Death of Apologetics: What is faith?

[tonyrey]

That is only your opinion. It is incorrect.** My** theories explain how God came into being, and why He chose to create the universe as well.

Why should **your **theories be superior to others?

If you’ll recall your dogmas, the whole Messiah concept which led to the belief in an incarnation of God in the form of a man had deep roots. Adam failed to follow an order, and for some bizarre reason, God laid the penance for Adam’s failure upon all mankind.

A simplistic interpretation of Genesis! Human beings have chosen evil, isolated themselves from God and defiled the world…

Adam screwed up, so God, in His Omnipotent and Just Mercy, condemned humans yet unborn to a miserable life, struggling for survival on a poorly engineered planet, and for their pains---- nothing!

Another simplistic interpretation! Can you provide a blueprint of a world superior to this “poorly engineered planet”? We are waiting…

Jesus Christ, according to that theory, came to earth to fix that. He had to die to open heaven to mankind. Duh? Why, exactly? Might not a rational God have simply decided that making the tree which bore the fruit of all knowledge and putting it where a couple of nitwits could get at it was a dumb idea from the get-go, and that there was no point in making lots of people suffer for his pointless choice?

How simplistic can you get! You equate Christianity with a crude, literal interpretation of Genesis…

Instead, our ancestors invented a story which would not pass muster for a tv soap opera plot, but has managed to suck in a few billion people whose maids do their windows as well as any critical thinking.

Your caricature of Christianity underestimates the intelligence and common sense of humanity… Your implicit rejection of love is the most significant aspect of your irrational onslaught on Christianity:
Christianity is the only religion which comes to terms with the reality of evil and teaches us how to overcome it - with the power of love… as Jesus did…
.

Faith is based solely upon authority and agreement. If you were born in a society of Muslims, you’d be a Muslim, because that’s what your friends and teachers are.

You are quite wrong. I chose to become a Catholic…

You never question your beliefs, and never will. That’s not bad or wrong, or right— it’s just how your brain is programmed to run you.

All this nonsense could with equal facility be attributed to your own beliefs. What makes you think you are endowed with privileged insight into the nature of reality? Could it not be the result of hubris? Or that your brain has been **programmed **to run you into a condescending state of scorn for everyone else’s ideas and make you convinced you are a modern Messiah whose mission is to enlighten the benighted human race?

Christianity does not entail tolerating sarcasm, abuse, injustice and self-righteousness reminiscent of the Pharisees. Jesus did not mince His words when denouncing “the brood of vipers” inflated with scorn for the poor widow who was in fact far closer to God. Your view of humanity reveals more about you than anything else…

 

[James_S_Saint]

My theories explain how God came into being, and why He chose to create the universe as well.

“Came to be”?? I’d like to hear that one.

 

[greylorn]

“Came to be”?? I’d like to hear that one.

You’ll have the opportunity. It is not a 25-word or less argument. With luck, the preliminary manuscript will be finished in three months, and since it will likely have to be self-published, the book will be out in six months hence, under the name I use here. It is not anti-Catholic. It is simply an application of the most fundamental laws of physics to fundamental religious beliefs.

I’m sorry that you’ve been banned. I’ve appreciated some of your posts. But you’ll still be able to look inside from out, and that may be a good thing for you.

 

[greylorn]

Why should **your **theories be superior to others?

A simplistic interpretation of Genesis! Human beings have chosen evil, isolated themselves from God and defiled the world…

Another simplistic interpretation! Can you provide a blueprint of a world superior to this “poorly engineered planet”? We are waiting…

How simplistic can you get! You equate Christianity with a crude, literal interpretation of Genesis…

Your caricature of Christianity underestimates the intelligence and common sense of humanity… Your implicit rejection of love is the most significant aspect of your irrational onslaught on Christianity:
Christianity is the only religion which comes to terms with the reality of evil and teaches us how to overcome it - with the power of love… as Jesus did…
.

You are quite wrong. I chose to become a Catholic…

All this nonsense could with equal facility be attributed to your own beliefs. What makes you think you are endowed with privileged insight into the nature of reality? Could it not be the result of hubris? Or that your brain has been **programmed **to run you into a condescending state of scorn for everyone else’s ideas and make you convinced you are a modern Messiah whose mission is to enlighten the benighted human race?

Christianity does not entail tolerating sarcasm, abuse, injustice and self-righteousness reminiscent of the Pharisees. Jesus did not mince His words when denouncing “the brood of vipers” inflated with scorn for the poor widow who was in fact far closer to God. Your view of humanity reveals more about you than anything else…

Tonyrey,
I got it that you are not exactly fond of my positions or ideas.

Kindly do me the simple, honest favor of not putting my ideas in a worse light than my own presentation. It was inappropriate of you to accentuate the personal pronoun when quoting me. I did not accentuate it. Your version is a misquote. In my opinion, it is snide and inappropriate of you to do that.

Your messiah references are equally tacky. Is that what you do when someone says something with which you disagree---- invent stuff and use it to ridicule them? I apologize for wasting your time by replying to your post. I was seeking an intelligent conversation. I’ll not make that mistake again.

I’m not a messiah— just a divergent thinker with a physics education who believes that we live in a created universe but rejects the idea that an entity capable of creating it would have made the dreadful mistake of mucking up that wondrous work by creating the human soul. My chosen Bible is the physical universe and all its wonders. I trust this Bible because it was not written by men.

If there is a God, or if there are Creators, only the universe itself is certain to have been written by Him, or Them, The created components we are capable of observing, such as this planet, need not be perfect to be brilliant, awesome engineering achievements.

Naturally, I’ve read various human bibles, the Old and New Testaments, the Qui tab i’ quan, the Quran, Book of Mormon, etc. They all come across as the writings of men who have had profound spiritual experiences, but who knew about as much about the universe as my cat. You are welcome to enjoy and believe your chosen Bible. It is one which you are well qualified to read and interpret.

Finally, my theories should be superior to others because I’ve done my best to bring a larger background to bear on my subject than others have done.

Whether they actually are an improvement on other ideas is not for me to judge— although obviously I’d not be taking the trouble to present them if I didn’t figure that they were worth the consideration of others. . Since you know nothing of my ideas, you are in a poor position to judge them yourself.

Few philosophers have more than a high school physics course under their belt, yet, they try to explain the universe. This strikes me as a bit absurd. I might say the same for theologians. Many individuals have devised theologies, with less or more degree of popular success. To my best knowledge, not one of them had any math, engineering, or physics knowledge. They were merely good persuaders of other men.

That I’m not. But I have made it my way too long life’s work to learn as much as I can about as many subjects as possible, and bring them to bear upon the question of the nature and purpose of God, and the nature and purpose of man. I am no messiah. Human beings do not need a messiah. They don’t need someone who’s going to promise an eternity of heaven in return for showing up in church now and then and regurgitating dogma. They don’t need a powerful socialistic government. Although they may want these comforts.

My stuff is only for the six or seven individuals who are looking for ideas about their nature and purpose that make more logical than emotional sense.

 

[tonyrey]

I got it that you are not exactly fond of my positions or ideas.

I was simply giving you a taste of your own medicine so that you know what it feels like to be ridiculed. If you look through my posts you will see that I have never been so sarcastic and scathing as I was on this occasion. I decided you gone too far and it is time you were made to realise that you should respect the the beliefs of others. It is in your own interest because you are likely to be banned if you produce more insulting caricatures of Christianity like this:

Jesus Christ, according to that theory, came to earth to fix that. He had to die to open heaven to mankind. Duh? Why, exactly? Might not a rational God have simply decided that making the tree which bore the fruit of all knowledge and putting it where a couple of nitwits could get at it was a dumb idea from the get-go, and that there was no point in making lots of people suffer for his pointless choice?

Your crude, literal interpretation of Genesis distorts the truth that Jesus chose to suffer and die for us to liberate us from the vortex of evil, hatred, violence and bloodshed which has engulfed the human race. If you had any sensitivity you would realise you are ridiculing what Christians hold to be most sacred and precious: the infinite love of God for His children revealed in the Passion and Death of His Son on the Cross…

The entire Messiah concept was derived from God’s choice to make defective human beings and blame their offspring for the errors of their ancestors. I reject that belief because I refuse to believe that God is an irrational pinhead. Makes no sense to me…
What if there is a God who does not behave like the Zeus of Greek lore or a TV soap opera buffoon, who does not make dumb mistakes which need to be corrected by ritualistic blood appeasements?

Many people would regard this attack as amounting to blasphemy. It doesn’t bother me because I’ve been dealing with atheists for more than half a century but it is hardly the way to express oneself on a Catholic Forum. The trouble is you let your pen run away with you and give vent to your thoughts and feelings without a care in the world! I understand that temptation because now I’m older I am less concerned about the opinion of others and frequently tell my son not to let his life be dominated what he thinks other people think! Yet at the same time we have to be considerate and not ride roughshod others’ feelings. In some countries you would have been lynched by now…

Nonsense. Faith is based solely upon authority and agreement. If you were born in a society of Muslims, you’d be a Muslim, because that’s what your friends and teachers are.
If you were born in an atheist conclave in Berkely, you’d be an atheist, because your parents, teachers, friends, and all the intelligent people you know are atheists. You’d not have the courage to dissent.

In China, you’d not be an ordinary follower, just one of a billion communists. You’d be a communist party official in charge of policing the internet against subtle, intellectual threats to communism. (That’s my guess, of course.)

You do not engage in critical thinking. You use your excellent mind to defend that which your brain has been programmed to believe. You never question your beliefs, and never will. That’s not bad or wrong, or right— it’s just how your brain is programmed to run you.

This tirade does precisely nothing to advance your argument. If it were in a philosophical essay it would be struck out with red ink - which is what it deserves. We don’t have to be as punctilious as that but it is a valuable exercise to restrain ourselves from commenting on others’ background and degree of knowledge and intelligence. You were hurt and offended at what I wrote, and rightly so. My remarks were directed at your style of writing and not at you personally. Sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind… If you are not banned (It would be a pity if you were because you liven up the proceedings) you may have some reason to be grateful for my suggestions.

 

[greylorn]

I was simply giving you a taste of your own medicine so that you know what it feels like to be ridiculed. If you look through my posts you will see that I have never been so sarcastic and scathing as I was on this occasion. I decided you gone too far and it is time you were made to realise that you should respect the the beliefs of others. It is in your own interest because you are likely to be banned if you produce more insulting caricatures of Christianity like this:

If I’ve brought out the warrior in you, so much the better for both of us.

I’ve tasted my medicine long before I learned to hand it out. I learned what it is like to be beaten regularly by bullies, from my childhood experiences with Catholic kids. Perhaps we annoy one another because we are so much alike---- one extreme personality in defense of his faith, shared worldwide by a billion followers, and another extreme personality in sole defense of a few ideas he made up.

You need not worry overmuch about my ideas, because they are so contrary to what people need to believe that they will never become popular. Christianity will reign for another 20 or 30 years, until it is supplanted by atheistic socialism or outright Chinese-style communism… Those turkeys are my enemies, not Christianity.

Man, would I love to have a warrior like you on my side! Never happen, I know, but don’t plump too vigorously for me being banned. You’d miss our tiffs. Your beliefs are strengthened for your willingness to defend them.

Your crude, literal interpretation of Genesis distorts the truth that Jesus chose to suffer and die for us to liberate us from the vortex of evil, hatred, violence and bloodshed which has engulfed the human race. If you had any sensitivity you would realise you are ridiculing what Christians hold to be most sacred and precious: the infinite love of God for His children revealed in the Passion and Death of His Son on the Cross…

You mistake my intentions and ignore my fundamental position, which is belief in God.

The most emotionally difficult times of my life were not being beaten up by Catholic kids, they were serving as altar boy on Good Friday services, where I was so stupid as to cry visibly during the stations, where I was supposed to be swinging a censer and repeating Latin phrases which I didn’t understand. I did, and still do, understand pain.

You’ll never find me disrespectful of Jesus Christ. I reserve the right to be skeptical of things which people like to invent about Him and His purpose. So, can we have a moment of rationality?

If Christ showed up to liberate us from the “vortex of evil…” you described, what happened? Don’t you read the news? Were you a store clerk during WWII and a protester of the Viet Nam war? Do you pretend that the Holocaust was a non-event, and that Stalin did not starve about 10 million of his own people? Have you ever heard of Adolph and Benito, a Catholic I believe? By your own standards, Christ was a failure. Evil is alive and well on planet earth; in fact, it is thriving.

If pointing out the obvious is, to you, ridicule, you need to buy a grown up dictionary.

Remember, please, that both of us are posting on the equivalent of an “adult site.” This is the philosophy section of CAF, not the dogma clarification section. Philosophy is about ideas, preferably new ideas. You know that, so stop whining.

Part of your problem is that you’ve invented or adopted some ideas which say what Christ was doing here. If He was doing what you thought he was doing, he failed. But if He was teaching what I believe he was teaching, he hasn’t exactly failed— his ideas just haven’t caught on yet.

You’d have a beef if I was posting on the sections of CAF designed for believers and their beliefs. But I’m not busting into a 5th grade Catechism class— I’m posting on a section of CAF clearly set up for the consideration of ideas.

If you or a stand-in is going to jump up and complain that the ideas being posted here conflict with Catholic dogma, what’s the point of having a “philosophy” section?

You seem to be happy with your right to make pejorative remarks about my ideas, but don’t happen to like being called on that. Great. Get me banned. That will empower you to threaten anyone with an idea with the “ban” word. I won’t miss my CAF access if the only people posting to it are dogmatists like you.

I got it that you want to park on your ideas and take them to your grave, and I admire your willingness to defend them— but only when you defend at the intellectual level.

Calling my use of Genesis into question by labeling it “crude” doesn’t do the job. Genesis is the most widely known and referenced book in the entire Bible. The notion of “original sin” was derived therefrom. Christ showed up to clear us of that “original sin.” You may find those statements terse and to the real point, but they are not crude. If those statements are in error, take it up with the Church that taught them to me. And don’t tell me I mistook my teachings; I’ve a stack of grade and high school report cards with straight A’s in religion as well as math. My F’s were in social delicacy.

 

[greylorn]

Many people would regard this attack as amounting to blasphemy. It doesn’t bother me because I’ve been dealing with atheists for more than half a century but it is hardly the way to express oneself on a Catholic Forum. The trouble is you let your pen run away with you and give vent to your thoughts and feelings without a care in the world! I understand that temptation because now I’m older I am less concerned about the opinion of others and frequently tell my son not to let his life be dominated what he thinks other people think! Yet at the same time we have to be considerate and not ride roughshod others’ feelings. In some countries you would have been lynched by now…

That’s good, Tony. Set yourself up as magnanimous and considerate, and then bring up the idea of a nice lynching. Thoughtful. IMO, tacky.

Years ago I put some ideas to work and investigated my past. Compared to having my eyes gouged out, very slowly, being disemboweled while alive, or beaten to death by incompetent thugs, the lynchings were a nice treat. Quick and dirty. This time around, I’m hoping for a …308 fragmenting round right between the eyes.

This tirade does precisely nothing to advance your argument. If it were in a philosophical essay it would be struck out with red ink - which is what it deserves. We don’t have to be as punctilious as that but it is a valuable exercise to restrain ourselves from commenting on others’ background and degree of knowledge and intelligence. You were hurt and offended at what I wrote, and rightly so. My remarks were directed at your style of writing and not at you personally. Sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind… If you are not banned (It would be a pity if you were because you liven up the proceedings) you may have some reason to be grateful for my suggestions.

Do you notice that you consistently tell me how bad my ideas are, but never actually address them? Is that because your position of belief is so superior that your job is accomplished by simply declaring my ideas to be different from yours, or because you cannot. refute them effectively and must resort to the time tested technique of intellectual thugs— shouting down your opponent, or even better, depriving him of a platform?

Many people would regard this attack as amounting to blasphemy. It doesn’t bother me because I’ve been dealing with atheists for more than half a century but it is hardly the way to express oneself on a Catholic Forum. The trouble is you let your pen run away with you and give vent to your thoughts and feelings without a care in the world! I understand that temptation because now I’m older I am less concerned about the opinion of others and frequently tell my son not to let his life be dominated what he thinks other people think! Yet at the same time we have to be considerate and not ride roughshod others’ feelings. In some countries you would have been lynched by now…

You accused me of attacking you and blaspheming the Church in the same sentence. You know better. You implied that I’m an atheist. You know better.

Pejorative words such as “attack” don’t win arguments already lost. I invite you to quit complaining about me, as a person, and use your mind to address the issues I present. They are well thought out and honest. Moreover, I don’t speak for any Church, organization, or movement. I’m a theist. I trust physics. I detest socialists of all stripes and colors. I love interesting ideas and I seek truth. I’m not fond of dogma, unless it can be supported with logic and at least a few tidbits of evidence.

I also seek the rare individuals who are looking for the same thing. You have the right to be miffed because I’ve put you into the category of one who is defending his beliefs, rather than looking for good new ideas that might reconcile religious beliefs with modern science. That isn’t an insult to you. I admire people willing to defend their beliefs— there are few of them. But do you really think that you can have it both ways?

 

[greylorn]

This tirade does precisely nothing to advance your argument. If it were in a philosophical essay it would be struck out with red ink - which is what it deserves. We don’t have to be as punctilious as that but it is a valuable exercise to restrain ourselves from commenting on others’ background and degree of knowledge and intelligence. You were hurt and offended at what I wrote, and rightly so. My remarks were directed at your style of writing and not at you personally. Sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind… If you are not banned (It would be a pity if you were because you liven up the proceedings) you may have some reason to be grateful for my suggestions.

Tirade? Really? Hurt? Only beautiful and interesting women get close enough to do that. Offended? For that to happen, I’d have to pretend to be someone I am not.

My remarks are not directed at your style of writing, nor at you. I don’t know you, nor do I care to. You could be an alien computer on a planet orbiting Arcturus. My remarks are directed only at what you write, which,suggests that you are from this planet. .

Have you any idea how long you’ve run on without addressing a single issue or idea? All you’ve done is to complain about my terrible ideas (without discussing them) and whine about me. How old are you? I’m not important. Only ideas are important.

I took only one philosophy course in my life, after my philosophy book had been accepted for publication. and aced the course with the only philosophy paper I’ve ever written, in which I explained to my professor exactly why his interpretation of the famous, “Pascal’s Wager,” argument was dead wrong.

Finally, may I persuade you to step back from all this personal nonsense and consider a larger picture? You and I and many others believe in God. We don’t typically define this word, God, although it has many different definitions. Jehovah is not the God of Catholicism who is not the God of Islam, the Bahai’s, or the Mormons. The God of Catholics is not the God of Lutherans or Calvinists or Methodists.

The main similarity between these various Gods is that they are thought of as the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe and man. Each has a different plan, and each has a different set of behaviors He expects of mankind.

To word mongers this may seem a fine point, but engineers and other crude thinkers like myself have figured out that a god who wants us to turn the other cheek is not the god who is going to provide us with 57 virgins, presumably mindless virgins without hopes or dreams of their own) to have our way with in return for blowing ourselves and an assortment of otherwise believers up. That’s the kind of crude things engineers do— they make real distinctions. They discriminate between ideas that work and ideas that do not.

So, what I do is work on a God concept that makes perfect, inarguable sense, consistent with the laws of physics He created and the human stuff we experience.

Put simply, all I’m trying to do is to define the meaning of the word, “God.”

I understand the “respect the ideas of others” drill. It is politically correct intellectual flatulence. I was taught throughout eight years of Catholic grade school, and in Sunday sermons, that the Catholic Church is the one true religion. That’s the attitude you currently take: I’m supposed to respect your beliefs, but you get to denigrate mine without even addressing them? What did I say that made you think I’d roll over on that nonsense?

If standing up for my hard won understanding in the face of dogmatists gets me banned, hey, it’s a better deal than the Church gave Giordano Bruno.

 

[tonyrey]

Have you any idea how long you’ve run on without addressing a single issue or idea? All you’ve done is to complain about my terrible ideas (without discussing them) and whine about me.

You are accusing me of doing precisely what you do yourself! My last post was the first and last time I shall refer to the matter. In future I shall ignore all your irrelevant remarks in my replies.

So, what I do is work on a God concept that makes perfect, inarguable sense, consistent with the laws of physics He created and the human stuff we experience.

What is your concept of God?

 

[tonyrey]

By your own standards, Christ was a failure. Evil is alive and well on planet earth; in fact, it is thriving.

He didn’t claim to eliminate evil. He told us not to fear the body but those who kill the soul. By your standards He is a failure but He is a success because His love will outlast all the evil in the world …

Genesis is the most widely known and referenced book in the entire Bible.

And the most misinterpreted!

The notion of “original sin” was derived therefrom. Christ showed up to clear us of that “original sin.”

It is a historical fact that human beings have brought moral evil into the world… and its results are with us to this day…

 

[greylorn]

He didn’t claim to eliminate evil. He told us not to fear the body but those who kill the soul. By your standards He is a failure but He is a success because His love will outlast all the evil in the world …

I got that this is your belief. I do not share it. Yet, I hope that you are right, and I am wrong, because, as even you might see if you pay attention to world news and developments in D.C., evil has the upper hand and is amassing more weapons,

There are those who think that the forces of evil have acquired their advantage thanks to the millions of shmoos who put their trust in God, but take no personal action except to visit church, mumble their prayers, and drop a few bucks in the collection bucket. My personal opinions on the matter are less generous.

.
And the most misinterpreted!

Yes. I’ve noticed that every church and sect has a different take on it. I’ve noticed that almost no one recognizes that there are two different versions of genesis by two different authors, both of whom wrote during the Babylonian Captivity, a few ticks after Biblical Creation.

That’s why I depend upon the only Bible God is certain to have written, clearly and unambiguously---- the physical universe. It’s the only Bible that humans cannot rewrite.

It is a historical fact that human beings have brought moral evil into the world… and its results are with us to this day…

Indeed! And who is alleged by the Church, and various other religions, to have created human beings?

Now you know why I do not attribute the creation of man to the Creator of the Universe.

 

[greylorn]

You are accusing me of doing precisely what you do yourself! My last post was the first and last time I shall refer to the matter. In future I shall ignore all your irrelevant remarks in my replies.

Works for me, bet you don’t, and me too!

What is your concept of God?

Tony,
I’d love to be able to answer that here, but will not for these reasons:

The forum is designed for conversation, not monologues. Even Thomas Aquinas could not have gotten his books and papers printed here.

My God-concept is really qute simple, but over the years I’ve learned that to explain it competently, it is first necessary to explain the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Outside the concept of physics, my God-concept makes zero sense.

I have a website which introduces my ideas, but it is not public. I’m writing a book which I expect to be published, even if I must do it myself, this year. If you wish to be apprised of title and publication date, PM me with an email address so I can contact you even if I’ve been banned by then. But read my other comments before doing that.

And of course, the CAF was not intended as a forum for the detailed explanation of alternative ideas about the nature of God. Although my ideas were derived from my once-cherished Catholic beliefs, I had to find a way to put a legitimate God concept into the context of physics. That is not something that the Church has chosen to do, and I intend to respect that. (While gently reminding the powers that be of Galileo’s hopes for the long term integration of science with religion.)

In my opinion, belief in God, or belief in a Creator, is essential to the survival and ongoing development of mankind as a whole, and to individual human beings. But we are a mixed bag of individuals. The kinds of ideas that I had to develop in order to sustain my belief in God are not necessary for believers like yourself. Why bother with them? Keep your belief in the God you accept and love. And get out in the world and put your beliefs to work. Don’t fuss with me, or anyone on a similar path, for we are not your enemies.

There are an increasingly large number of individuals, many of them trained in various scientific and technical disciplines, who are finding it more comfortable to join the growing mass of atheists than to defend a belief in a God whose existence science seems to render superfluous, and in whom the finest minds in the world generally do not believe.

My ideas are for those people, not for you.

The traditional God concept remains, for believers, something transcendent to physics. My God-concept is intimately integrated with physics. Is that, enough said?

 

[tonyrey]

My God-concept is really qute simple, but over the years I’ve learned that to explain it competently, it is first necessary to explain the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Outside the concept of physics, my God-concept makes zero sense.

Do you believe God is subject to the laws of physics?

In my opinion, belief in God, or belief in a Creator, is essential to the survival and ongoing development of mankind as a whole, and to individual human beings.

We agree on that - which is already a considerable achievement in this day and age.

The traditional God concept remains, for believers, something transcendent to physics. My God-concept is intimately integrated with physics.

For Christians God is immanent as well as transcendent. He works through the laws of physics but is their Creator, unlike the remote God of the deists.