Existence, the first occasion to sin

[4Horsemen]

greylorn,

*]The thing which went bang has not yet been competently defined. It has recently been dubbed, “a singularity.” This is the stupidest thing astronomers have done since placing the earth at the center of the universe, and stems from the same incompetent thinking.

What else isn’t completely defined in science? There are a lot of theories not completely defined including the cosmological theories whether the universe is part of a multiverse, whether we live in a “bouncing” universe of expansion and contraction, dark matter and dark energy, etc. . . The Big Bang was at first called the “primieval atom” by Fr. George Lemaitre, the Belgian priest who proposed the Big Bang theory. He noticed the expansion of space and that galaxies were receding from each other. This was documented in 1929 by astronomers. So, my point is, that theories often come first and then the proofs.

*]Because the existence of a physical singularity is impossible. Unless you happen to be a perfesser.

*]If a primeval physical singularity existed, it would contain all the mass-energy in the universe. That would make it the God of all black holes. It would be completely wrapped in spacetime. What could cause it to explode? There has never been an answer to that question.

Since this isn’t a discussion on singularities, I think we need to get back to the OP. Then, too, I can’t answer what would cause a singularity to explode. Maybe God breathed into it.

*]For further study, read the lead story of the April 2011 issue of Scientific American. Or simply read the front cover, which echoes what I’ve been saying for the last twenty years.

I googled the issue of SA, but tthe cover story is about telomeres and how to determine the age of cells in the body to see how healthy we are. (Very interesting, but not what you pointed out).

Since Big Bang theory was developed by science as its own answer to Creation by God, and is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to belief in an almighty God, why would any intelligent Christian want to believe in it? Is the Church that dreadfully confused?

See here, see here! Actually, the situation is just the opposite. The idea of the Big Bang, a beginning of the universe, was unpalatable to quite a few scientists because it seemed too much like a religious idea.

Again, I can only offer a similar response. None of these clowns has bothered to competently define the necessary and essential properties of God. So, what are they talking about?

If I am to assume that they accept the Thomist properties, then it behooves them to apply their logic explicitly to the existence or not of a Creator with those properties, as opposed to a Creator with different properties. These arguments are simply the drool of pseudo-intellectuals who IMO badly need to master a basic physics class.

All I can do is offer a partial definition, that is, concept of God.

God as Creator cannot be compared to what we consider creator on earth, as one who thinks, plans, acts, refines, changes, etc. . . God is not one individual person among others who reasons, chooses, creates, etc. . . He is pure being or existence itself, distinct from the world of time, space, and objects but maintaining them. He is not a composite of essence and existence, in that there are no parts or components in Him. So He doesn’t fall under any general categories. (But’s it’s useful for our knowledge to compartmentalize things, as long as we understand that God’s nature is pure simplicity).

Our minds can only have an idea of intellect, goodness, power, etc. as distinct attributes because that’s how we envision God’s attributes from our own experience of what they are. But in God they exist as ONE. God’s intellect is His goodness, which is His justice and so on.

None of His creation, including angels, is without components, or simple, as God is. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of Augustine’s thinking that “angel” is the name of their office – their existence or what they do as messengers. Their nature is spirit.

Besides, God is above any definition we can put forth of God-ness. He is not something to be grasped. Our intellect is way too limited. But, of course, it’s interesting to conjecture.

That’s nonsense. Show me an engineer who can make a machine which exists outside the engineer’s space of existence. You’ve been reading too many silly philosophy books.

I already read your opinion of Edward Feser. Why can’t an engineer make a machine “outside the engineeer’s space of existence.” Every product we make is outside of us of course. What do you mean by “space of existence?” How wide is it? How long"

Christians are not the first humans to devise a moral code. All cultures have one, and all are different. Some are more successful than others. The success of a moral code often depends upon the quality of codes with which it must compete, and upon circumstances. Mine is learned from a variety of different teachers, including Christ, Mickey Spillane, Keith Laumer, Bruce Lee, and Machiavelli.

Only Christ rose from the dead and said He was God and proved it by supernatural miracles.

Machiavelli?

God, as I define the concept, is an objective reality. God as defined by the Church cannot be brought into the realm of objective reality, since that definition is of a singularity. You know how keen I am about singularities.

God is outside objective reality and singularities.

P.S. It’s not arguments that will ultimately bring you to truth, but Truth itself – accepting it, then embracing it as God gives you the grace. But you must make the first step. God only works in the lives of men by invitation only.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Greylorn,

I joined a bit late … caught your post … and parts of it just cried out for a response… Maybe some other ideas may be of help - but, first you need stop patting yourself on the back for your self-identified insights and abilities … you may dislocate your shoulder! So, let’s see what we have here…

I was a devout Catholic for about 22 years, and am not ashamed of it. The Church taught me some things which I continue to accept, like most of Christ’s teachings, on their merits.

There remain some things which you seem incapable of understanding. They are not complex. My faith is in my own ideas. I invented (most of) them, assembled the package, did the research, made the correlations, and took their presentation upon myself. You simply defend the religious beliefs invented by others, individuals who thought that the earth was flat. You appear to have zero original insights.

Accusing me of defending my ideas with anything like a religious fervor is really incompetent of you. Show me where I have supported an opinion of mine by parroting religious dogma. Else, go away. You are the kind of annoying nit who is likely to confuse references to scientific research, or the clearly quoted opinions of respected scientists, as dogma, so don’t.

I am tired of your persistent personal attacks, so this will be my final post to you.

First of all, calling other posters degrading names and demeaning their presentations is against forum rules. It really isn’t allowed and considering the number of times you have posted, I would have thought you would have that part mastered. Maybe you want to hear from the Mod … ?

It would appear that Pride and Vainglory are real players in the post you sent - but, maybe you can honor us by posting an orginal thought that actually applies to this thread? Admittedly, that will take some different ways of expressing yourself … but, I am confident that a man of your abilities should manage quite well.

Now, one thing has me curious, the truths taught to you by the Catholic Church that you still maintan - how do you distinguish those from, “…parroting religious dogma…”? I realize that your personal seal of approval is necessary, but … is there something more?

God bless

 

[greylorn]

Truer words were never spoken by you, greylorn! ** Invent,** you do!

To wit:

You must have** invented** knowledge of Jesus Christ’s IQ–'cause I’m quite certain that it’s not documented* in a single piece of scientific research*.

Intelligence can be inferred from things written, or spoken, provided that they are not things parroted. There is no intelligence in respeaking the words of another, or reading from a teleprompter.

One property of intelligence is consistency of concepts. The 4 Gospels are riddled with inconsistencies of teaching, and even of example, suggesting that Christ was often more driven by emotion than by his core teachings. These are the characteristics of very normal human beings. They are also the characteristics of liars, such as politicians who read the words of others from teleprompters, but I prefer to regard Christ as an honest man who taught the best truth he knew.

(I refer to Christ as a man, because I know that if he existed at all, he was a man, at least. Belief in Christ as God is a religious dogma which I no longer find sufficient reason to accept.)

Various CAF posters have correctly noted errors in my statements, and occasional inconsistencies, which track the thoughts of an ordinary human being. I’ve acknowledged these and provided corrections and explanations. If I was a great genius, the errors and inconsistencies would not have occurred.

Einstein’s ideas were marked by consistency. His great theories, entirely in contradiction to common sense, remain verified. You may have heard the joke, “I only made one mistake in my life, back when I thought I was wrong about something.” That’s actually true of Einstein. He was persuaded that his concept of the gravitational constant was wrong, and repudiated it. As it turned out, his idea was generally correct.

My estimate that someone who can present a number of complex, non-intuitive ideas consistently is smarter than someone who can present simple, generally intuitive ideas inconsistently, is entirely personal. I don’t recall suggesting that it was in any way scientific— could you possibly have invented that accusation? That’s something I’d only expect of a smarmy, agenda-driven scumbag, not of you.

 

[greylorn]

Hi, Greylorn,

I joined a bit late … caught your post … and parts of it just cried out for a response… Maybe some other ideas may be of help - but, first you need stop patting yourself on the back for your self-identified insights and abilities … you may dislocate your shoulder! So, let’s see what we have here…

First of all, calling other posters degrading names and demeaning their presentations is against forum rules. It really isn’t allowed and considering the number of times you have posted, I would have thought you would have that part mastered. Maybe you want to hear from the Mod … ?

It would appear that Pride and Vainglory are real players in the post you sent - but, maybe you can honor us by posting an orginal thought that actually applies to this thread? Admittedly, that will take some different ways of expressing yourself … but, I am confident that a man of your abilities should manage quite well.

Now, one thing has me curious, the truths taught to you by the Catholic Church that you still maintan - how do you distinguish those from, “…parroting religious dogma…”? I realize that your personal seal of approval is necessary, but … is there something more?

God bless

It’s always fun to hear from someone who jumps into a conversation and instantly knows its content. Thank you for the self-righteous twaddle, finished off with your most sincere and smarmy, “God bless.” The twaddle must be important or you’d not have set it in a gaudy, century gothic colored font.

Threats from on high are sure welcome, especially coming from someone disengaged in the conversation, suddenly jumping in with his complaints. What, are you looking to be insulted? Do you feel left out, or something? You don’t need me. Get out there and buy a sack full of ashes, cut it into a shirt, and wear it proudly. Feel free to blame me for your sorry woes, if that’s what you need. But please be done with me. Pester someone who cares about your opinions.

After a few conversational go-arounds, individuals take certain licenses with one another, and exchange low-level insults as part of what makes the conversation interesting. I have a friend, a 240# black guy with a black belt, whom I’ve called by the infamous n-word. He’s called me things like fat whitey and ugly gringo, when he was being nice, instead of killing me with a single blow. That’s life. Get one.

PR and I have developed our own style of a mutually disagreeable adversarial relationship. 4H and I, and many others, likewise. You’re not clever enough to defend them, and they certainly do not need your help. Don’t you have a cat litter box to empty, or something?

 

[greylorn]

What else isn’t completely defined in science? There are a lot of theories not completely defined including the cosmological theories whether the universe is part of a multiverse, whether we live in a “bouncing” universe of expansion and contraction, dark matter and dark energy, etc. . . The Big Bang was at first called the “primieval atom” by Fr. George Lemaitre, the Belgian priest who proposed the Big Bang theory. He noticed the expansion of space and that galaxies were receding from each other. This was documented in 1929 by astronomers. So, my point is, that theories often come first and then the proofs.

(Reply 1 of 2
More often, theories are followed by their disproofs.

I recommend that you stop watching Dr. Caca on TV and forget about multiverse theory, which is something that the cosmology nits are proposing as a way to deflect attention from their incompetence.

LeMaitre did not observe the recession of galaxies or the expansion of space. That was Hubble.

My bet is that LeMaitre’s ideas came out of conversations with astronomer Fred Zwicky, a disagreeable fellow who was the first to hypothesize the existence of dark matter. They were European contemporaries who likely met at conferences in Switzerland, which were popular in the 20’s-30’s.

Since this isn’t a discussion on singularities, I think we need to get back to the OP. Then, too, I can’t answer what would cause a singularity to explode. Maybe God breathed into it.

The OP is about existence, and that is exactly what we are discussing.

If God had to breathe into a singularity to get it to explode, the “singularity” would no longer even have the pretense of being a scientific notion.

I googled the issue of SA, but tthe cover story is about telomeres and how to determine the age of cells in the body to see how healthy we are. (Very interesting, but not what you pointed out).

Here’s a hyperlink to the cover story. get-magazine.com/scientific-american-april-2011

See here, see here! Actually, the situation is just the opposite. The idea of the Big Bang, a beginning of the universe, was unpalatable to quite a few scientists because it seemed too much like a religious idea.

Perhaps I helped with that. I recall a conversation at a NASA party with their lead astronomer (who had missed his calling as a truck driver) and some of his cronies, back in 1968, who were touting early BB theory. I pointed out who had invented it (Fr. George, of course) and that really psiesd them off.

All I can do is offer a partial definition, that is, concept of God.

God as Creator cannot be compared to what we consider creator on earth, as one who thinks, plans, acts, refines, changes, etc. . . God is not one individual person among others who reasons, chooses, creates, etc. . . He is pure being or existence itself, distinct from the world of time, space, and objects but maintaining them. He is not a composite of essence and existence, in that there are no parts or components in Him. So He doesn’t fall under any general categories. (But’s it’s useful for our knowledge to compartmentalize things, as long as we understand that God’s nature is pure simplicity).

Our minds can only have an idea of intellect, goodness, power, etc. as distinct attributes because that’s how we envision God’s attributes from our own experience of what they are. But in God they exist as ONE. God’s intellect is His goodness, which is His justice and so on.

None of His creation, including angels, is without components, or simple, as God is. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of Augustine’s thinking that “angel” is the name of their office – their existence or what they do as messengers. Their nature is spirit.

Besides, God is above any definition we can put forth of God-ness. He is not something to be grasped. Our intellect is way too limited. But, of course, it’s interesting to conjecture.

A problem I often have with Christians is their tendency to make things up and throw in Biblical quotes as needed, to make their case. Your argument is exemplary in that respect.

Throughout the Bible and throughout my Catholic education, God was treated as an individual.

Moreover, the bible says, and Christians often reiterate, that man is made in God’s image. That seems to put God into the category of an individual entity. I suppose that you’re getting your stuff from some philosophers who’ve invented a lot of transcendent gobble-de-gook to mask any semblance of real meaning. That pretty much allows you to say whatever you want, I can’t argue with your “definition” of God any better than I can wrestle with fog.

The high mucky-mucks have declared that God is beyond human understanding as a way of job security. Notice that they seem perfectly capable of telling you anything they want you to know about God. All priesthoods have their mysteries. Watch the meaningless equations scribbled on blackboards to give the Dr. Caca show its measure of credibility.

You say that the nature of angels is spirit. Cool. You could say that their nature is, absolute bleft, or evanescent flargle. Meaningless, in all cases.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

was

a great genius, the errors and inconsistencies would not have occurred.

Conditional and subjunctive. Should be “If I were a great genius, the errors and inconsistencies would not have occurred.” Kudos to admitting the obvious.

 

[greylorn]

I already read your opinion of Edward Feser. Why can’t an engineer make a machine “outside the engineeer’s space of existence.” Every product we make is outside of us of course. What do you mean by “space of existence?” How wide is it? How long"

An engineer cannot make a machine outside his own space of existence because there either is no such space, or, he cannot reach it. “Reaching it” would entail understanding its operational parameters, so as to build a machine that would work within them.

Our creations, when manifested in the physical world, are outside of us and within the space in which we exist. That space is defined by the planet. If you want to know its dimensions, look them up, but I think that the actual numbers are irrelevant to the conversation. .

A specific product is usually designed to occupy a specific space. My toaster is designed to occupy a space defined by an approximately 12" x 8" x 7" rectangle atop a counter, but more importantly, it is also designed to occupy a space within which alternating current electrical power presented at a frequency of 60hz and an RMS energy level of 115+/-5 volts is available.

NASA engineers obviously design things to operate in a differently confined space.

Only Christ rose from the dead and said He was God and proved it by supernatural miracles.

I’ve heard of others who have made similar claims. Sorry, no references. I know of no proof of Christ’s successful same-body resurrection. The words of his followers don’t count. (All of Obama’s followers will tell you, from their comfy chairs in taxpayer-funded government offices, that his economic policies are working!)

If there were some post-resurrection quotes from, let’s say, the Roman soldiers who crucified him and the guy who cut him open, that would be worth something. A plea for forgiveness from Pontius Pilate or some Pharisee priests would be convincing— something, a private note from Pilate to Rome— Whatever you hear about strange goings-on in Jerusalem, is just nonsense, so forget it…, anything in the records which the Romans were known for keeping would be convincing.

Followers are followers. There are millions of Mormons who’ll swear that an angel gave Joe Smith some golden tablets, then took them back after Joe translated them. That’s no more, no less believable than any other teaching. And there are other teachings. Some arcane lore speaks of a friend of Joe’s who had developed a strange kind of religion, and who went into the woods and was never heard from again, not long before the angel Moroni appeared with the tablets. No worse, no better than accepted teaching, but interesting. Every religion has its beliefs. Its followers believe the beliefs they were raised to believe.

Machiavelli?

Yes. Very intelligent fellow, and yet to be proved wrong. Look him up. Even better, read, The Prince. No, he was not Mr. Nice Guy.

God is outside objective reality and singularities.

And you know that how, exactly? To the best of my knowledge, those items weren’t mentioned in scripture.

P.S. It’s not arguments that will ultimately bring you to truth, but Truth itself – accepting it, then embracing it as God gives you the grace. But you must make the first step. God only works in the lives of men by invitation only.

Fifty years ago, when I was in a crisis of belief, asking God for clarification, understanding, truth, whatever, I found my mind suddenly filled with a complete explanation of the nature of God, the origin of the universe, and the origin of the human soul, all different from my Catholic beliefs. I’ve no idea where these ideas originated. In the instant before their appearance, I’d not heard or considered them, except for one, in different form. Had someone told me these things, I’d have blown them off.

I’m a long way from suggesting that God gave me these ideas. If He did, if I find out about it, and if I ever get to meet Him (on a cold day in His annual visit to hell, perhaps) I promise to curse Him in person and upfront for ruining my life. I was as good a Catholic as any, and IMO I deserved different.

Nonetheless, I took what I got and developed the ideas further, to the best of my abilities. They have been applied in a variety of ways to the lives of many different people. The effects have always been positive, to the best of my knowledge, at least while the principles were put into operation. Moreover, no one has been killed or tortured, tied to a stake and burnt, socially ostracized, or deprived of their worldly goods, for refusing to accept any of the ideas I’ve proposed. Compared to some highly regarded belief systems, which my ideas are neither, that’s a decent track record.

 

[greylorn]

Conditional and subjunctive. Should be “If I were a great genius, the errors and inconsistencies would not have occurred.” Kudos to admitting the obvious.

How should I have worded it to leave open the possibility that I might have been a great genius in a previous life? I suppose, “had been a great genius and was prepared to be again, until mother dropped me on my head,” would have worked, but it seemed semantically unwieldy.

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe so, but that leaves God as the only one knowing of it.

That certainly would be the case if a certain Person hadn’t suffered and died for us…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 4Horsemen,

Great post!

I am a Big Bang fan … but, assuming that all matter just happened to be attracted to each other … and all matter just happened to come together… and all of this caused this tremendous explosion - just makes sense! As long as we see that it was not only God Who made the matter to begin with … but, chose this method of creation!

For anyone to think and believe that order and patterns develop out of an explosion - well … they obviously have MORE FAITH than I do!

God bless

What else isn’t completely defined in science? There are a lot of theories not completely defined including the cosmological theories whether the universe is part of a multiverse, whether we live in a “bouncing” universe of expansion and contraction, dark matter and dark energy, etc. . . The Big Bang was at first called the “primieval atom” by Fr. George Lemaitre, the Belgian priest who proposed the Big Bang theory. He noticed the expansion of space and that galaxies were receding from each other. This was documented in 1929 by astronomers. So, my point is, that theories often come first and then the proofs.

Since this isn’t a discussion on singularities, I think we need to get back to the OP. Then, too, I can’t answer what would cause a singularity to explode. Maybe God breathed into it.

I googled the issue of SA, but tthe cover story is about telomeres and how to determine the age of cells in the body to see how healthy we are. (Very interesting, but not what you pointed out).

See here, see here! Actually, the situation is just the opposite. The idea of the Big Bang, a beginning of the universe, was unpalatable to quite a few scientists because it seemed too much like a religious idea.

All I can do is offer a partial definition, that is, concept of God.

God as Creator cannot be compared to what we consider creator on earth, as one who thinks, plans, acts, refines, changes, etc. . . God is not one individual person among others who reasons, chooses, creates, etc. . . He is pure being or existence itself, distinct from the world of time, space, and objects but maintaining them. He is not a composite of essence and existence, in that there are no parts or components in Him. So He doesn’t fall under any general categories. (But’s it’s useful for our knowledge to compartmentalize things, as long as we understand that God’s nature is pure simplicity).

Our minds can only have an idea of intellect, goodness, power, etc. as distinct attributes because that’s how we envision God’s attributes from our own experience of what they are. But in God they exist as ONE. God’s intellect is His goodness, which is His justice and so on.

None of His creation, including angels, is without components, or simple, as God is. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of Augustine’s thinking that “angel” is the name of their office – their existence or what they do as messengers. Their nature is spirit.

Besides, God is above any definition we can put forth of God-ness. He is not something to be grasped. Our intellect is way too limited. But, of course, it’s interesting to conjecture.

I already read your opinion of Edward Feser. Why can’t an engineer make a machine “outside the engineeer’s space of existence.” Every product we make is outside of us of course. What do you mean by “space of existence?” How wide is it? How long"

Only Christ rose from the dead and said He was God and proved it by supernatural miracles.

Machiavelli?

God is outside objective reality and singularities.

P.S. It’s not arguments that will ultimately bring you to truth, but Truth itself – accepting it, then embracing it as God gives you the grace. But you must make the first step. God only works in the lives of men by invitation only.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Greylorn,

Nothing different from what I expected - buddy, you are s-o-o-o-o predicable! I guess that is what is so tragic about your efforts at posting.

So, heads up, stick with the thread - if youl have an original thought, then post it and stop mouthing off about how others are inferior to you.

That’s the challenge. Now, I honestly do not expect you to simply respond to it - but, that is another expectation of mine. Prove me wrong: and that means an original thought consistent with the OP.

Your on, ‘buddy’

God bless (in Century/3/Dk Blue)

It’s always fun to hear from someone who jumps into a conversation and instantly knows its content. Thank you for the self-righteous twaddle, finished off with your most sincere and smarmy, “God bless.” The twaddle must be important or you’d not have set it in a gaudy, century gothic colored font.

Threats from on high are sure welcome, especially coming from someone disengaged in the conversation, suddenly jumping in with his complaints. What, are you looking to be insulted? Do you feel left out, or something? You don’t need me. Get out there and buy a sack full of ashes, cut it into a shirt, and wear it proudly. Feel free to blame me for your sorry woes, if that’s what you need. But please be done with me. Pester someone who cares about your opinions.

After a few conversational go-arounds, individuals take certain licenses with one another, and exchange low-level insults as part of what makes the conversation interesting. I have a friend, a 240# black guy with a black belt, whom I’ve called by the infamous n-word. He’s called me things like fat whitey and ugly gringo, when he was being nice, instead of killing me with a single blow. That’s life. Get one.

PR and I have developed our own style of a mutually disagreeable adversarial relationship. 4H and I, and many others, likewise. You’re not clever enough to defend them, and they certainly do not need your help. Don’t you have a cat litter box to empty, or something?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Usually, I find your comments are ‘right on!’ … but… this one seems a bit shakey to me (I took the liberty of embolding and enlarging the font):

Well, I am enjoying our dialogue immensely, so I will continue.

Last stat was that this thread had 558 views, 56 posts, so there’s lots more lurkers than posters. Lots of folks are reading this beside us!

Now, 'tis true that it’s better when you respond, but there’s lots to be said for other eyes to see besides yours.

And it’s fun for me to refute your arguments and cut them to the bone.

The rest of your post was very interesting.

I had not done the look back to see how many ‘lurkers’ were out there - thanks for that update. Yes, I think you have thoroughly refuted the arguments presented … and considering such an utter lack of mounting a counter attack - claiming all dialogue has been suspended - I’d say, the matter has been resolved.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AndyF,

Several thoughts have been generated … do you have any follow up comments?

In going over the past posts and your dismissive remark about our contemplation of suicide - I was wondering if you are still with us.

God bless

If life for fallible beings presents countless occasions to sin, then merely existing is an occasion to sin and should be avoided. Avoidance of existence is the remedy to prevent sin.

Thoughts?

Andy

 

[fons_vitae]

greylorn:

Threats from on high are sure welcome, especially coming from someone disengaged in the conversation, suddenly jumping in with his complaints. What, are you looking to be insulted?

Guilty as charged. :tiphat: Prayed to Our Lord and Lady that you’d be happy in this life and the next.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, FonsVitae,

Thank you for stepping in … but, I think his venom was intended for me…

But, let me join you in your prayer. Someone so obviously as self-absorbed as this one needs all the help he can get - even unwittingly.

God bless

Guilty as charged. :tiphat: Prayed to Our Lord and Lady that you’d be happy in this life and the next.

 

[4Horsemen]

Hi, 4Horsemen,

Great post!

Thank you.

I am a Big Bang fan … but, assuming that all matter just happened to be attracted to each other … and all matter just happened to come together… and all of this caused this tremendous explosion - just makes sense! As long as we see that it was not only God Who made the matter to begin with … but, chose this method of creation!

Peace be with you!

 

[AndyF]

Hi, AndyF,

Several thoughts have been generated … do you have any follow up comments?

In going over the past posts and your dismissive remark about our contemplation of suicide - I was wondering if you are still with us.

God bless

Oh yes, still here.

Suicide: I’m still trying to determine in what vein it was said. Either it was fraternally sincere or spiteful, and since I didn’t receive an answer I assume the latter.

Who’s us? Define the attributes of the “us” collective.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Existence is more so an occasion of glory and love.

-Prophesy

If you never existed you can never be faulted nor do you need to assume risk.

 

[PRmerger]

If you never existed you can never be faulted nor do you need to assume risk.

But we exist because God loves.

Saint Augustine asks: “Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love?” And he answers: “But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AndyF,

It was a typo - sorry about that!

Instead of ‘…your…’ I dropped the ‘y’ and made it ‘our’.

Actually, as i read the material it seemed like a genuine expression of concern for your safety in that your OP appeared despairing if not nihilistic. As i recall, the post was about YOUR possibly thinking of suicide.

Since you are still with us - great. Now, maybe you can share some of your thoughts specific to all the comments that have gheen generated on this OP.

God bless

Oh yes, still here.

Suicide: I’m still trying to determine in what vein it was said. Either it was fraternally sincere or spiteful, and since I didn’t receive an answer I assume the latter.

Who’s us? Define the attributes of the “us” collective.

Andy