Addressing conflict between religion and science

[JDaniel]

Thanks for proving my point. God is used throughout history as a excuse for ignorance and the stifling of research. When you stop wondering about the universe, or wondering at all, then you no longer the will for curiosity. When you artificially limit your god to a corner and blind yourself, you are only hurting yourself in return.

You too are using your ignorance as justification for belief. You should feel ashamed of yourself for this line of thought. When you say that your god is a non-scientific being, it only confirms to me that you not only enjoy your ignorance, you wallow in it.

Strange. I wonder why so much science has been born at the hands of Catholic Priests?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I totally agree with you tonyrey but some will just say “non-materialists” have also argued themselves into a corner since they justify anything at all by claiming it as a “revelation” and are not required to provide evidence. And will then ask about “irrational” also.

Regarding the “truth of revelation”. They will just ask "How do we know that what is “revealed” is truth? You know what I mean? How do you address this?

Cho:

I would answer that it is to be read. The same languages are used to render it obtainable by the mind as the sciences use to make their dialectics and draw their conclusions, and measure their results. It it’s not in the words, it’s not revelation.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That is a blessed good question. If it is revealed to you, is it “true” because you are Catholic? Is it “untrue” if it is revealed to a non-Catholic? What is it if it is “true” and then the person “leaves” the Church? Is it 'true" because it gets a “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur?” And if it does, are you not accepting someone else’s word who accepted someone else’s who accepted>>>>for nearly 2K years? And nothing subtle changed? Try getting verbal information down a row of five or so people right now, or even if it is a note, and the first person is told the author’s intention. I wonder if you have studied how information, even religious information, is passed on. And about the dangers of translation. The Romans said “A translator is a liar.” Have you any idea how Hebrew and Aramaic are written? Done any exercises, even in English, trying to make out what is meant in a string of letters with no vowels, not capitals, no punctuation, and no idea fo the culture, or its idioms? I don’t know, maybe you are a great theologian and Biblical scholar. And if you are, I apologize.

RF:

The problem with the diatribe above is that it does not describe that which is true. All religions use the same words, except for the additional 6 books that Catholicism allows into the compendium. But, the vast majority of the truth that is in it is there for everyone within the first sixty seven books. Catholicism has a couple of divisions within its structure: that have more to do with their base of power. Protestantism has thirty-plus thousand different sects that have more to do with differences in interpretation. The Magisterium prevents such human differences in interpretation. But, as for the vast majority of revelation, it is overwhelmingly right on with all of Christianity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ranklyfrank - Since you are for verifiable facts, can you cite or show us evidence of a revelation that has been shown to be false?

I’ll ask again: How do you know that what is “revealed” is truth? I would appreciate Catholic’s answer for Ranklyfrank’s consideration.

Cho:

There exists a complete schema that clearly describes what you want answered; unfortunately, it would take up way too much space within the limitations of such forums as these. Most Catholic Churches offer Bible study opportunities at various times during the year. I’d suggest going to one to find out when and where the next one will take place. They last only a couple of weeks, generally take place one or two nights a week, and are usually around 2 1/2 to 3 hours long. They should answer all of your questions. I dare you.

Odd thing though, most Catholics-in-name-only leave the Church because its rules are seen as being too tough. Most Protestants leave their churches because the one they are attending is unsatisfying, or, they have discovered the truths in revelation previously kept from them and ingress into the Catholic Church. This is from my personal experience with many, many conversions - and in a relatively short time.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Cho:

I would answer that it is to be read. The same languages are used to render it obtainable by the mind as the sciences use to make their dialectics and draw their conclusions, and measure their results. It it’s not in the words, it’s not revelation.

God bless,
jd

Last sentence should be: “If it’s not in the words, it’s not in Revelation.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Ranklyfrank]

RF:The problem with the diatribe above is that it does not describe that which is true.

Of course it doesn’t. The Truth as such cannot be described. The “diatribe” above refers to alleged revelations and their interpretations which are foundations for the schisms and sects of not only Christianity but all religions. It is interesting that on here if one says “religion” it is taken to mean some form of Christianity. Why is that?

All(?) religions use the same words, except for the additional 6 books that Catholicism allows into the compendium. But, the vast majority of the truth that is in it is there for everyone within the first sixty seven books. Catholicism has a couple of divisions within its structure: that have more to do with their base of power. Protestantism has thirty-plus thousand different sects that have more to do with differences in interpretation. The Magisterium prevents such human differences in interpretation. But, as for the vast majority of revelation, it is overwhelmingly right on with all of Christianity.

Well yes, the Magesterium may do that within the Church after deliberation. And that still constitutes human opinion. Base of power? Isn’t there but One? And why are you not including the your Church with the Protestants? And aren’t there differences there, eg the nature of Mary? Do they have the same Saints? Catechism? Overwhelming? I hardly think so, other that a general picture of redemption. And there are differences even about the particulars of that. I’m sure you have been to the “non Catholic religions” forum, eh? And that doesn’t address revelation in all the other religions that exist, or existed, either. That’s what I’m talking about. Or do you actually think that in all of time and space God only opened His mouth, so to speak, to the Jews and then the Christians, and more specifically only the Roman Church?

I’m sorry, JD, I think more highly of God than that. And less of men than to believe verbatim the Magesterium, which is an intellection, something which religion might be, but Spirituality is certainly not.

 

[geoformeo]

When I say “how do you work that out?” I was referring to this statement “religion is all about believing something specifically where there is no evidence (faith), whereas science is all about evidence”.

Cho Pilo,

I never made that statement, nor do I think I ever would. Blind faith, as in the faith described in the quote you cited, is absurd and weak. But that is not the faith of Catholicism, which has for 2000 years had some of the greatest minds in history probing both natural and divine revelation using the tools of logic and rationality. Heck, that is why there is such a field as theology in the first place. The Catholic faith is a rational faith, which is not a faith based upon lack of evidence, but rather overwhelming evidence to believe in something not directly seen.

The trouble with science, on the other hand, is that it’s “evidence” is restricted to the material realm and by definition could not explain or even observe immaterial evidence. So while science may be “all about evidence,” it is evidence of only a particular sort and is blinded to the bigger picture.

However, this all can be “worked out” by synthesizing the two. By understanding that science answers “how” God did/does things, and religion (faith) answers “why” God does things. Both of which are aided by revelation, both natural (the laws of physics and chemistry) and supernatural (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium), as well as reason, philosophy, and logic.

 

[cho_pilo]

The trouble with science, on the other hand, is that it’s “evidence” is restricted to the material realm and by definition could not explain or even observe immaterial evidence. So while science may be “all about evidence,” it is evidence of only a particular sort and is blinded to the bigger picture.

Could you please give an example of “immaterial evidence” in this context?
Could you also give an example of something in the “immaterial realm” that can truly be shown to exist?

 

[JDaniel]

Of course it doesn’t. The Truth as such cannot be described. The “diatribe” above refers to alleged revelations and their interpretations which are foundations for the schisms and sects of not only Christianity but all religions. It is interesting that on here if one says “religion” it is taken to mean some form of Christianity. Why is that?

RF:

When you first arrived, it was kind of nice to have what seemed to be a fresh mind, gracing our home with a decent intelligence and some insight. Since then, you have spent most of your posts overtly, and covertly, defending your status as non-denominational, working hard to covertly express your anti-Catholic bias, and, arrogantly contending with other people’s thoughts. You really don’t know enough yet to be pompous.

Well yes, the Magesterium may do that within the Church after deliberation. And that still constitutes human opinion.

But, RF, as you should well know (if you studied religions as much as you think you have): it is guided human opinion: guided by the Holy Spirit: i.e., God.

Base of power? Isn’t there but One? And why are you not including the your Church with the Protestants? And aren’t there differences there, eg the nature of Mary?

I do not include the Catholic Church for three compelling reasons: (1) it was directly originated by God via the Second Person, directly through Peter (the first human Papal authority); (2) it has the direct promise of God not to allow it to err; and, (3) it has been around 1,500 years longer than any of the 34,000 Protestant sects.

Then, traveling back to Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Noah, Japheth, Shem, Ham, Eber, Canaan, and Abraham, then to now, the Judeo-Christian tradition has been here for longer than any one else, including the Eastern religions and whatever. The nature of Mary is not the question; some Protestants mis-believe that Catholics worship her. The proper word is, venerate. We venerate her and the Saints, which only stands to reason.

Do they have the same Saints? Catechism? Overwhelming? I hardly think so, other that a general picture of redemption. And there are differences even about the particulars of that.

If you were really honest, you’d know that you are over-embellishing.

I’m sure you have been to the “non Catholic religions” forum, eh?

Eh? Not a chance. But, I can guess that you have. Direct question: are you a Protestant, brother?

And that doesn’t address revelation in all the other religions that exist, or existed, either.

Such as?

That’s what I’m talking about. Or do you actually think that in all of time and space God only opened His mouth, so to speak, to the Jews and then the Christians, and more specifically only the Roman Church?

That, sir, is a very poorly phrased question. Not at all worth a reply.

I’m sorry, JD, I think more highly of God than that.

And, we notice how proud you are of that.

And less of men than to believe verbatim the Magesterium, which is an intellection, something which religion might be, but Spirituality is certainly not.

We also see that you want to be clever with your words. But, you are seen for feigned intellectualism. How do we know? Because, we occasionally see real intellectuals herein, and neither you nor I are among them. If you really want to have some intelligent discussions here, I’d suggest that you drop the argot and antagonism. Underneath that glass exterior, you seem to be quite clever, and I, for one, would like to hear what you really have to say. But, don’t think we’re going to take too kindly to Catholic bashing, including the veiled kind.

God bless,
jd

 

[The_Old_Medic]

There actually is no conflict between religion and science. God made everything, including our intellect and our ability to learn.

Only those who pervert religion make a conflict. Unfortunately, that included many in the Church at one point in time.

 

[edwest2]

There actually is no conflict between religion and science. God made everything, including our intellect and our ability to learn.

Only those who pervert religion make a conflict. Unfortunately, that included many in the Church at one point in time.

That is a vague statement. Care to elaborate?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ranklyfrank]

RF:

When you first arrived, it was kind of nice to have what seemed to be a fresh mind, gracing our home with a decent intelligence and some insight.

Thank you.

… Since then, you have spent most of your posts overtly, and covertly, defending your status as non-denominational, working hard to covertly express your anti-Catholic bias, and, arrogantly contending with other people’s thoughts. You really don’t know enough yet to be pompous.

Yes, I am always learning. I love riding through the plains of “pompous” grass on my lovely horse.

But, RF, as you should well know (if you studied religions as much as you think you have): it is guided human opinion: guided by the Holy Spirit: i.e., God.

I know that adherents of Catholicism believe that. “Know” is reserved, or ought to be, for another kind of knowledge. Yet it is used as a substitute word for “believe” as a rationalization.

I do not include the Catholic Church for three compelling reasons: (1) it was directly originated by God via the Second Person, directly through Peter (the first human Papal authority); (2) it has the direct promise of God not to allow it to err; and, (3) it has been around 1,500 years longer than any of the 34,000 Protestant sects.

Of course that is so. But it hasn’t been around as long as God. And while religions are about God, God is not about religion. But at least that is a step above psychology by itself.

Then, traveling back to Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Noah, Japheth, Shem, Ham, Eber, Canaan, and Abraham, then to now, the Judeo-Christian tradition has been here for longer than any one else, including the Eastern religions and whatever. The nature of Mary is not the question; some Protestants mis-believe that Catholics worship her. The proper word is, venerate. We venerate her and the Saints, which only stands to reason.

I as well have a deep veneration for some of the mystics of the Church. Some of their work is on my desk right now, in fact. And yes, I am familiar with that “train” of thought. I used to ride it and have some great conversations with the other passengers. And great ones with those on platforms at stops or other trains. But maybe the crux here is not the nature of Mary, but that nature of Man in the ways of symbol making. And again, I submit that God is not a mater of tying back, except as a stage. And I’m not even saying it is wrong. It is useful. But only up to a point. and if I have a fault in all of this in particular, and it would be only one of many altogether, I know, it is that I’m probably speaking prematurely to most. And maybe you are right. In that regard it might be best to shut up and stop aggravating people like you.

If you were really honest, you’d know that you are over-embellishing.

As I do. It seems necessary to get some things on the table.

Eh? Not a chance. But, I can guess that you have. Direct question: are you a Protestant, brother?

I thought as much. I was going to word that differently, in the form of a bet. I should have. And no, no blessed way am I a Protestant.

Such as?

Oh, get real. Do you think that non-Christian faiths, or non Abrahamic faiths don’t have revelations? The model of awareness we all share as being made in the same image and likeness yields similarities no matter what the parochial form of worship might be.

That, sir, is a very poorly phrased question. Not at all worth a reply.

Then please re-phrase it in a useful way?

And, we notice how proud you are of that.

We? Is that the Royal 'We?" It isn’t pride; it’s reportage.

We also see that you want to be clever with your words. But, you are seen for feigned intellectualism. How do we know? Because, we occasionally see real intellectuals herein, and neither you nor I are among them. If you really want to have some intelligent discussions here, I’d suggest that you drop the argot and antagonism. Underneath that glass exterior, you seem to be quite clever, and I, for one, would like to hear what you really have to say. But, don’t think we’re going to take too kindly to Catholic bashing, including the veiled kind.

I would like to meet this “We.” I learned my way of expression through the Catholic school system, parts of which I am very grateful for. And please forward me a list of the intellectuals you and I aren’t among, please. I am happy that I am so transparent to you, at least we have something to talk about! And you don’t come across as bashed, nor anyone else I’ve talked to. Aside from being silly sometimes, most folks on here are quite sincere and deserving of respect. But as I paralleled once before, in a racially charged situation a simple comment about personal behavior often gets perceived as a slur on race rather than what it is. I think that’s sort of what’s happening here.

God bless

That is constant, or we wouldn’t be talking, or anything else.

 

[greylorn]

RF:

When you first arrived, it was kind of nice to have what seemed to be a fresh mind, gracing our home with a decent intelligence and some insight. Since then, you have spent most of your posts overtly, and covertly, defending your status as non-denominational, working hard to covertly express your anti-Catholic bias, and, arrogantly contending with other people’s thoughts. You really don’t know enough yet to be pompous.

But, RF, as you should well know (if you studied religions as much as you think you have): it is guided human opinion: guided by the Holy Spirit: i.e., God.

I do not include the Catholic Church for three compelling reasons: (1) it was directly originated by God via the Second Person, directly through Peter (the first human Papal authority); (2) it has the direct promise of God not to allow it to err; and, (3) it has been around 1,500 years longer than any of the 34,000 Protestant sects.

Then, traveling back to Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Noah, Japheth, Shem, Ham, Eber, Canaan, and Abraham, then to now, the Judeo-Christian tradition has been here for longer than any one else, including the Eastern religions and whatever. The nature of Mary is not the question; some Protestants mis-believe that Catholics worship her. The proper word is, venerate. We venerate her and the Saints, which only stands to reason.

If you were really honest, you’d know that you are over-embellishing.

We also see that you want to be clever with your words. But, you are seen for feigned intellectualism. How do we know? Because, we occasionally see real intellectuals herein, and neither you nor I are among them. If you really want to have some intelligent discussions here, I’d suggest that you drop the argot and antagonism. Underneath that glass exterior, you seem to be quite clever, and I, for one, would like to hear what you really have to say. But, don’t think we’re going to take too kindly to Catholic bashing, including the veiled kind.

God bless,
jd

JD,
Your reply, above, was directed to RanklyFrank, not to me, but since not even he bothers to reply to my posts, I’ve just been passively reading. (And since you’re on this thread, I’m surprised that you did not work up a reply to my last one.)

Now you and I have had a few exchanges, and you probably realize that I’m not a Catholic basher, having happily annoyed several professed atheists and others who do not have their ducks in a row.

Your reply to RF is, IMO, ill-considered. Frank has indeed been a breath of fresh air on this thread. He has made no erroneous statements or faulty analyses on this thread that I can see. I wonder why you, known to have a mind, are on his case?

You do not serve the Church well by pretending that it is not what it is.

There is a basic truth about revelation which, so far as I know, applies to all Western religions: Revelation consists of some human being, or several at various times, saying something. Sometimes they declare that God gave them the information, but God is never around to verify that claim. Jesus Christ apparently declared himself to be God, thus cutting out the middle man. The next thing that happens is that other human beings are convinced of the statements made by prophets, or by Jesus, and declare them to be divinely revealed.

These teachings then continue to be passed along through the ages, sometimes morphing with the times and the translation, but always declared to be divinely revealed.

The problem is that men made the original statements, and other men declared their divine source. There is no evidence that God ever played a personal part in these revelations. It is always just men.

Moses’ visit with God as a burning bush is not evidence of anything. It is just something that Moses said, or more likely, that other writers attributed to him.

And if there was an entity involved in Moses’ conversations with God, we don’t know that this was the same entity Who created the universe. Could have been another spirit, even a holograph transmitted from a helpful UFO. Moses would not have known the difference.

This may be easier for you to see in the context of a different religion, such as the Mormon church. It supposedly began with an angel who claimed to be sent by God, handing over a batch of gold tablets and a pair of translating devices to Joseph Smith, who then claims to have done the translation. This would be a really cool kind of Divine Revelation, except that when the Book of Mormon was complete, the angel took his tablets and translators back. We only have Joe’s word that the angel and tablets ever existed. Today, millions of Mormons believe this story, and teach it as divinely revealed. Yet, there is no evidence of any entities other than humans involved in the founding of the LDS Church.

If you look at the historical evidence, and actually study outside the Catechism as RF claims to have done, you will see the truth of this.

But none of this invalidates the idea of a God! Anyone with a 3-digit IQ (which seems to exclude Darwinists) can make a serious study of the universe and its aspects, and discern from the limited knowledge human sciences have discovered, that the whole shebang is the product of extraordinary intelligence— not big bangs and random chance.

What thoughts like Frank’s suggest, however, is that human beings defined our current God concept. From that, I suggest that they probably got it wrong.

Doesn’t mean there’s no God, remember. It just means that an intelligent man who values belief in creation needs to do some more thinking.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Geeze, Greylorn, I take some stock in Darwinism, and I claim an IQ of at least 5!

But thanks for your thoughts on this one. Very good clarifications. And as I beleive I told JD, I do admire his mind, if not his premises. And neither am I an atheist as anyone reading my rants can plainly see.

And I apologize if I’ve slighted any of your posts by not throwing thoughts at them. I thought I actually supported one of your consideratoins, but it might have been a dream. Maybe I can get some friends to say it was so and call it a revelation, and then where would you be?

 

[Luke_K]

Let’s address the conflict between religion and science one by one…
…

Thoughts?

Would anyone be able to provide a list of other contradictions if this is indeed the case? And let us discuss…

The fundamental conflict that people seem to get worked up about nowadays is that religion is not objectively testable, whereas a scientific, material claim is readily falsifiable. Truth claims about brute physical reality are much simpler to distinguish as right or wrong, and we can understand them using mathematics. The more personal the claim is, the more difficult it is to test, so that things like politics, ethics, philosophy, and religion have a wide spectrum of beliefs.

People in the modern age look at the beliefs of people in the past and find that supernatural forces were used to explain a lot of stuff that we explain naturally today. There are even many instances still today where people use a supernatural explanation where a natural one will suffice. They conclude from this that all supernatural claims are probably baloney because so many of them have been proven wrong before. They believe that any remaining supernatural beliefs that people still cling to will eventually be explained naturally. And any supernatural beliefs that can’t be tested are ignored (such as the resurrection of Jesus).

A specific conflict I can think of is consciousness after death. Christianity says that we will still somehow be aware and perceptive after we die. But we have no evidence, nor can we have evidence, that consciousness can exist without a living brain. Additionally, all the evidence we have suggests that consciousness does depend on the brain, considering phenomena like sleeping and the effects of drugs. The only way to know is to die yourself and find out. As a Christian myself, if I’m wrong, I doubt I’ll care.

 

[geoformeo]

Could you please give an example of “immaterial evidence” in this context?

Could you also give an example of something in the “immaterial realm” that can truly be shown to exist?

I’ll take these questions in reverse order.

1. How about the big 3: free will, consciousness, and conscience. It is precisely by virtue of possessing these characteristics that we are “created in the image and likeness of God.”
2. Regarding free will: Don’t show up for work tomorrow and when you’re boss asks you why you weren’t there tell him, “My lack of free will made me stay home” and see if he buys it.

Regarding consciousness: It is not an inherent property of pure matter to become self-aware. I have no anxiety that the rocks in my garage will spontaneously (or even slowly) come to life and chastise me for keeping them tucked away in boxes. Not even in a billion years or 5. Matter comes from matter.

Regarding conscience: no culture in the history of mankind has ever held liars, cheaters, traitors, or cowards in high esteem. You can’t quantify courage, loyalty, honor, justice, respect, honesty, and the like, all of which we long for and are universally recognized as virtues.

 

[ADouglass]

There are a few things that I am surprised haven’t been mentioned.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
2. Out of body experiences.
3. So, how to account for the excellerating expansion of the universe? There is an a type of energy that is causing this, dark energy. It is said to compose 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe. It is also yet to be detected by any laboratory tests.

So, we have scientists who are open to the existence of something that cannot be verified to exist in any lab tests. Basically we think it exists because it is the best explanaton for the appearance that the universe is expanding at an excellerating rate. Hmmm. Need I say anything else?

1. People have had the experience of leaving their bodies. How do we know this wasn’t a hallucination? Because some of the people who have left their bodies have reported observations made during their out of body experience that show they were able to obtain information that was unavailable to them if they were really just hallucinating. And the information has been verified. So to the person who posted that we can’t know whether or not we can go on living without the body, the truth of out of body experiences may contradict what you say. I’m not saying that it is absolute proof that we can survive death, but it lends credibility to that idea in a very substantial way.

Also, I think some of you are misusing the term revelation. A true revelation could never be proven false. Just because someone claims to have a revelation, that doesn’t make it a revelation from God. Using this formula, we can rule out many religions because they made the mistake of claiming to have a revelation that was later falsified, like Joseph Smith. In the Book of Mormon it says that when the jews accept Christ as their savior they will be allowed to return to geographical location Israel. Why are the jews already in Israel even though they aren’t Christian? See 2 Nephi chaper 10.

 

[cho_pilo]

Also, I think some of you are misusing the term revelation. A true revelation could never be proven false. Just because someone claims to have a revelation, that doesn’t make it a revelation from God. Using this formula, we can rule out many religions because they made the mistake of claiming to have a revelation that was later falsified, like Joseph Smith. In the Book of Mormon it says that when the jews accept Christ as their savior they will be allowed to return to geographical location Israel. Why are the jews already in Israel even though they aren’t Christian? See 2 Nephi chaper 10.

So, give an example of a “true revelation”.

 

[buffalo]

There are a few things that I am surprised haven’t been mentioned.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
2. Out of body experiences.
3. So, how to account for the excellerating expansion of the universe? There is an a type of energy that is causing this, dark energy. It is said to compose 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe. It is also yet to be detected by any laboratory tests.

So, we have scientists who are open to the existence of something that cannot be verified to exist in any lab tests. Basically we think it exists because it is the best explanaton for the appearance that the universe is expanding at an excellerating rate. Hmmm. Need I say anything else?

1. People have had the experience of leaving their bodies. How do we know this wasn’t a hallucination? Because some of the people who have left their bodies have reported observations made during their out of body experience that show they were able to obtain information that was unavailable to them if they were really just hallucinating. And the information has been verified. So to the person who posted that we can’t know whether or not we can go on living without the body, the truth of out of body experiences may contradict what you say. I’m not saying that it is absolute proof that we can survive death, but it lends credibility to that idea in a very substantial way.

Also, I think some of you are misusing the term revelation. A true revelation could never be proven false. Just because someone claims to have a revelation, that doesn’t make it a revelation from God. Using this formula, we can rule out many religions because they made the mistake of claiming to have a revelation that was later falsified, like Joseph Smith. In the Book of Mormon it says that when the jews accept Christ as their savior they will be allowed to return to geographical location Israel. Why are the jews already in Israel even though they aren’t Christian? See 2 Nephi chaper 10.

Dark energy must exist or relativity goes away. It must be out there somewhere.

 

[ADouglass]

So, give an example of a “true revelation”.

The Bible.

Plus one may have personal revelation, such as things contained in the Bible which have yet to be read by an individual because the Bible has been unavailable to him or her. Or the revelation that God is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It is public that I believe what a Catholic should believe based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church; you could have figured out what I would say without asking. So, did you ask the question thinking you could falsify one of the accepted revelations of Catholics?