How much freedom?

[aragonjohn1]

I’ve no beef with atheists or even with atheists in and of themselves being active members of any Catholic, Protestant or other religious online discussion board.

Though, I get the impression there are a lot of atheists that do a fair amount of de facto missionary work and proselytizing.

I say that because I don’t go on Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, pagan, or atheists online discussion boards to try and persuade non-Catholics that all roads lead to Rome. That doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with any people from those backgrounds.

But this is what I think is more important: Most (not all - because some atheists “keep to themselves” and don’t care what others believe) atheists arguments I see regarding the religious belief in a God being wrong seems to assume a religious or Christian person believes in God because they intellectually reasoned God exists.

Here’s the problem. Some of us believe in God because we’ve had experiences of and from God.

It’s hard to explain. I think of it as being somewhat analogous to losing your virginity. To me the atheist just hasn’t lost their virginity.

So, fortunately for me, I was sitting down when this occurred, but I was almost knocked unconscious when a Catholic priest, who is said to have several gifts of the Holy Spirit, gently touched my hand. Energy from the Holy Spirit moved up my arm in what felt like a circular and swooshing motion. It was overpowering but no violently. It was like a gentle overpowering is probably the best way I can describe it.

And this occurred when I doubted something like that could happen to me and I believed God just didn’t care enough about me - or did not love me - to make Himself known to me in such away. I say that because prior to that I had two different priests, on two separate occasions, visiting my city, that were said to have gifts from the Holy Spirit. Standing in line to have hands laid on me, in both separate events (separated by years too), I was very disappointed and disheartened when nothing happened to me. I wanted to feel something. And it didn’t help that women were falling down in the line when the priest laid hands on them. One of the priest even looked at me in very hostile and disproving way after he touched my head, though he understood something very sinful and evil about me or in me. He was right I’m sure.

At any rate… it surprised me - and was unprepared for it - when many years later in Florida, in a Catholic Community for addicts and the fallen, that in a private meeting with a friend of the Community (from outside of Florida), I was touched and overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Priest also told me I was oppressed by several demons. When I asked if he meant metaphorically or literally he said literally.

More interesting is some of the addicts that had demons cast out of them from this priest reported to one another physical sensations I’ve had myself for some years. (e.g., needle or finger wide/size feelings on the stomach like something is being pressed or penetrating you - entering or existing you)

One addict - and without him really recounting his story but just telling me that “If I told you…” - had tears swelling up in his eyes, when alone with me, remembering when the priest cast his oppressing demons out of him. I was told by another addict that was vocationally educated as a nurse and a trusted friend of this other addict, that said addict was physically attacked, grabbed around the throat and choked, by one of the demons as the demons were being cast out of him.

So, for some of us we know God from experience.

I’ve had few other experiences too. Which might sound like “a lot” and therefore self fulfilling or a result of emotional delusions, bear in mind they were only a few, and given the number of days I’ve lived on earth they might account for 1/100,000,000,000 of my life. So, a very tiny portion.

Thank you you’re story is beautiful
You moved me

Shalom
God bless you on journey

 

[aragonjohn1]

.

Sorry, my friend, I only speak English… I would like to find a Catholic-to-English dictionary, but so far I was not successful. Where is such a dictionary for sale?

here you go

• catholicreference.net/
• newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=freedom&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9

hope this helps
Shalom
God Bless you on journey

 

[JaKael02]

Dear JaKael.

Don’t worry about my happiness. No one has offended me. Yes, I am and ex-christian, but I lost my faith many decades ago.

Why did you lose your faith?

Faith and reason can never be reconciled. If reason is sufficient, faith is not needed. If faith is needed, it cannot be reasonable.

Reason alone can not direct you to the Christian God & Trinity, this is because he revealed himself to us through Divine Revelation. So reason needs faith. This is because reason alone can convey a Supreme Being but not Divine Revelation.

Faith alone leaves you with superstition. So we need reason to direct and guide our faith. Your Opinion?

The catechism states: “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” - which is very interesting. The first time I saw this, I became very excited. At last, finally, these is purely rational way to know that God exists and - observe! - no reference to “faith”, just reason. And then I tried to find the “meat”… just HOW can we know it? And there was nothing else. An empty statement… Then I looked further, and saw a horrible logical error. It says “from the created world!”. I don;t know who was the person who wrote this, and who was the person who proofread it, and who was the person who finally gave the stamp of approval… but I can tell you, all of them are intellectual “midgets”. To allow such a logical error to escape is beyond the pale. I hope you see the error… unpardonable.

It makes sense to me. So maybe we are tackling it from different perspective. Human history in all cultures & nations have attempted to connect with God. This is fundamental to our homosapian nature.

Your Thoughts?

Do you hate Christians?
Kindly - James

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

With a 100% non-christian society, can you have a peaceful - functioning - moral society? It seems that if a society can not police itself, then it needs more laws/rules/regulations to control the population.

Opinion? -James

James,
I of course agree with your point. My point is that we could start to curtail the number of laws we have today and could start to curtail the beaurocrats that are employed and do nothing and get paid plus get a pension when most in the private sector do not, today.

Do you think we are on the right course? If we continue on this course will we not have another 1,000 then 10,000, then 100,000 more laws and on and on and on… and all of this costs money we DO NOT HAVE.

I personally would like to see the states be able to secede from the nation where I could move to a Christian state that is also libertarian and has laws against violence and property crimes and the police police those things. Then they leave you alone (other than to be polite to you socially, like firemen are). There are libertarians for life so don’t assume that all libertarians are pro choice, they are NOT.

This way I wouldn’t struggle to pay rent and pay my car insurance and car note so I can continue to work. And since I am a sane person, as I beleive most people are, I don’t think that people would run around willy nilly killing each other and stealing from each other…particularly if they were all Christian.

If others want to live under a government that micro manages every aspect of your life, and pay for the priveledge of doing so, I don’t want to stand in your way…go for it…I wish you the best. I want no part of that though.

So obviously a scaling down of government over time would be necessary even if every member of society were made in such a way that they would never commit violence or theft again…simply because poeple have become so accustomed to having gov’t be their mommy and daddy.

I want to be my own mommy and daddy when it comes to making daily decisions in my life.

Do you like having a nanny state, a daddy state?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[fred_conty]

In our society we curtail everyone’s freedom to some extent. If someone commits acts which are not “desirable”, we put the perpetrator in jail and thus we curtail his freedom to commit more undesirable acts. Generally we do not have the ability to “foresee” the future, but when there is reliable information about the intent to commit a crime (like a conspiracy to commit some mayhem), we do step in and prevent it. No one objects to this kind of arrangement, no one advocates seriously that criminals should be released, because keeping them in jail violates their “precious free will”.

Now, there is no good reason to curtail the freedom of those people who do not want to commit undesirable acts at the expense of others. Their freedom can be safely left alone. On the other hand, there is no good reason to allow murders, rapes, genocides and such. THAT freedom could be (should be, MUST be) taken away, and everyone will be better off.

Some people object to that, and assert that such a state of affairs would need micromanagement, which would somehow “interfere” with our freedom. Of course there is no need to interfere in every case. Since God is supposed to know what we are going to do he can simply “arrange” that the fertilized egg that would “spawn” an evil human being would join to those untold zillions which get flushed out from the women’s body, and no one would be wiser.

Now if someone is concerned that in such a state of affairs there would not be “enough” hellbound, the solution is simple (as usual). Only those people need to be filtered out who would act violently against someone else. Those, whose sin in nevertheless “mortal”, but not violent (like fornicators, practicing homosexuals, idolaters, masturbators and other assorted vile abominations ) could be allowed to go through, commit their hateful and disgusting acts, and at the end they could be turned over to the proper devils and demons as “hell-fodders”, to make sure that their screams of everlasting agony, and the smell of their burning body will supply an excellent counterpoint to the songs of praises coming from those few dozens, who pass the grade (according to Jesus only a few will find the narrow path!)…

But, jokes aside, what I mean is very serious. The amount of freedom to perform violent acts against others is not necessary. Most people don’t even contemplate to act violently against others, so it is safe to give them the freedom to do so. Only the freedom of potential and actual criminals must be curtailed. We do it as much as we can, which is not a whole lot, but a step in the right direction. (Maybe in the far future we can create a system, which will monitor the thought processes of the possible criminals and simply prevent them from actually carrying out their plans.) God could do it really efficiently, but it seems that he does not care, which is too bad (for the victims).

God created man and woman, humans, whose home is this world. Being in this world we are automatically confronted to make choices everyday. Should we buy wheaties or cheerioes?
What kind of car should I drive. Should I accept this job or not. What am I going to plant in my garden this year.

Some choices however are moral choices which cannot be dodged. This person is upset with me, should I yell back at him? My taxes are due, do I cheat on my deductions? I borrowed a book, do I give it back? Someone at work made moves on me, do I cheat on my spouse? Should I have one more drink?

As human beings we are confronted with issues which demand decisions, for good or bad, that is just the way it is being what we are. That is just part of who we are which we cannot escape.

To take away this ability or lessen it would be against our nature of what we are, it would make us a little less than human. It cannot be done to even one person since they would no longer be a full human being. Every man and woman has the right of choice.

If we say that God should manipulate people only for good, than that is not a person truly exorcising their choice but God exorcising it for them. He in a way is preventing them from fully acting according to their nature even tho it may be for prevention of evil.

Grace is a mystery as to just how it works. We do know that grace must be accepted freely for that is the nature of grace as well. It is not something that is forced upon anyone. Grace is a movement from God to help the individual to move in the right direction toward good. It is then up to the individual to cooperate or not. How this works is a mystery but we do know it does not interfere with the freedom of choice because that is the nature of being human.

As far a filtering out individuals who will be a mennace to society before they are born, if our first parents had not sinned we may not have had this problem in our society to begin with.
But the first sin caused all of humanity to be in darkness to one degree or another. After the sin, man still has his full rights, which include bad choices because he was created with this human nature. All regret that it turned out the way it did but there it is. The darkness cannot be removed except with the light of Jesus. That is how individuals who make bad decisions are filtered out, with the goodness of Jesus to change them.

Just a thought.

 

[Trurl]

aragonjohn1:

Dude faith and reason are NOT opposed

“Dude”, you are playing fast and loose with the word “faith”. I am talking about the “epistemological faith”, which is exactly the opposite of reason, as indicated in Hebrews 11:1. If you wish to conduct a conversation, do not change the topic. And don’t talk to me about those “great aplogists”. I read many of their works, and I was not impressed by their intellectual honesty (I would prefer to use a much stronger phrase, but the “charity” rule disallows to speak one’s mind).

And all that has NOTHING to do with the topic of thread. Kindly return to it, if you wish to continue.

JaKael02:

Why did you lose your faith?

I grew up, and realized that the assumption of a God is a useless hypothesis, it does not answer any valid questions.

JaKael02:

Reason alone can not direct you to the Christian God & Trinity, this is because he revealed himself to us through Divine Revelation. So reason needs faith. This is because reason alone can convey a Supreme Being but not Divine Revelation.

Reason does not lead to any “supreme being”. Reason starts with the observable physical universe, with the observed physical laws. There is no need to step “outside”. The usual questions like “where did all that come from?” are exactly as nonsensical as asking “but what exists to the north from the North Pole”? Such questions require no consideration.

JaKael02:

Faith alone leaves you with superstition. So we need reason to direct and guide our faith. Your Opinion?

Let’s make sure we use the word “faith” in the same manner. I am talking about the “epistemological faith”, a purported “tool” to obtain knowledge, which is allegedly not obtainable by reason. As such they are incompatible.

JaKael02:

It makes sense to me.

What makes sense? I left you with a minor “riddle”. In the quoted text there is a huge logical error. Did you find it?

JaKael02:

So maybe we are tackling it from different perspective. Human history in all cultures & nations have attempted to connect with God. This is fundamental to our homosapian nature.

Humans are curious beings. We try to make sense of the world, and the “cheapest” and useless solution was: “some god made it”. Of course it is not an answer to anything, it was the god of the gaps. As our knowledge grows, the “realm” for the gods is shrinking.

JaKael02:

Do you hate Christians?

What a strange question! Of course I do not hate them. Why should I? I certainly hate hypocrites and despise loudmouthed and dumb people, but such people are not tied to any race, sex or creed. But let me paraphrase an oft-repeated slogan, which says: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner”. A very flippant answer could be: “Love the Christians, but hate Christianity”. Of course it is not true, just like the original was not true either.

Best wishes.
fred conty:

To take away this ability or lessen it would be against our nature of what we are, it would make us a little less than human. It cannot be done to even one person since they would no longer be a full human being. Every man and woman has the right of choice.

So what? Do you have the freedom to flap your arms and fly? If you had that choice, would it make you a non-human? There are zillions of freedoms we miss. We cannot breathe underwater, which we could if we had both lungs and gills… Yes, we are certain biological beings, with certain abilities. There is no reason why we should be as we are. Good upbringing tries to “weed out” the behavioral problems, it attempts to “brainwash us” (in a very positive sense) to become good, loving people and not to become monsters. Of course our ability is limited, so many times we fail.

As a matter of fact taking away our ability to murder or rape others would not make us “less human”, it would make us “better humans”. It is very ironic that christians, catholics arge FOR the existence and preservation of “evil actions”, and at the same time hope that such traits will go away. Don’t you see the contradiction in your world-view? That you “vote for” the existence of rapists and murderers, instead of praying to God to make more “saints”?

 

[Steve80]

Apart from the fact that this is only what you (and many others) believe and not some FACT, it does not mitigate the actual FACT, that God does not intervene HERE and NOW. None of the “guardian angels” come to the rescue of the hungry or the sufferers. There is no sign of this CARE here and now. You can say that “here” and “now” does not matter in the “greater scheme of things”. That all this suffering is honkey-dorey, that it will be irrelevant in the hereafter. But that still does not explain why God does not CARE about us in this existence.

Many posters have said that “IF” this were the only existence, and “IF” there was no continuation in some “after-life”, then we (the atheists) would be perfectly right. However, they cannot give any proof, or even some slight evidence that there is a “continuation”. It is all blind faith, as in Hebrews 11:1. You are more than welcome to believe it without any evidence, but we (poor, dirty, down-to-earth) empiricists do NOT accept it.

This is the fifth officer from the Tale of the Twelve Officers (here…)

Trurl,

I understand the point you are trying to make with reference to the fifth officer in the paper. However, it too concedes and limits itself to human intellect. The officer is a man, and though he may have the highest IQ of any human that ever lived, it’s not comparable to the divine intellect of God. (As a side note, if God intervened on the level you suggest, it would nullify free will which is why we are here in the first place. We choose to love God. The crimes we inflict on our neighbors, such as those you listed, are a lack of this love.)

There was a Muslim who went away to school. He attended a Christian University and while he was there he converted to Christianity. His family found out and when he went home to visit they killed him and tore him limb from limb. The students were horrified and they asked themselves why God would allow such a thing to happen. Here the young man had just entered the faith and he was killed because of it. Many years later, the young man’s family found a journal he had written in and they were filled with remorse. Eventually, the entire family converted to Christianity. This is only one example of how we see things working out. God sees how all things work out.

You may say God could have intervened to save the man and the family, but again, the reason we are here is our free will to choose God. When men choose God (and I mean truly through action and not just words), they do not commit crimes . When men do not choose God, we see the horrific acts men commit, such as those you describe.

 

[Trurl]

I understand the point you are trying to make with reference to the fifth officer in the paper. However, it too concedes and limits itself to human intellect. The officer is a man, and though he may have the highest IQ of any human that ever lived, it’s not comparable to the divine intellect of God.

The point is that the apologists use the very same argument. Effectively they say that we simply do not have the relevant information, and as such we are not qualified to make a judgment call. Yet, they assert that THEY are qualified to assert that God is “good”. Sorry, that does not fly. If I am unqualified to pass a judgment, they are equally unqualified. The tale is a compressed form of all the different attempts to explain the problem of evil.

We do not have “ALL” the information, but we do have a LOT of information. And there is absolutely no evidence that God cares even a little what happens to us HERE and NOW. (This is the problem!). God could deliver a little rain to prevent drought to Africa, and it would not look like a huge miracle - yet the starvation of millions would not happen. God could make the tectonic plates move without colliding and thus the tsunamis would not occur, and such a simple “intrusion” would be undetectable by us. And God could ensure that people with ill will simply would not be born, and there would be no “miracle” needed. You seem to think that interventions must take the form of God appearing with a flaming sword and smite the wrongdoers… but that is very naive. All the intervention could be done so no one would get the slightest idea that an intervention took place at all.

(As a side note, if God intervened on the level you suggest, it would nullify free will which is why we are here in the first place.

That is what the sixth officer says.

We choose to love God. The crimes we inflict on our neighbors, such as those you listed, are a lack of this love.)

I do not “love” God in any meaningful sense of the word, yet I do not have any urge to kill or maim my neighbors. So the “not-loving” God can be safely allowed, since it does not have any logical corollary culminating in rapes, etc…

…Eventually, the entire family converted to Christianity. This is only one example of how we see things working out. God sees how all things work out.

I disagree that it “worked out”. You cannot simply state that act “A” was retroactively justified by consequence “B” - it is a catholic teaching that the end does not justify the means. Also there is a catholic teaching that “good cannot come from evil”. So the catholic teaching says that you are mistaken. Of course you are not alone. This kind of “reasoning” happens all the time.

You may say God could have intervened to save the man and the family, but again, the reason we are here is our free will to choose God.

Sixth officer again. Besides the intervention does not have to be “glaring”, it could be so subtle that no one would be aware of it.

When men choose God (and I mean truly through action and not just words), they do not commit crimes . When men do not choose God, we see the horrific acts men commit, such as those you describe.

The members of the clergy in the Inquisition committed horrendous acts, BECAUSE they believed that they act out God’s will. On the other hand, there are many wonderful people who do NOT choose God, and still lead an exemplary life. The point is that there is absolutely no correlation between NOT choosing God and committing horrible acts.

 

[JaKael02]

I want to be my own mommy and daddy when it comes to making daily decisions in my life.

Do you like having a nanny state, a daddy state?

God Bless,
Bill

I read your post. Nothing I disagree with at all. I think we are on the same page here.

I’m afraid of the direction of our nation. I feel the increase in laws is due to the necessity to keep control over an increasing immoral society.

Kindly - James

 

[JaKael02]

Reason does not lead to any “supreme being”. Reason starts with the observable physical universe, with the observed physical laws. There is no need to step “outside”. The usual questions like “where did all that come from?” are exactly as nonsensical as asking “but what exists to the north from the North Pole”? Such questions require no consideration.

Your fallacy here is that you are equating reason with science. The two are not technically identical.

What makes sense? I left you with a minor “riddle”. In the quoted text there is a huge logical error. Did you find it?

Yes. Same as above. You are assuming reason is “science alone”. I don’t adhere to that. It ignores the creative mind, testimonies, non-explainable science, miracles, & history.

What a strange question! Of course I do not hate them. Why should I? I certainly hate hypocrites and despise loudmouthed and dumb people, but such people are not tied to any race, sex or creed. But let me paraphrase an oft-repeated slogan, which says: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner”. A very flippant answer could be: “Love the Christians, but hate Christianity”. Of course it is not true, just like the original was not true either.

You came across as very ‘spirited’ in your views. I was not sure if it was based in a hate or just passion. No offense.

When you left the faith long ago, where you committing any sins the Church would consider serious?

I enjoyed our discussion so far. Makes me think. Glad you joined this forum.

 

[Pitcharan]

…

But, jokes aside, what I mean is very serious. The amount of freedom to perform violent acts against others is not necessary. Most people don’t even contemplate to act violently against others, so it is safe to give them the freedom to do so. Only the freedom of potential and actual criminals must be curtailed. We do it as much as we can, which is not a whole lot, but a step in the right direction. (Maybe in the far future we can create a system, which will monitor the thought processes of the possible criminals and simply prevent them from actually carrying out their plans.) God could do it really efficiently, but it seems that he does not care, which is too bad (for the victims).

*“How good is God to Israel, to those who are pure of heart. Yet my feet came close to stumbling; my steps had almost slipped for I was filled with envy of the proud when I saw how the wicked prosper. For them there are no pains; their bodies are sound and sleek. They do not share in human sorrows; they are not stricken like others. How useless to keep my heart pure and wash my hands in innocence, when I was stricken all day long, suffered punishment day after day.”

“I strove to fathom this problem, too hard for my mind to understand, until I pierced the mysteries of God and understood what becomes of the wicked.”* (Psalm 73:1-5, 14-17)

 

[Trurl]

Your fallacy here is that you are equating reason with science. The two are not technically identical.

I don’t confuse them. Reason is the foundation of science but not limited to it.

Yes.

If you did, then humor me. Tell me what that logical contradiction is, and why do you think otherwise. Once you do, I will be happy to show you that serious logical problem, and why it does invalidate what the catechism says.

It ignores the creative mind, testimonies, non-explainable science, miracles, & history.

What about the creative mind? Are you talking about writers, poets, composers? Active imagination is great, but does not lead to factual information. Testimonies are whole different ballgame. It is not accidental that second-hand testimonies are excluded from serious consideration. They have no value at all. Miracles? These are only stories without rational foundation. History? Just more or less substantiated stories. Besides, we do not talk about what happened those many yeas ago. We talk about here and now, today.

Many people assert that there are metaphysical “truths”, which are not based on empiricism. Hogwash. All those metaphysical concepts are distilled from innumerable observations, and making a few inductive steps.

When you left the faith long ago, where you committing any sins the Church would consider serious?

Who knows? I was rather young then, and not a catholic. I did not kill anyone, never stole a penny, that is for sure. Most probably I lied a few times, but those were “white lies”.

I enjoyed our discussion so far. Makes me think. Glad you joined this forum.

Thank you very much. I enjoy your (name removed by moderator)ut as well.

 

[JaKael02]

I don’t confuse them. Reason is the foundation of science but not limited to it.

Good – we agree.

If you did, then humor me. Tell me what that logical contradiction is, and why do you think otherwise. Once you do, I will be happy to show you that serious logical problem, and why it does invalidate what the catechism says.

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

It’s stating that human reason (human wisdom) can know with certainty that God exists. It did not say with certainty via empirical evidence. But certainty via human mind and human wisdom; rooted in human reason. This is all ex-faith and ex-empirical evidence. Things can be substantiated with logic and arguments. Not just empirical evidence.

1 sentence from Council of Trent:
“Human wisdom, guided solely by the light of nature, advances slowly by reasoning on sensible objects and effects, and only after long and laborious investigation is it able at length to contemplate with difficulty the invisible things of God, to discover and understand a First Cause and Author of all things.”

For something to exist and be true, you are stating it must have empirical evidence. The cause of the Universe is not proven?

Many people assert that there are metaphysical “truths”, which are not based on empiricism. Hogwash. All those metaphysical concepts are distilled from innumerable observations, and making a few inductive steps.

This is very debatable.

Jesus resurrection, Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, unexplained healing of Lourdes (miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html)

Your opinion? Thoughts? Kindly – James

 

[fred_conty]

“Dude”, you are playing fast and loose with the word “faith”. I am talking about the “epistemological faith”, which is exactly the opposite of reason, as indicated in Hebrews 11:1. If you wish to conduct a conversation, do not change the topic. And don’t talk to me about those “great aplogists”. I read many of their works, and I was not impressed by their intellectual honesty (I would prefer to use a much stronger phrase, but the “charity” rule disallows to speak one’s mind).

And all that has NOTHING to do with the topic of thread. Kindly return to it, if you wish to continue.

I grew up, and realized that the assumption of a God is a useless hypothesis, it does not answer any valid questions.

Reason does not lead to any “supreme being”. Reason starts with the observable physical universe, with the observed physical laws. There is no need to step “outside”. The usual questions like “where did all that come from?” are exactly as nonsensical as asking “but what exists to the north from the North Pole”? Such questions require no consideration.

Let’s make sure we use the word “faith” in the same manner. I am talking about the “epistemological faith”, a purported “tool” to obtain knowledge, which is allegedly not obtainable by reason. As such they are incompatible.

What makes sense? I left you with a minor “riddle”. In the quoted text there is a huge logical error. Did you find it?

Humans are curious beings. We try to make sense of the world, and the “cheapest” and useless solution was: “some god made it”. Of course it is not an answer to anything, it was the god of the gaps. As our knowledge grows, the “realm” for the gods is shrinking.

What a strange question! Of course I do not hate them. Why should I? I certainly hate hypocrites and despise loudmouthed and dumb people, but such people are not tied to any race, sex or creed. But let me paraphrase an oft-repeated slogan, which says: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner”. A very flippant answer could be: “Love the Christians, but hate Christianity”. Of course it is not true, just like the original was not true either.

Best wishes.

So what? Do you have the freedom to flap your arms and fly? If you had that choice, would it make you a non-human? There are zillions of freedoms we miss. We cannot breathe underwater, which we could if we had both lungs and gills… Yes, we are certain biological beings, with certain abilities. There is no reason why we should be as we are. Good upbringing tries to “weed out” the behavioral problems, it attempts to “brainwash us” (in a very positive sense) to become good, loving people and not to become monsters. Of course our ability is limited, so many times we fail.

As a matter of fact taking away our ability to murder or rape others would not make us “less human”, it would make us “better humans”. It is very ironic that christians, catholics arge FOR the existence and preservation of “evil actions”, and at the same time hope that such traits will go away. Don’t you see the contradiction in your world-view? That you “vote for” the existence of rapists and murderers, instead of praying to God to make more “saints”?

I think we have to agree to disagree on this point.

I see man as having the capabability to make choices. But I don’t see man as capable of flapping his arms and flying. The difference is the definition of man. Man is not defined by breathing underwater or flying, but by his rational free nature. That is man. Take that away and a man is no longer man.

No good human being is for any type of brutality to others. But then humans, being what they are, endowed with free choice, can be brutal. If freedom to chose evil is removed then man is no longer really a man since his nature is changed.

God made us the way he did and willed man to chose freely either for evil or for good.
It would be the same as making an elephant and then removing from the elephant that which defines the elephant. This would be contradiction as is a square circle.

So unfortunately as long as man is on this earth, evil will be committed, for if evil choices were removed from his nature, then we would have something else but certainly not man.

As for catholics dealing with evil, that is for another thread.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Steve80]

I do not “love” God in any meaningful sense of the word, yet I do not have any urge to kill or maim my neighbors. So the “not-loving” God can be safely allowed, since it does not have any logical corollary culminating in rapes, etc…

The point I am trying to make is that the people who do commit those acts do not love God the way Christ taught us. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” is part of the first and greatest commandment. Someone who truly loves God and follows Christ’s teachings would not do those things. Only someone who does not is capable of the crimes you’ve listed.

The members of the clergy in the Inquisition committed horrendous acts, BECAUSE they believed that they act out God’s will. On the other hand, there are many wonderful people who do NOT choose God, and still lead an exemplary life.

Belief is not shown by words alone, but through action. “There are those who say ‘yes’ to God, but they do not do His will.” Just because atrocities or less uncharitable acts are committed in the name of God, does not mean that those persons are doing what Jesus taught.

I ask you to think about two different worlds; one where everyone follows what Jesus said, and one where no one really cares one way or the other. Which world would be free of crime? Neither are our reality, but what if everyone was a Mother Teresa? And what drove her to do so much good? Her faith in God.

 

[Trurl]

Good – we agree.

Always gratifying to have agreement across the “abyss”.

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

It’s stating that human reason (human wisdom) can know with certainty that God exists. It did not say with certainty via empirical evidence. But certainty via human mind and human wisdom; rooted in human reason. This is all ex-faith and ex-empirical evidence. Things can be substantiated with logic and arguments. Not just empirical evidence.

I am not disputing what you say. That is not a problem, and I am not necessarily looking for empirical evidence. There is, however, the most important part missing, namely “HOW can we know?”. Which one of the zillions of “proofs” for God’s existence does the church endorse? (For your viewing pleasure: here…) This is a very serious omission, but not the logical error I was alluding to. The error is here: “from the created world”. It presupposes (as a premise) what it is supposed to prove. Called circular reasoning, and it is an unpardonable logical mistake. You cannot “assume” that the world was “created”, and then exclaim: “of course God created it!”.

1 sentence from Council of Trent:
“Human wisdom, guided solely by the light of nature, advances slowly by reasoning on sensible objects and effects, and only after long and laborious investigation is it able at length to contemplate with difficulty the invisible things of God, to discover and understand a First Cause and Author of all things.”

Sorry, just an empty utterance. It presupposes (again) that the universe “needs” a creator.

For something to exist and be true, you are stating it must have empirical evidence. The cause of the Universe is not proven?

I did not say that it “must” be empirical evidence, even though nothing beats a good, physical clue. In criminal procedures one physical evidence beats a thousand testimonials (especially second-hand testimonials, which are not even admitted in a criminal case) - and with good reason.

The problem again, that you state that the universe “needs” a cause.

Let me show you the exact parallel between our worldviews:

Atheist says: “The universe s(name removed by moderator)ly exists. It needs no explanation, it needs no external ‘cause’. It is the foundation of everthing”.

Theist says: “God simply exists. “He” needs no explanation, “he” needs no external ‘cause’. “He” is the foundation of everthing”.

I am sure you see that we say exactly the same thing, with one difference. Atheists posit the universe as the ontological foundation of everything that exists. We all experience the physical universe. There is no doubt (apart from some solipsists) that the physical universe exists. The theists add an unknown and unknowable entity to this picture: “God”. It does not have any explanatory power, the theists cannot explain HOW did God create the universe, it is sheer magic. When push comes to shove, the “explanation” boils down to: “an unknowable being, using unimaginable means made it somehow happen”. What kind of an “explanation” is that?

Now, it becomes worse. Even if there would be a reasonable and logical result of a “creator”, it would only be a faceless, impersonal, deistic creator, which is a far cry from the personal deity posited by christians. So you present a complicated picture, which has no explanatory power.

This is very debatable.

I doubt it. Can you bring up one VALID metaphyscial assertion, which is not the result of a bunch of down-to-earth, “dirty”, empirical observations?

Jesus resurrection, Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, unexplained healing of Lourdes

Sorry to rain on your parade. Jesus’s resurrection is simply a part of the christian mythology, no outside evidence for it. The so-called “miracles” are part of the christian lore, a lot of stories without objective, external evidence. Lourdes is not special at all. It is just like the “myth of the Bermuda triangle”, where more ships allegedly disappeared then one would expect from random distribution. Both are urban legends. If you wish to establish evidence for some “miraculous” healings, you need to set up a proper, double-blind experiment. It has been done, of course - to measure the effect of intercessory prayers, and it was just another belly-flop. The prayers had absolutely no effect.

 

[Trurl]

The point I am trying to make is that the people who do commit those acts do not love God the way Christ taught us. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” is part of the first and greatest commandment. Someone who truly loves God and follows Christ’s teachings would not do those things. Only someone who does not is capable of the crimes you’ve listed.

Even if you were right, you are “wrong”. One does not need to “love” God to be a good, decent person. The problem is that one can read the bible selectively, and pick and choose which parts should one take verbatim, and which parts are to be taken allegorically, Unfortunately the church does not have an offical list which separate the “literal” and the “allegorical” verses.

Belief is not shown by words alone, but through action. “There are those who say ‘yes’ to God, but they do not do His will.” Just because atrocities or less uncharitable acts are committed in the name of God, does not mean that those persons are doing what Jesus taught.

You miss the point. Those people “loved” God. They were utterly convinced that they were doing God’s will. The “Malleus Maleficarum” carried the official approval of the church. And God did not come and kick them in the butt for it.

I ask you to think about two different worlds; one where everyone follows what Jesus said, and one where no one really cares one way or the other.

It depends. If you selectively choose the parts of Jesus’ teachings, which say: “turn the other cheek”, and “do not resist evil” then you have a decent world, but if you choose “I did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it” and the law said: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”, then the result is not so appealing. But the point is not this: In a world were people respect each other (not “love”, but respect) the outcome would be the same.

 

[JaKael02]

The members of the clergy in the Inquisition committed horrendous acts, BECAUSE they believed that they act out God’s will. On the other hand, there are many wonderful people who do NOT choose God, and still lead an exemplary life. The point is that there is absolutely no correlation between NOT choosing God and committing horrible acts.

This is historically inaccurate. For example, the Spanish Inquisition was/is considered the most horrendous of all inquisitions (in popular Western culture). Historians state 2000 individuals were put to death due to the inquisition under in Spain over a 700 year period. There is more put to death in the state of Texas in 10 years than the whole Spanish Inquisition. So why the bad reputation for the Spanish? Look to popular ‘enlightenment’ writers such as Edger Allen Poe, etc.

Just my opinion. Kindly - James

 

[JaKael02]

I am not disputing what you say. That is not a problem, and I am not necessarily looking for empirical evidence. There is, however, the most important part missing, namely “HOW can we know?”. Which one of the zillions of “proofs” for God’s existence does the church endorse? (For your viewing pleasure: here…) This is a very serious omission, but not the logical error I was alluding to. The error is here: “from the created world”. It presupposes (as a premise) what it is supposed to prove. Called circular reasoning, and it is an unpardonable logical mistake. You cannot “assume” that the world was “created”, and then exclaim: “of course God created it!”.

You did dispute. You originally said you did not argue and it was a huge error. I explained why it is not an error. Now you say you are not disputting.

Many Atheist do state the necessity for the Universe to have an origin. It’s part of science and you can’t just say that part of science is not important because it’s already here. That is escaping part of reality. Who created the Universe?

We are carrying many topics at once. I find that to be too troublesome as I am also comment on other blogs as well. Lets just stick with this one issue if you don’t mind. I’m not interested in proving Lourdes/Miracles/Resurrection, etc because that is a big to-do and I’m sure you will denouce any emperical, logical evidence as “mythological - chance”.

Kindly - James

 

[jimmy]

Trurl,

Your dream is Minority Report? You want the thought police?