is real.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 06, 2004.

I am not alone, then, Steve. Chris Butler was another one. They got onhim because of the stiigmata. With me because of the dreams about the Pope.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 08, 2004.

Hi Steve.

I believe that God has given me a dream. He allowed me to have that dream by answering all of my hopes, fears, and desires in one significant message. He let me figure out that I needed to work out my faith. So, I did. I'm still at it. God speaks to us in many ways.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 08, 2004.

Elpido,

How soon you forget! It wasn't just your dreams about the pope. It was that they were proven FALSE by your own words and dates and the amount of trips you said the holy Father was going to take.

Your(alleged) dreams were proven wrong by your own words. Stay off the spices my friend and get your "but" to the Confessional and cleanse that soul of the filth you have fallen into with you and your made up relegion mumbo-jumbo.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 08, 2004.

Response to Kiwi:

...try reading the first few chapters from Pope John Paul II book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope"- it may help point you in the direction of further reading . http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/toc.html

I took your suggestion. It didn't help. But it did confirm my belief that JPII is too intellectual to be an effective Pope.

Response to Steve:

And yes I plead guilty that God has spoken to me.

Oh,no!!! Another one!!! :)

I better clarify that I don't mean I hear voices like St Joan of Arc.

That's better. You had me worried for a minute.

But when I pray I hear a silent voice. You probably hear it too and think it's just your own thoughts.

You're right.

But I know they are not from me because I know they are not my thoughts. In fact they are often quite opposed to what I think and want.

It's just your conscience speaking.

And I see their goodness and rightness despite myself so I know they come from God.

You just have a well-formed conscience, that's all.

I'm probably not explaining this very well, but believe me, it is real.

I understand exactly what you are saying. It's just your conscience speaking to you. No more than that.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

And where do you suppose conscience comes from? Kind of curious that those in whom conscience stops speaking are invariably those who have rejected God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 10, 2004.

DC, I'm not just talking about conscience (deciding right from wrong). I'm talking about all manner of things that I hear God telling me.

" JPII is too intellectual to be an effective Pope." - You mean you don't understand what he's saying? Perhaps you would prefer if he spoke, wrote and acted like some semi-literate fundamentalist televangelist?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 11, 2004.

Actuallt John Paul 2 is an effectual Pope. more so than his last two predessessors. john Paul 1 for his unfortunate death, and Paul the 6th for his les active role.

John Paul 2, on the other hand, has been a drivign force fpr peace and liberty in the world, has persoanlly stood for better education, and has commissioned mroe advice, treities, and variosu other funcitosn than any pope in Recent ( Last 500 years) of History.

Sayign he is too intellectual to be an effective Pope is ignorign the fact that he IS an effective Pope, he's so effective he's won the respect of even Protestants, or for that matter even the irreligious, and other religions. No man living to-day has doen more for peace. Likewise,his contributions tot he Cahtolic Faith are many.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 11, 2004.

Response to Paul M.---

And where do you suppose conscience comes from?

Certainly not from God. This is proven by the fact that there are many things in the Bible that God commits, commands, or condones which my conscience tells me are terribly wrong: genocide, slavery, racism, capital punishment for minor offenses, genital mutilation of baby boys, punishing children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren for a wrong committed by their parents, punishing all of humanity for the wrong committed by Adam and Eve, entrapping Adam and Eve into committing that wrong in the first place, asking a father to murder his son as a sacrifice to Him, torturing Job to win a bet with Satan...need I go on?

How is it that God as depicted in the Bible fails to live up to our own moral standards? The answer is obvious. The Bible was written by men 2,000 to 3,000 years ago and the God these men created reflected the moral standards of that time.

Response to Steve---

DC, I'm not just talking about conscience (deciding right from wrong). I'm talking about all manner of things that I hear God telling me.

Shucks! I thought I understood you but now I'm confused.

You mean you don't understand what he's saying?

I didn't understand a lot of what JPII was saying in parts of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope." I don't know to whom that book is addressed. You need a formal education in philosophy to understand parts of it.

Perhaps you would prefer if he spoke, wrote and acted like some semi-literate fundamentalist televangelist?

I would prefer if he spoke, wrote, and acted like Ronald Reagan. Could you see Reagan apologizing for the historical wrongs that America committed against other people or nations?

Just as Reagan was an unabashadly patriotic American, JPII needs to be an unabashadly patriotic Catholic. Just as Reagan spoke of America as mankind's only hope for freedom, JPII needs to speak of the Catholic Church as mankind's only hope for salvation. Just as Reagan clearly identified the enemy and rallied Americans to fight it, JPII needs to clearly identify the enemy and rally Catholics to fight it. Get the picture?

Response to Zarove ---

Actuallt John Paul 2 is an effectual Pope. more so than his last two predessessors. john Paul 1 for his unfortunate death, and Paul the 6th for his les active role.

I'm not going to take the bait, Zarove. :) You want me to get in trouble with the moderators of this board? I'm already on thin ice in my response to Steve. As I understand the rules of this board, they go something like this:

You can knock someone down Step on their face Slander their name All over the place

Do anything that you want to do But don't dare criticize JP2!!! :)

Well, maybe the first part is hyperbole, but the last line is "spot-on," as the Brits would say. :)

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 11, 2004.

"Perhaps you would prefer if he spoke, wrote and acted like some semi-literate fundamentalist televangelist? I would prefer if he spoke, wrote, and acted like Ronald Reagan. "

I'll take that as a "yes", as I see little difference between those TV fundies and that most incompetent of modern presidents (except for the incumbent of course).

And if you want the Pope to declare that non-Catholics are "the enemy" instead of apologising to them, why did you leave us and join the "enemy"? Why have you deserted what you call "mankind's only hope for salvation"?

I don't know why you think you're on thin ice in your response to me. I certainly haven't complained about you. You need to read the Rules of the Forum again. You CAN criticise the Pope or any other Catholic. What you are not allowed to do is to persistently "bash" Catholic beliefs and practices, as distinct from asking honest questions about them.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 13, 2004.

I'll take that as a "yes", as I see little difference between those TV fundies and that most incompetent of modern presidents (except for the incumbent of course).

Ronald Reagan was incompetent? You prefer, perhaps, Jimmy Carter? :) I can see that we have little in common.

And if you want the Pope to declare that non-Catholics are "the enemy" instead of apologising to them, why did you leave us and join the "enemy"? Why have you deserted what you call "mankind's only hope for salvation"?

I never said that non-Catholics are the enemy. Satan is the enemy. He is the enemy of all mankind. But some men become like dangerous wolves when they do the work of Satan. The Pope, as shepherd, must protect his flock from the wolves. That's his first priority. But I don't see him doing that. He encourages his sheep to mix with the wolves -- those who support abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and homosexuality -- under the guise of "dialogue" or "ecumenism" or "diversity."

Keep in mind that I am arguing this from a Catholic perspective. I am not Catholic anymore because I no longer believe in the supernatural. God and Satan do not exist. Good and evil, however, do exist. Were the Catholic Church an effective force against evil then I would still believe in the Church and in God. But I've concluded that Masses, rosaries, prayers, sacrifices, offerings, etc. are just superstitious nonsense -- a waste of time, money, and effort -- because we are worshipping something that isn't there.

You need to read the Rules of the Forum again. You CAN criticise the Pope or any other Catholic. What you are not allowed to do is to persistently "bash" Catholic beliefs and practices, as distinct from asking honest questions about them.

I don't have any questions because I know all the answers. :)

Seriously, though, there's no point in my being here. I'm just a cradle Catholic having a hard time letting go. I still get mad when I see Protestants criticizing the Catholic Church.

Zarove was preparing some post for me to respond to. I'll stick around for that if he'd like. Other than that, I'm gone.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Hi DC

I've been reading your posts over the past few weeks and can identify quite a bit with you and what you are going through. I was raised Catholic and lost my faith when I was in my early twenties. I became quite an atheist and found it to be a rationally easy orintaion. Not very comforting, but that fact in itself made me trust it more.

I know exactly what you mean about disliking Catholic bashing. At the height of my atheistic sojourn I was always inclined to defend tht Catholic Church. It was almost ludicrous as I defendend doctrine I doubted. I tried to defend it from a sort of academic, intellectual, disconnected approach.

Needless to say I have returned after 27 years. Probably not the best of Catholics, still full of doubts and difficulties but I'm definitely feeling something right about it.

By the way I never hit rock bottom or had any health problems that pushed me back toward faith. Its almost like an intuitive motivation that has brought me back.

Logic has nothing to do with it, and I detest religious "proofs" which do nothing to convince me about the reality of God. I sort of find the Kierkegaard /Eckhart position workable for me.

Believe me I'm not all there yet, but I want to be, and from my experience I think it is certainly possible that you may find your way back too one day. Twenty years ago I never would have thought it possible. My faith was zilch! Today I have days when I'm fairly sure I've found the way. On others, I'm back at sqauare one. I truely hope you find the right path. But all things are possible. You may be back one day. I hope we both are; I think this is a better place.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 15, 2004.

Wow. An atheist who believes contraception and homosexuality are evil. My faith in humanity is restored.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.

DC, I will post the threads by the end of next sweek, well oen of them, oatience please, I have a schedual and a life off here... sort of...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Response to Jim ---

What a great post!!! You understand! When your faith is gone, it's gone. There is nothing that you can do about it. If it comes back it will do so on its own.

One benefit is that I feel that I can see things more clearly and that I can think more clearly. The downside is that a world without God is very depressing.

I know exactly what you mean about disliking Catholic bashing. At the height of my atheistic sojourn I was always inclined to defend tht Catholic Church. It was almost ludicrous as I defendend doctrine I doubted. I tried to defend it from a sort of academic, intellectual, disconnected approach.

Yes, exactly!!!

Needless to say I have returned after 27 years...Logic has nothing to do with it, and I detest religious "proofs" which do nothing to convince me about the reality of God.

I agree. I think they do more harm than good. It seems that they are convincing only to those who already believe.

I sort of find the Kierkegaard /Eckhart position workable for me.

What is that? Can you direct me to a good website that explains it?

Today I have days when I'm fairly sure I've found the way. On others, I'm back at sqauare one...You may be back one day. I hope we both are; I think this is a better place.

I would feel very badly if I caused someone to lose their faith because you're right, this is a better place. So why am I posting if I don't want to convince others that I'm right? I guess that it's just a form of thinking out loud. And maybe some bitterness that I feel after losing my faith. But I shouldn't burden others with that.

Thanks once again, Jim, for the great post!!!

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 16, 2004.

Response to Steve ---

Wow. An atheist who believes contraception and homosexuality are evil. My faith in humanity is restored.

:) :) :) :) :)

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 16, 2004.

Response to Zarove ---

DC, I will post the threads by the end of next sweek, well oen of them, oatience please, I have a schedual and a life off here... sort of...

OK, Zarove. I'll be looking for them. :)

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 16, 2004.

Steve,

I'm not sure what you meant by your post after mine, but it is not imposible to find atheists who abhore abortion. There are atheists who lead model lives.

DC

One of my problems over the years has been my over concern with rational explanations, that which we can know. Most of our educations to some extent has grown out of the scholastic traditions that required such verbal explanations that are not really truely efficient when dealing with issues of faith.

Johannes (Meister) Eckhart was of the opinion that divine nature, faith, belief in God etc "has no name." Faith and belief can't be confined to logic. Language is inadiquate and by its nature, limits our ability to develope a conception of something that is by its very nature--- inconceivable. (I hate talking like that....)

I guess when we put it all together, into "human words" it loses something for some of us.

Kierkegaard was famous for his position that we really have to make a "leap of faith." He felt you had to accept the fact that faith is not necessarily going to make sense. We intuit God not reason about God. You may have heard of Pascal's wager, well for Kierkegaard there is no logical argument only a hunch.

You can Google Search under Soren Kierkegaard, or Meister Eckhart.

I don't know if either will help you with your current delemma, the only positive thing I can offer is that once an atheist doesn't necessarily mean always an atheist. I was brought up in the Catholic Church, educated by good nuns, Christian Brothers, and Jesuits. Only generally positive experiences with all. My return to a conception of faith makes more sense to me within the Catholic Church because thats where my orientation began. I couldn't see becoming a Buddhist even though I see good in it. I was an atheist acting like a Catholic for many years.

While I was an atheist I didn't feel strong longings to return, no epiphanies. I can't explain it but now that I'm back, I want to stay. My 27 years without the Church make me realise how fleeting, at least for me, that faith can be.

I wish you well, and with the thought that you might not stay an atheist. You can come back.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 16, 2004.

“it is not imposible to find atheists who abhore abortion. There are atheists who lead model lives.”

Yes I know. I personally know an atheist who abhors abortion. But I have rarely seen an atheist say homosexuality is evil, and I have NEVER before seen an atheist say that contraception is evil.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 16, 2004.

Steve,

Well back in the day, as an atheist I abhored abortion, still do. So there you have it; you've met a cyber-ex atheistic abortion hater. I don't abhore homosexuals, have friends and relitives who are, and it seems wrong for me (or anyone) to take such a stance.

I never have claimed to be the perfect Catholic. I stay away from the issues I can't get my abhoring teeth into. I'm just concentrating on what it takes to get me back to faith within the Church I was raised. Thats my focus. I'm not going to take it on myself to judge others.

One of the things that has always helped to keep my respect for Catholicism is that "we" believe that we continue to work out our salvation. I therefore leave those issues up to God, and if others feel its important to judge in "this life,"--- they can go ahead if it makes them feel better.

For me I'm going to work on loving my fellow humankind and getting my Catholicism together.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 16, 2004.

Sorry Steve,

I didn't read your first sentence carefully. Read what I was expecting and for that I apologize.

Maybe I'm the "second" ex-atheist you now know who abhored abortion.

-- Jim (furst@flasfh.net), September 16, 2004.

DC,

In your original post you said:

"I like my definition better: God is an invention of man to combat man's feelings of ignorance, loneliness, fear, and despair."

What you’re giving is a common argument for Atheism based on human psychology. Man emotionally needs a god --> Man intellectually creates a god. Now it’s possible that this is true, but it’s not obviously true. The fact of the matter is that even though some people believe in God’s existence because it’s comforting to them, it is also the case that many people believe God because they see the existence of a Divine being as the best explanation for how and why the universe exists the way that it does.

"If God exists then why is He so coy about it?"

Genesis gives an account of God speaking directly to Cain. God spoke graciously to him and it resulted in Cain rebelling and killing his brother. Christ used the same method, and hardened sinners had him arrested and crucified. God uses the direct method sparingly because it often engenders only further rebellion and hatred from unregenerate men. "All I know about God is from men. I've heard nothing from God Himself."

Christ told the parable of a rich man in Hell. The rich man wanted Lazarus to return from the grave and visit his family, that by seeing him alive they might believe. The response given to this man was that his family had the Scriptures available to them. They were expected to read the Scriptures for themselves- to be moved by its power and beauty and convinced by its prophetic fulfillment. If people read the Scriptures honestly, they can neither claim that it came from men alone, nor that God has never spoken to them.

"So believing in God really comes down to believing in men who tell me about God. I can't do that anymore."

We believe many important things based on the word of another. How many laws of nature do we take for granted because some scientist told us it was that way? Even so, we don’t need to rely on men to believe in God. We know that the universe exists and is filled with complex design. I admit that some could try to explain this in a purely scientific/naturalistic way, but it’s certainly not necessary to do so. A reasonable alternative, that is consistent with much of our experience and science, is that the universe was intelligently designed. There’s nothing outrageous about believing in a Creator to explain the origins and design of the universe, and we can arrive at this belief, independently of men, by observing nature. "God and Satan do not exist. Good and evil, however, do exist."

Interesting statement! The question is, though, without God what does it mean to say that things are good and evil? What are the standards? In some areas of the world people dine with their neighbors, and in other places they eat them. If there is no God, who has a right to judge in these matters? Even if you could figure out what was right and wrong, how could you convince people to act morally. The question: Why by moral? has been batted around by philosopher for 2500 years and they have never come to a God- independent answer. As a matter of fact, the respected philosopher J.L. Mackie, an atheist, provides a devastating argument for why, if there is no God, we can have no obligation to be moral.

-- Scott (scott_pk99@yahoo.com), September 19, 2004.

Hi Scott,

I think we are again trying to linguistically and logically prove God's existance. I know this works for some people, but I don't think these logically based precepts that seem like they should lead us to belief are all that effective for "some" types of athiests. When I was firmly entrenched in an atheistic orientaion, none of that worked for me.

Why does man to some extent strive to be moral? As an atheist I would have felt it came down to an inate instinct for self preservation. Almost like a contract, ---simply put--- "I won't hurt you if you won't hurt me," evolved into morality.

Thats why I think the "leap of faith ideas," the "no logical argument" position is one of the most useful positions from which a return to faith from a position of agnosticism or atheism could occur. If as an athiest I had to make faith "make sense," I don't think I would have ever made it back. Dropping that requirement was a big help to me.

I'm still often pretty tenuous in my faith, and work very hard every day to make it stick.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 19, 2004.

Yes Jim we have made a “leap of faith”. The problem is that atheists have ALSO made a leap of faith to arrive at their affirmation of atheism, but most of them refuse to admit this (even to themselves), and they wrongly claim that their atheism is derived only from personal observation and logical deduction.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 19, 2004.

I guess the answer may lie somewhere in keeping personal observation and "logical deduction" out of the formula for faith.

I know that doesn't make it any easier for atheists.

I've been "there" and don't think it would have worked for me at that time either.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 22, 2004.

Jim,

Thanks for sharing your testimony. That's very helpful advice.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 23, 2004.

Of the many proofs for the existence of God, the first is simple cause and effect - steming from the known existence of man's rational and therefore spiritual soul.

Here goes:

Everyone who can read this email has a rational mind capable of knowing concepts not merely perceptions.

But wait, if the brain is material, limited in space and time, how can it produce meanings which are not limited in space and time and hence are non-material? According to the law of cause and effect whereby a cause is either greater than or equal to its effect, there must be something in man's rational consciousness which is non- material! We call this power the "soul".

Now Atheists (materialists) claim that the word spirit means "nothing" - yet here we have deduced that something must exist to explain the effect of conceptual (non-spatial or temporal) thought.

The second thing we have to look at is our knowledge of ourselves and others as persons - not just MIND disembodied and anonymous, but individual, substantial.... when a man dies, you don't say (or think) "look that's Bob over there dead". No, you think and say "Bob died, there's his body". SOMETHING substantial differentiates an alive human being and a corpse.

What is "it"? A personal, spiritual soul - the cause of rational thought, personal consciousness.

This much the Greeks taught us 2300 years ago... simple deduction based on what we certainly know about ourselves leads us to conclude that each human being has a spiritual (non-material) soul.

But where did this come from? Cause and effect demands us to conclude that something Personal and Spiritual is the cause of soul in man, not matter.

To be sure, sexual congress provides the matter....but what could provide the spiritual form? Certainly not the intellect or will of our parents (how could there be surprise pregnancies if that was the case?)

So some personal, spiritual being must be the cause of our personal, spiritual souls.

And this being we call "God".

I defy an atheist to prove this line of thinking incorrect or baseless. The Phenomenology of what we absolutely do know and deducing the existence of an equal or greater cause for it is inescapable.

Peace

Oh, and Trinity...in order to be aware of oneself as a person you must have congress with another person...for human beings this "other" is typically "Mother" - equal to or greater than man's soul then, the cause of spiritual soul must be personal and if "it" is personal (aware of itself as a person) it must be at the very least binary...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.

An atheist will accuse you of digging up ancient word puzzles and then ask your deductions make the "soul" continues to function once the physical body dies.

-- Jim (furst @flash.net), September 23, 2004.

Should be:

ask you how your deductions prove the soul continues to function once the body dies.

-- Jim (furst @flash.net), September 23, 2004.

Good point. Here is the obvious answer: what is death? the physical breakdown of that harmonious order of bodily parts...that is, only a thing composed of parts can die. But as we have seen (*and by understanding this email you must also agree) the human consciousness, the ability to reason based on concepts rather than perceptions, means that the mind is not equal to the brain! The brain has extension, space/time. But ideas? Concepts? They do exist, we know them, but the power by which we know them and they themselves, are not material!

Thus there are no physical parts to the thing we're dealing with which can break down! Ergo, (therefore) this "thing" called "soul", can't die when the physical body comes apart because its not made up of constituent parts to begin with!

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.

Nice post Scott you display much more charity than I could ,I don’t believe DC is conducting this discussion in good faith at all.I have nothing against incompetence. However what I do object to is when such incompetence is accompanied by trite smug self-righteousness.I don’t believe you will get an honest reply out of this person, most skeptics are no doubt mindless fakes, who simply go around making a rhetorical position and don’t really think about it. He is involving himself in profoundly philosophical questions but becomes disgruntled with the Pope for being “too intellectual.” Go figure, perhaps he/she would prefer “God works in mysterious ways” type replies. Imagine the outrage then from the cheap seats, goes to show that sometimes you just cant win.

There remains a few points you did not address in DC's post

“Do anything that you want to do But don't dare criticize JP2!!! :)”

Respectfully criticizing JPII is perfectly acceptable, indeed I encourage you to debate any criticism you have raised of the Pope further on future threads if you really believe any of the nonsense you have written on the Pope is remotely truthful. Given the absurdity of your criticisms there is no need to refute such nonsense. Totally misrepresenting his and the Catholic Church’s position on issues as you have on this thread is entirely unacceptable.

“Keep in mind that I am arguing this from a Catholic perspective.”

Sorry pal but “keep in mind”your “perspective” is anything but Catholic. You’re an atheist pretending to take the perspective of an anti Catholic bigot, more specifically a “self styled traditonalist anti Catholic bigot” . Quite how you’re representing the “Catholic perspective” escapes me.

Hi Gents, Jim I agree with you, excuse the length of my reply I got a little carried away and as a new comer to philosophy I would appreciate feedback/criticism on my ramblings. As fully rational arguments or what Kant would call “pure reason”, the proofs of God are in my opinion are invalid. They are certainly persuasive and reasonable but only if we accept certain emotional posits. You can argue that all proofs require a “leap of faith” and to a certain extent I agree,in my opinion anything beyond a deductive truth ie mathematics or pure logic (eg 1 + 1= 2) can be exposed as a “leap of faith”.

Mathematical “proofs”, begin with a series of axioms, that is, statements which are taken to be self-evidently true. To argue logically is to move by clear steps from premises to conclusion. If the axioms are right and the logic is flawless then the conclusion cannot be denied. By this method for example Pythagoras was able to prove that the square on the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle was equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. Pythagoras’s theory is deductively true. It will be true for as long as the concept of a triangle is meaningful.

Inductive "truths", are an entirely different kettle of fish, since they depend, in part, on hypotheses which cannot simply be assumed, but must be based on evidence .We know that 1+1=2 is deductively true.But is it self evident that “all crows are black” or that “ the sun will rise tomorrow” etc etc. Clearly we dont, the mere fact that the sun has previously always risen in the past does not by itself prove that it will rise tomorrow.

A key point to understand is that from a scientific view for a “proof” to be “valid” it must be open to being falsified (proven wrong)- otherwise it becomes what Popper would call “ultra stable”. The structure of an ultra stable theory is such that it cannot be disproven under any circumstances and (according to the scientific or positivist mentality), not worthy of consideration and more than likely false (eg the belief in God …unicorns …the tooth fairy etc etc).

In science we can never prove anything but only disprove something. A scientific theory will always be considered, at most, 'highly likely' based on the available evidence. This apparent weakness, is of course science’s greatest strength- enabling theories to be adapted and even abandoned when “more likely” evidence is presented. It should be important to note that Poppers demarcation does not prove ultra stable theories such as the belief in God are “wrong” but merely acknowledges they are outside the boundaries of science.

Science itself is never certain of anything and its methodology is flawed and biased in too many ways to explain beyond the obvious points- we all view the colours, shapes etc etc slightly differently and everything we observe is relative not only to time and space but also the conclusions we draw are influenced and biased by prior beliefs and references. However flawed so called “scientific objectivity” may be, there is an obvious problem in our attempts to equate belief in the electron with the belief in God as a “faith venture”. We know what it means to say induction works but what does it mean to say that belief in God works? Let me put it another way. The easiest way to get from the tenth floor of a building to the street below, is to jump out the window, but our “faith” in the laws of gravity make this an irrational act for anyone who wishes to stay alive. On the other hand an atheist gets along quite well, without believing in God.

There is another difference that is worth noting when we compare the laws of science and the laws of nature (morality).When we say that a falling stone“obeys the law of gravity” are we not really just saying “ what stones always do”? You do not think that the stone suddenly remembers it is under orders to fall to the ground. You only mean that in fact it does fall. In short you only mean by scientific laws “what happens” not what “ought to happen”. Moral laws however have something over and above the facts themselves. Moral laws tell our conscience what we OUGHT to do and what we should not do. Clearly many men do not obey these laws . SO we have facts(how men behave) and we also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but facts. Electrons behave in a certain way and certain results follow . End of story. But if a man behaves in an evil way and the result is the killing of an innocent person , it is not the end of it for we all know they “ought” to have behaved differently.

I don’t agree that belief in God can be achieved as a conclusion to a logical proof, I am well aware that the Church says we can come to find God through reason but an attempt to “prove God” is too my mind an irrational goal. Just because science doesn’t have an answer yet to some difficult questions such as explaining how life began is not to say that it will not do so. Just because something is “explained” does not mean it is “explained away”. Be not afraid of science it will never contradict our faith! As Deacon Paul would say TRUTH cannot contradict TRUTH!

Atheism, and faith in science alone is still an entirely inadequate view of reality it will never give us the complete picture,rather it paints a bleak, dark and depressing place with no meaning or purpose. A world where the soul, spirit, self, and sacred have no meaning. A world where man cannot even know himself beyond what he can empirically measure and weigh! A world where there is no good , no evil, a world where there is no beauty, no justice, no cruelty, no love, no truth. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.If the whole universe has no meaning , we should never have found out that it has no meaning!

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 23, 2004.

Joe

Your proofs are logical, you do an excellent job supporting your position, and I can't offer disproofs, but as an atheist (back in the day) I wouldn't care either way. Thats why I refer to "some" atheists as those that can't see the "logic" of proof. I was one of those and even as a believer do not find them helpful. I would have had to have accepted logical premises, which I simply would not have done.

I could still say that--- that which makes me capable of recognising "myself" as something other than a "body," that which is "me," --- That which can have ideas, future ideas of events to possibly come, plans I have which are "immaterial,"---could all stop, once my brain quits working, due to death.

I'm not out to "make" atheists,--- or to support their position,--- just to say that for some, Logic does not = faith.

Kiwi-

Nice to here from you again and couldn't agree with you more on this point.

Joe -

I appreciate your response to my meanderings.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 23, 2004.

Of the judgment and punishment of the wicked

In all that thou doest, remember the end, and how thou wilt stand before a strict judge, from whom nothing is hid, who is not bribed with gifts, nor accepteth excuses, but will judge righteous judgment. O most miserable and foolish sinner, who art sometimes in fear of the countenance of an angry man, what wilt thou answer to God, who knoweth all thy misdeeds? Why dost thou not provide for thyself against the day of judgment, when no man shall be able to be excused or defended by means of another, but each one shall bear his burden himself alone? Now doth thy labour bring forth fruit, now is thy weeping acceptable, thy groaning heard, thy sorrow well pleasing to God, and cleansing to thy soul.

Even here on earth the patient man findeth great occasion of purifying his soul. When suffering injuries he grieveth more for the other's malice than for his own wrong; when he prayeth heartily for those that despitefully use him, and forgiveth them from his heart; when he is not slow to ask pardon from others; when he is swifter to pity than to anger; when he frequently denieth himself and striveth altogether to subdue the flesh to the spirit. Better is it now to purify the soul from sin, than to cling to sins from which we must be purged hereafter. Truly we deceive ourselves by the inordinate love which we bear towards the flesh.

What is it which that fire shall devour, save thy sins? The more thou sparest thyself and followest the flesh, the more heavy shall thy punishment be, and the more fuel art thou heaping up for the burning. For wherein a man hath sinned, therein shall he be the more heavily punished. There shall the slothful be pricked forward with burning goads, and the gluttons be tormented with intolerable hunger and thirst. There shall the luxurious and the lovers of pleasure be plunged into burning pitch and stinking brimstone, and the envious shall howl like mad dogs for very grief.

No sin will there be which shall not be visited with its own proper punishment. The proud shall be filled with utter confusion, and the covetous shall be pinched with miserable poverty. An hour's pain there shall be more grievous than a hundred years here of the bitterest penitence. No quiet shall be there, no comfort for the lost, though here sometimes there is respite from pain, and enjoyment of the solace of friends. Be thou anxious now and sorrowful for thy sins, that in the day of judgment thou mayest have boldness with the blessed. For then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness before the face of such as have afflicted him and made no account of his labours.n16 Then shall he stand up to judge, he who now submitteth himself in humility to the judgments of men. Then shall the poor and humble man have great confidence, while the proud is taken with fear on every side.

Then shall it be seen that he was the wise man in this world who learned to be a fool and despised for Christ. Then shall all tribulation patiently borne delight us, while the mouth of the ungodly shall be stopped. Then shall every godly man rejoice, and every profane man shall mourn. Then the afflicted flesh shall more rejoice than if it had been always nourished in delights. Then the humble garment shall put on beauty, and the precious robe shall hide itself as vile. Then the little poor cottage shall be more commended than the gilded palace. Then enduring patience shall have more might than all the power of the world. Then simple obedience shall be more highly exalted than all worldly wisdom.

Then a pure and good conscience shall more rejoice than learned philosophy. Then contempt of riches shall have more weight than all the treasure of the children of this world. Then shalt thou find more comfort in having prayed devoutly than in having fared sumptuously. Then thou wilt rather rejoice in having kept silence than in having made long speech. Then holy deeds shall be far stronger than many fine words. Then a strict life and sincere penitence shall bring deeper pleasure than all earthly delight. Learn now to suffer a little, that then thou mayest be enabled to escape heavier sufferings. Prove first here, what thou art able to endure hereafter. If now thou art able to bear so little, how wilt thou be able to endure eternal torments? If now a little suffering maketh thee so impatient, what shall hell-fire do then? Behold of a surety thou art not able to have two Paradises, to take thy fill or delight here in this world, and to reign with Christ hereafter.

7. If even unto this day thou hadst ever lived in honours and pleasures, what would the whole profit thee if now death came to thee in an instant? All therefore is vanity, save to love God and to serve Him only. For he who loveth God with all his heart feareth not death, nor punishment, nor judgment, nor hell, because perfect love giveth sure access to God. But he who still delighteth in sin, no marvel if he is afraid of death and judgment. Nevertheless it is a good thing, if love as yet cannot restrain thee from evil, that at least the fear of hell should hold thee back. But he who putteth aside the fear of God cannot long continue in good, but shall quickly fall into the snares of the devil.

-- Book 1, Ch XXIV (immitation@f.Christ), September 23, 2004.

Response to kiwi:

Respectfully criticizing JPII is perfectly acceptable...

Oh no it’s not, as your post so amply demonstrates. Compare the tone of your first post with the tone of your second post. Your first post was warm, understanding, and even a bit sympathetic. You suggested that I read the first few chapters of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," by JPII. So I did as you suggested.

But after I responded with some mild criticism of JPII you let me have it with both barrels. Your second post is filled with vitriol towards me. Suddenly I am dishonest, incompetent, and self-righteous. I am an "anti-Catholic bigot" who is posting "nonsense" that is not even "remotely truthful" about the Pope.

Your second post only vindicates what I said earlier about this board:

You can knock someone down

Step on their face

Slander their name

All over the place

Do anything that you want to do

But don't dare criticize JP2!!!

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.

DC

I guess I'm not sure what your beef is with Kiwi. He is a believer who is willing to "take on" any point of view. He was one of the first who made an answer to one of my thoughts two or three years ago,

As a person who is thinking of entering the priesthood, a young man who will take part in shaping the Church, I am always interested in his (Kiwi's)and others point of view. He is not your typical Catholic apologist.

I say this as a returned believer, and an "experienced" atheist. DC please believe me, I was one of the best atheists you could meet. I can still ( if for some reason asked) put up a great atheist argument and you would never know I was ever a Catholic. ---- Never. I can do it at will. I'm not prowd of it. The vestages of atheism will always be with me and a "difficulty" for me.(a tip of the hat to JFG--- if he is reading this, as he suggested ages ago)

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 24, 2004.

Maybe and article that I found in Internet can be useful to some of you:

A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not. Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields. The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere. THE BEGINNING If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief. The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day. Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity! A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left? Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning! A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded. The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct. THE CAUSE If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position. The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence. THE DESIGN If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer-- what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said: We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents. The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God. THE NEXT STEP We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us? All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way. If you are interested in pursuing these things in more detail, we invite you to contact us. We have books, audio tapes, video tapes, correspondence courses, and booklets available and all can be obtained on loan without cost. Just request our catalog from: DOES GOD EXIST? 718 E. Donmoyer Ave. South Bend IN 46614-1999

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Compare the tone of your first post with the tone of your second post. Your first post was warm, understanding, and even a bit sympathetic.

Ok fair enough I failed in that regard I could have been warmer, and yes I can tend to shoot first, ask questions later, a weakness of my own. No hard feelings, but believe me Im very sympathetic with your position, Ive been there.

Catholics are called to be concerned for those separated from the Church, this involves attempting to offer the first advance for meaningful dialogue. I offered you an olive branch to which you responded with nothing in kind but a trite reply to the Popes book, compounded with a total misrepresentation of Pope John Paul II’s papacy, and Catholic doctrine.

I admit to having over estimated your abilities but your reply has all the trademarks of a fake. I am extremely sceptical myself, and if the truth be known I remain unconvinced on some areas relating to Catholic doctrine, as many here will know (only too painfully I imagine). You forget, or perhaps are unaware that Christianity is a fighting religion, it has to be if divinely revealed truth is to be revealed to all. There is a primary duty of all Catholics, above co- operation and understanding, to bear witness faithfully and clearly.

“You suggested that I read the first few chapters of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," by JPII. So I did as you suggested. It didn't help.”

Your reply lacks maturity and is far too cute to be considered genuine, at least in my experience. While it is possible you did read this book and were unable to comprehend enough to find anything positive to take from it, I find it extremely unlikely. I base this on my own personal experience, those of atheist friends whom I recommended the book, and the positive critical reception this book has received from a wide range of audiences both Catholic and non Catholic, believers and non believers alike. I took you for a teenage troll, if you honestly feel aggrieved and found this book utterly useless then of course I will apologise in advance. Sorry.

“But it did confirm my belief that JPII is too intellectual to be an effective Pope.”

Did you approach this book with an honest and open mind or were you merely trying to confirm your faulty preconceived notions of the pope? I say faulty because the belief that JPII is “too intellectual to be an effective Pope” is , by any angle or perspective you approach it, a bizarre belief to hold. In fact it defies belief. It simply is neither a rational nor reasonable belief to hold given the historical facts and reality of JPIIs papacy. The only brothers in arms you will find are the more extreme basket cases of the varied schismatic/heretic Church offshoots , so called “traditionalists”, the anti post- Vatican II bigots , and by default anti Catholic bigots, aka the “catholic” Taliban. They also have their own “popes”, although Im unsure just how closely these “popes” resemble the late Ronald Reagan. Something for you to investigate perhaps? One would have to question your real intent here, honest goodwill or an automatic, manufactured, false voice based not on your real belief or previous experience but a mindless rhetorical position.

But after I responded with some mild criticism of JPII you let me have it with both barrels.

Firstly it could have been worse, much worse. I was rather restrained. Pride is something I have a little trouble letting go of but Im getting there. At least Ive dropped most of the sarcasm and nasty one liners, but in my defence a man in a deep slumber is rarely awoken with a whisper, just wait until Mr Chavez, has the pleasure of meeting you . Secondly please get it through your melon that its not criticism per say that’s the problem, it’s the absurd nature of the “criticisms”- themselves. What I object to is not honest questioning and challenging, but pretending to take contradictory and nonsensical positions on issues all for pride/arguments sake.

“The Pope, as shepherd, must protect his flock from the wolves. That's his first priority. But I don't see him doing that.”

Really? You’re not short sighted by chance are you? Again I question your real intent, few aside from the lunatic fringe, either Catholic or non -Catholic would agree with you on this issue. Ironically most criticism of Pope John Paul II relates to his consistent “conservative” stance on moral issues, anyway lets pretend you really care.

His first priority, as defined by the Vatican I, is ensuring the perpetual welfare and everlasting good of the Church. The role of shepherding is that of ruling and guiding the church, part of that is no doubt protecting the flock in their faith. We agree on something then. Not really pertinent to this discussion but worth noting is that a “Catholic perspective” as you put it, falls down immediately if you fail to recognise that whatever your “personal vision” may be, you are required to accept the pastoral direction of the first shepherd. His jurisdiction is universal and his authority is immediate.

He encourages his sheep to mix with the wolves -- those who support abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and homosexuality -- under the guise of "dialogue" or "ecumenism" or "diversity."

I would like to see the evidence that supports your assertion but again lets pretend for arguments sake its genuine. So the pope encourages sinners to mix with sinners! Shock, horror! Its difficult to take you seriously here at all, do I need to point out the blatantly obvious? Think about what Christianity is all about and what we are called to do, think about how Jesus lived his life . I have actually taken the time over the past few years to read a great deal of what Pope John Paul II has written and your implication that the pope is somehow weakening the Church is simply utter garbage.

“True ecumenical activity means openness, drawing closer, availability for dialogue, and a shared investigation of the truth in the full evangelical and Christian sense; but in no way does it or can it mean giving up or in anyway diminishing the treasures of divine truth that the Church has constantly confessed and taught.

Pope John Paul II, Encyclical, Redemptor Hominis 1979

Your second post is filled with vitriol towards me.

Hardly, the truth hurts sometimes, and I called you on your bigoted nonsense, for which you produced no evidence to support your accusations (because none exists). The challenge for you is whether you wish to remain an echo of common modern ignorance or learn to respect others beliefs.

Suddenly I am dishonest, incompetent, and self-righteous.

Well yes I believe so, at least in matters pertaining to the Catholic faith. I admit your dishonesty could be just soft headedness though I don’t think so, youre not an idiot. As you put it: “Why is man so ashamed to admit that he is ignorant?”

Now Socrates was a wise sage but no B grade western movie hero, and as such probably wont make an impression on you, nevertheless:

1. “Know yourself”

2. “Know that you do not know”

I am an "anti-Catholic bigot" who is posting "nonsense" that is not even "remotely truthful" about the Pope.

Not quite true, you’re pretending to be an "anti-Catholic bigot" who is posting "nonsense" that is not even "remotely truthful" about the Pope.

Father of providence, look with love on Pope John Paul II our Pope, your appointed successor to St Peter on whom you built your Church. May he be the visible centre and foundation of our unity in faith and love.

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 27, 2004.