I think I found the answer

[fhansen]

For example, there are some on this forum who have recently condemned the Resurrection as “hearsay.” Not being there myself, I believe the hearsay in the same way I would believe any good history (hearsay) book. But, it’s more than that. The history of the Passion and Christ’s Resurrection are replete throughout the compilation. There exists no other compendium of cross-referential hearsay data known that covers so many years and has ended up with us at this point in time and place. We find no good reason, or reasons, to disbelieve it.

If you think about it, those who deny its historicity are asking us not to believe it on their own hearsay. But, their evidence is lacking anything even close to the full brunt of the power of the Book and the fullness of Catholic thought and tradition.

jd

**While IMO we have a preponderance of evidence that people of integrity have believed in the resurrection throughout the centuries, I don’t believe that any of us can base our belief on such historical evidence alone. Resurrections are just too fantastic and require supernatural help to believe. But what occurs to me is that while Richard Dawkins et al won’t believe in the resurrection, they can believe that a related and even more fantastical or improbable event occurred, based on the “antropic principle”, that of life originating by pure chance. Now that takes faith!
**

 

[JLongoria]

While IMO we have a preponderance of evidence that people of integrity have believed in the resurrection throughout the centuries, I don’t believe that any of us can base our belief on such historical evidence alone. Resurrections are just too fantastic and require supernatural help to believe. But what occurs to me is that while Richard Dawkins et al won’t believe in the resurrection, they can believe that a related and even more fantastical or improbable event occurred, based on the “antropic principle”, that of life originating by pure chance. Now that takes faith!

Haha! Well said!

The thing we need to keep in mind is that the Resurrection is not logically impossible; it is improbable, sure. But impossible? No, not any more impossible than us having risen out of the dirt by pure chance alone.

If there is indeed a God, then it seems a lot more likely that we arose from the mud; but that would be damaging to the irreligious view, as it is not by mere chance that we came to be.

 

[St_Gregory]

I think people can’t help holding onto their beliefs. Even people who are A very intelligent and B open to discussion still usually get trapped in a cognitive framework of various axioms.

I think it IS possible to overcome this if we are honest with ourselves but it’s always difficult for anyone.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Don’t you realize that I am not interested in talking to you?

no, i hadnt realized it at all. but you may exercise the “ignore” button at your wish.

Obviously not, since you are trying to use the same old “taunting” technique

im sorry but i took your posts as taunts, after all, you are defending atheist positions on a Catholic forum. what did you expect to occur? everybody would just sit quietly by as you pontificate?

following me from thread to thread. It does not work.

you chose to post a new thread complaining about previous threads that i, and others, participated in, to which i responded. what did you expect?

no one is following you…bwwwaaaahaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaa, (in my best evil doctor laugh)

(And I would suggest to learn the difference between “your” and “you’re”.)

yes, that an important distinction. your, youre, yore, yoor, yoore, ur. i cant seem to keep them all straight.

that said, i suggest you use the ignore button. i will continue to respond to your or any other post i please. you dont have to read mine.

the downside of that however is that everyone else can see my refutations, but you.

 

[JDaniel]

While IMO we have a preponderance of evidence that people of integrity have believed in the resurrection throughout the centuries, I don’t believe that any of us can base our belief on such historical evidence alone. Resurrections are just too fantastic and require supernatural help to believe. But what occurs to me is that while Richard Dawkins et al won’t believe in the resurrection, they can believe that a related and even more fantastical or improbable event occurred, based on the “anthropic principle”, that of life originating by pure chance. Now that takes faith!

Absolutely. But, it’s a good starting point. And, if one reasons that it is preposterous, well, we can be reminded that God can do anything.

Oops, except what is logically contradictory - maybe.

jd

 

[Spock]

That you cannot comprehend non-existence (evil) on your own, which was the point to begin with. Saying something and internalizing it are not the same thing.

I am not sure what you mean by “internalizing”. I understand in every detail that there are no two positive integers, the ratio of which is precisely the square root of two.

The fact that you believe in “neutral” events says nothing about truth, and more about a very sad way of looking at life. “Quality of life” is an arbitrary definition at best, and it changes on the moods of the man to suit his taste and desires; essentially, it is prefering Thursday to Wednesday simply because it is Thursday.

Your example confuses me. A plant needs water to survive. Either too much water or too little is detrimental to its survival. The proper amount is a “range”. These are examples of “good” and “bad” events. However, the plant will be covered by dust from the air (until the rain washes it off). This dust does not help, nor does it hinder the life of the plant. It is an example of a “neutral” event. Why would that be a “a very sad way of looking at life”???

Another example is a cat “playing” with the mouse, to make its meat more tasty (the elevated blood sugar has this effect). The “playing” is good (useful) for the cat, and bad for the mouse. Objective good and bad. This act, however does not carry any moral overtones, since the cat is unaware of the pain it causes. It is not an “evil” act.

It is unreasonable precisely because it is arbitrary; if reason is the unchanging thing, then any truthful conclusion approached by it is something that never changes. The thing that changes is not of reason, but of unreason. It is self-defeating to say, “I uphold the light of intellect and reason”, and then turn and make every definition arbitrary.

In the light of what I said above, I will reject this analysis. There is nothing “arbitrary” in the definitions I presented.

A reasonable person does not see such a thing as neutral events. To you, drinking a beer and conversing with good friends may be a neutral event; to the reasonable person, it is conducive of life and is the ancient health of the world. To the reasonable person, such events draw them to the goodness of creation, and are more than neutral: they are morally obligatory.

The example you brought up is not correct. To have a good conversation whith friends is definitely in the “good” category. But it would be also good to pass the event, stay at home and dig into a good book. Why would either one of these be “morally” obligatory?

The real deficiency is saying that there is such a thing as neutral events.

Right… so there is no dusk, no dawn, only daylight and dark night. There are no shades of grey, there are no colors. Only black and white, only “good” and “evil”. I do not agree.

Another example: I see a homeless person, and give him a dollar. Is it a “good” act, or an “evil” act? I would say good. However, I could give him 10 dollars. Would that be a “better” act? If there are grades of “goodness”, both are “good”, maybe not the same degree. There are grades in actions, not just one action which is “good” and everything else is “evil”. According to your analysis, IF I could give 10 bucks, but only give one, then I committed an “evil” act. Do you see why I consider your stance irrational?

 

[JLongoria]

I am not sure what you mean by “internalizing”. I understand in every detail that there are no two positive integers, the ratio of which is precisely the square root of two.

The problem with what you’re saying is that you’re implying that you are able to comprehend something that cannot exist (that is, it is logically impossible) in the first place. A large resounding “duh” will follow a statement such as that.

Yet what of something that can logically exist? Can you comprehend the non-existence of a chair, while knowing full well that a chair exists, or at least could exist? If you can, then we have just thrown out the principle of contradiction.

Your example confuses me. A plant needs water to survive. Either too much water or too little is detrimental to its survival. The proper amount is a “range”. These are examples of “good” and “bad” events. However, the plant will be covered by dust from the air (until the rain washes it off). This dust does not help, nor does it hinder the life of the plant. It is an example of a “neutral” event. Why would that be a “a very sad way of looking at life”???

Too much good does not kill anything, so I’m not sure how watering a plant is applicable. I’ll get to your bolded statement elsewhere.

Another example is a cat “playing” with the mouse, to make its meat more tasty (the elevated blood sugar has this effect). The “playing” is good (useful) for the cat, and bad for the mouse. Objective good and bad. This act, however does not carry any moral overtones, since the cat is unaware of the pain it causes. It is not an “evil” act.

What an affront to human decency! Not “evil” because the moral observer is not aware himself of the pain he is inflicting? Turn that example on yourself, and see how indifferent you remain. Turn the knife of an assailant against your own person, and see how great of an injustice you feel has been committed.

God forbid that “good” ever be equated with “useful”. I won’t evaluate whether or not a cat likes to play with a mouse because it makes the meat tasty (or if a cat can either fully appreciate taste in the human sense), but if the cat is doing it for taste, it is certainly not doing it for utility. A sane man does not drink down a glass of chocolate milk because he is thinking to himself, “hah, what utility the protein and carbohydrate components of this milk beverage will bring me!” He drinks it because it is satisfying, it is wholesome; it is good for him.

But not “good” in the health sense, but in a spiritual manner; at root, enjoying the beverage because it is something that exists is good. Enjoying anything that exists is good, because all things that exist do so because God has made them that way.

The examples with the plant and the cat are not events that can contain any moral content because it does not involve any rational being; in a case where there is no human observer, it doesn’t make any sense to say the event is anything moral at all (good, neutral, or evil) since man is the only creature that is capable of moral decisions.

 

[JLongoria]

The example you brought up is not correct. To have a good conversation whith friends is definitely in the “good” category. But it would be also good to pass the event, stay at home and dig into a good book. Why would either one of these be “morally” obligatory?

To clarify this, it needs to be said (again): goodness exists in God, and not in man. So when man chooses a moral good, he is taking an objective moral principle and subjectifying it.

If we are comparing two actions with one another, it becomes the responsibility of the moral observer to decide which one is conducive to goodness for the observer; here, we must look at the individual. Let’s say the content of the conversation would be about the wholesomeness of respect and love for your fellow man, and let’s say the book was on the dignity of the sexes as persons, not as objects. Let’s say the man is a philanderer: for him, it would be infinitely better to read that book.

Morality is no longer actions; it is in the heart. It transforms the way we perceive existence, and brings us closer to the God who loves us all.

Right… so there is no dusk, no dawn, only daylight and dark night. There are no shades of grey, there are no colors. Only black and white, only “good” and “evil”. I do not agree.

Another example: I see a homeless person, and give him a dollar. Is it a “good” act, or an “evil” act? I would say good. However, I could give him 10 dollars. Would that be a “better” act? If there are grades of “goodness”, both are “good”, maybe not the same degree. There are grades in actions, not just one action which is “good” and everything else is “evil”. According to your analysis, IF I could give 10 bucks, but only give one, then I committed an “evil” act. Do you see why I consider your stance irrational?

Not really; I just see your stance as increasingly lazy. Your analysis is only partially correct: it is better to give him $10, but this does not make the act of only giving him $1 evil. You’re stingy, but not evil; you’re less than perfect, which is expected for each of us.

The thing here is that looking also at the circumstances of the person who is committing an act; and it’s useful to take an example from Scripture.

He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.”

The Gospel of St. Mark, 12:41-44

The thing to see here is that the wealthy were not doing something bad; no, what we see here is that this woman did something better. This is morality: we are called to do continually better for ourselves and for our fellow man. The man who tosses $5 in the collection plate every Sunday, while remaining an unrepentant is worse off than the sinner who repents, and tries for the rest of his days to be a better person.

The repentant man is beginning to see things as they are; the unrepentant man still walks on in darkness.

A sunset is just a sunset on its own. Yet to the rational human observer, it imprints on his heart the goodness of creation; it fosters a comprehensive way of looking at all of existence in the way it is really to be seen. See the sunset as a “neutral” event, and its beauty is gone; appreciate it for one second, and you see that it is anything but neutral.

 

[Spock]

The problem with what you’re saying is that you’re implying that you are able to comprehend something that cannot exist (that is, it is logically impossible) in the first place. A large resounding “duh” will follow a statement such as that.

Why so? I can comprehend fully that the square root of two is an irrational number (where “irrational” means that it is not the “ratio” of two positive integers though admittedly it is an unlucky choice of words). Every mathematician can.

Yet what of something that can logically exist? Can you comprehend the non-existence of a chair, while knowing full well that a chair exists, or at least could exist? If you can, then we have just thrown out the principle of contradiction.

You confuse the concept of zero with the concept of contradiction. The principle of contradiction simply says that A and ~A is false. Something cannot be true and false at the same time in the same context. It has nothing to do with comprehending the “lack” of a chair. Now, it is true that the concept of zero (the lack of something, or the nonexistence of something) was a very hard concept to understand when it was first proposed. But that was many hundreds of years ago. With all due respect, I am sure you are not a mathematician.

Too much good does not kill anything, so I’m not sure how watering a plant is applicable. I’ll get to your bolded statement elsewhere.

Just try it. Take a cactus and water it every day. It will be a short time and it rots. Take an impatient and do not water it every day, and it will die very quickly. Have you heard of “suffocating love”? Most certainly too much good can and does turn into something “bad”. If you would take too much aspirin you would die.

What an affront to human decency! Not “evil” because the moral observer is not aware himself of the pain he is inflicting?

No, because the cat is not a moral agent.

God forbid that “good” ever be equated with “useful”.

A perfect example why it is next to impossible to conduct a meaningful conversation between an atheist and a believer. I am curious, if you have a secular definition for good? Because if you don’t we can stop this conversation right now. It would never lead anywhere.

I won’t evaluate whether or not a cat likes to play with a mouse because it makes the meat tasty (or if a cat can either fully appreciate taste in the human sense), but if the cat is doing it for taste, it is certainly not doing it for utility.

The cat has taste buds, just like humans do. Having a better tasting meal is better in the utilitarian sense.

But not “good” in the health sense, but in a spiritual manner; at root, enjoying the beverage because it is something that exists is good. Enjoying anything that exists is good, because all things that exist do so because God has made them that way.

Sorry, the word “spiritual” is meaningless for me. And go and “enjoy” being infected by some nasty flu bug, after all it is also God’s creation and thus it is “good”.

Stephen Wright had this great one liner: “Three out of ten people suffer from hemorroids. You mean the other seven enjoys it???”. Which group do you belong to?

The examples with the plant and the cat are not events that can contain any moral content because it does not involve any rational being; in a case where there is no human observer, it doesn’t make any sense to say the event is anything moral at all (good, neutral, or evil) since man is the only creature that is capable of moral decisions.

Almost agreed. Those events carry no moral overtones, they are called “amoral” or “neutral”. Indeed, morality only makes sense if there is a moral agent involved, who is capable of understanding. When a small child tortures an animal (and small children can be pretty brutal) it is not a moral act, as long as the child is unable to comprehend what he is doing. Now if the parent is watching, and does not interfere, that is a whole different ballgame.

 

[Spock]

To clarify this, it needs to be said (again): goodness exists in God, and not in man.

I am sorry, I have not seen this, when I composed my answer to your previous post. No need to go any further, since our views cannot be reconcilied, there is absolutely no common ground to continue.

 

[Detales]

Yea Spock! I think you found the answer!!!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am sorry, I have not seen this, when I composed my answer to your previous post. No need to go any further, since our views cannot be reconcilied, there is absolutely no common ground to continue.

hmmmm…

maybe its not just me…

 

[Snerticus]

I find these discussions enlightening about how others think and the reason for their beliefs. It really is fruitful when you consider everything, not just the topic of discussion.

 

[JLongoria]

A perfect example why it is next to impossible to conduct a meaningful conversation between an atheist and a believer. I am curious, if you have a secular definition for good? Because if you don’t we can stop this conversation right now. It would never lead anywhere.

There is no such thing as a “secular definition” of morality; definitions are definitive and truthful, and any secular definition of morality would be utterly incomplete, defeated by it’s own self.

Sorry, the word “spiritual” is meaningless for me.

I’m sure you’ll be reminded of that next time you’re irrationally appreciating a sunset, which has no utility; you’ll also be reminded of that next time you kiss your sweetheart, or witness the birth of new life.

The next time you feel the irrationality of love or sadness, or any other emotion welling up deep from with in, I’m sure you’ll confidently tell yourself, “there is no such thing as spirituality”. And once you do, you’ll knock such non-sense from your head and become something other than human, a creature that feels things not necessarily with rhyme or reason.

And go and “enjoy” being infected by some nasty flu bug, after all it is also God’s creation and thus it is “good”.

Oh, you didn’t get the memo from Scripture?

His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.

The Gospel of St. John, 9:2-3

Go figure! A believer can find goodness in affliction, too! It is so wonderful that in our sorrow, Christ our Lord gives meaning to our pain; even in death, the Lord gives meaning to the goodness of life.

When a small child tortures an animal (and small children can be pretty brutal) it is not a moral act, as long as the child is unable to comprehend what he is doing. Now if the parent is watching, and does not interfere, that is a whole different ballgame.

Agreed here; a child is not a rational being. Thank the God personhood is not defined as possessing rationality.

 

[Detales]

*“There is no such thing as a “secular definition” of morality; definitions are definitive and truthful, and any secular definition of morality would be utterly incomplete, defeated by it’s own self.”~*JLongoria

“Morality” is derived from a word meaning custom or usage, not from anything meaning spiritual law. It is an entirely secular concept except where it is adopted by theist institutions. Anthropologists use “mores” and “morals” in describing the behavior of non-christainst cultures, of which there are and were many; more before the tender mercies of christainsts wiped out many of them. Remember, even now less that one third of the world population is any form of christianist. All 3K+ varieties of it. For a current secular definiton of morality, go to the ethics url of the Church of Scientology. I’m sure you will agree that they are godless. That defintition does not fall apart, au contrair.

*"I’m sure you’ll be reminded of that next time you’re irrationally appreciating a sunset, which has no utility; you’ll also be reminded of that next time you kiss your sweetheart, or witness the birth of new life.

“The next time you feel the irrationality of love or sadness, or any other emotion welling up deep from with in, I’m sure you’ll confidently tell yourself, “there is no such thing as spirituality”. And once you do, you’ll knock such non-sense from your head and become something other than human, a creature that feels things not necessarily with rhyme or reason.!”*~JLongoria

You may be confusing “aesthetic” with “spiritual.” Many just feel “spiritual” when they attribute aesthetics or emotions to a spiritual world. This is not, on my part, a denial of an invisible heirarchy that is an aspect of a greater Whole. I do believe, though, that what most people call “spritual” is as described.

“Go figure! A believer can find goodness in affliction, too! It is so wonderful that in our sorrow, Christ our Lord gives meaning to our pain; even in death, the Lord gives meaning to the goodness of life.”~JLongoria

I personally believe, despite much evidence to the contrary that is very acceptable, that there was an historic Jesus. Nevertheless, my personal positon on this is that because of certain factors, believers attribute meanings to statements attributed to Jesus that He, in my understanding, never intended. The form of the words remaining the same, an entirely different interpretation than the christianist flavored ones can be derived.

"Agreed here; a child is not a rational being. Thank the God personhood is not defined as possessing rationality."~JLongoria

Interesting that you said “the God.” that is a more open word structure that allows other than the christianist anthropomorphism to be considered. Good for you. To me the atheist/theist debate is a red herring.

Looking at the range of human possibility, from feral child to Saint, from couch potato to philosopher, I tend to agree with Mark Twain. I think it was he who said that “Man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal.” (and the only one that bares his teeth when happy, lol!) Man is moral, human even, by training in association with others who have inherited a way of coping with life and with each other. That way is called “morals” and is susceptible to codification.

 

[Sair]

Yes, of course. I know many atheists and agnostics who are good, genuine people.

Of course I wouldn’t be able to shrug it off. Religion is an inherent part of the human experience. Recent studies have shown that the brain is engineered to allow spiritual experiences (pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week510/cover.html). Since the beginning of time, man has pondered the afterlife and how he has come into existence.

Those with faith could have the peace of mind to know that upon death, there is an afterlife and a God waiting for them. Those without faith - I suppose they can try to live life as best as they can on earth as they think only dust and bones await them in the future.

When I experience love from my family, when I see how intricate the human body is with all its capabilities, when I see beauty and complexity in the world around me - I know there is a God. That’s why I love science - to see just how everything fits so perfectly; that couldn’t have happened by itself.

I can tell from this post that you are someone who is content with your worldview, and I think that contentment is perhaps even more important than the source from which you derive it. I think it’s also important to maintain a sense of wonder, as you do, based on knowledge of how the world works and how we all fit into it.

As an atheist, I have to admit that I derive some sense of contentment from uncertainty. I know that possibly sounds counterintuitive, but certainly since I have been reading these forums, it has become ever more clear to me that we will probably never know with objective certainty whether or not God exists, nor if God is anything like the God portrayed in the Bible. What we have is an inbuilt capacity for what we think of as spiritual experience, and that takes about as many forms as there are people.

What I have tried to avoid is the cynical view I have seen some atheists take, where they seem wedded to the idea of empirical evidence and complete scepticism without proof. They don’t seem to enjoy indulging in speculation. To me this seems like a very closed and colourless way to exist. I still experience a sense of wonder, when I find out something about the intricacies of life, or when I stand on top of a rocky peak looking out over the awesome beauty of the natural world, and remember that I am a mere speck in its vastness.

As to how one ought to live, I think that most people, if they’re honest, are driven to act in accordance with their subjective sense of right. If there is indeed a God, I don’t know whether he/she will choose to judge me harshly for not having faith, or will look at how I have lived and decide that I’ve done my best. Also, there has never been anyone who has been able to come back and tell us, from their own experience, what it’s really like to die (I guess I’m not talking here about those people whose hearts have stopped on the operating table - I think true death is qualitatively different). With that in mind, one could react either with fear and trepidation, or excitement and curiosity. I like to lean more towards the latter, and think that death, when it comes, will be life’s greatest adventure.

 

[Sair]

*“There is no such thing as a “secular definition” of morality; definitions are definitive and truthful, and any secular definition of morality would be utterly incomplete, defeated by it’s own self.”~*JLongoria

“Morality” is derived from a word meaning custom or usage, not from anything meaning spiritual law. It is an entirely secular concept except where it is adopted by theist institutions. Anthropologists use “mores” and “morals” in describing the behavior of non-christainst cultures, of which there are and were many; more before the tender mercies of christainsts wiped out many of them. Remember, even now less that one third of the world population is any form of christianist. All 3K+ varieties of it. For a current secular definiton of morality, go to the ethics url of the Church of Scientology. I’m sure you will agree that they are godless. That defintition does not fall apart, au contrair.

*"I’m sure you’ll be reminded of that next time you’re irrationally appreciating a sunset, which has no utility; you’ll also be reminded of that next time you kiss your sweetheart, or witness the birth of new life.

“The next time you feel the irrationality of love or sadness, or any other emotion welling up deep from with in, I’m sure you’ll confidently tell yourself, “there is no such thing as spirituality”. And once you do, you’ll knock such non-sense from your head and become something other than human, a creature that feels things not necessarily with rhyme or reason.!”*~JLongoria

You may be confusing “aesthetic” with “spiritual.” Many just feel “spiritual” when they attribute aesthetics or emotions to a spiritual world. This is not, on my part, a denial of an invisible heirarchy that is an aspect of a greater Whole. I do believe, though, that what most people call “spritual” is as described.

“Go figure! A believer can find goodness in affliction, too! It is so wonderful that in our sorrow, Christ our Lord gives meaning to our pain; even in death, the Lord gives meaning to the goodness of life.”~JLongoria

I personally believe, despite much evidence to the contrary that is very acceptable, that there was an historic Jesus. Nevertheless, my personal positon on this is that because of certain factors, believers attribute meanings to statements attributed to Jesus that He, in my understanding, never intended. The form of the words remaining the same, an entirely different interpretation than the christianist flavored ones can be derived.

"Agreed here; a child is not a rational being. Thank the God personhood is not defined as possessing rationality."~JLongoria

Interesting that you said “the God.” that is a more open word structure that allows other than the christianist anthropomorphism to be considered. Good for you. To me the atheist/theist debate is a red herring.

Looking at the range of human possibility, from feral child to Saint, from couch potato to philosopher, I tend to agree with Mark Twain. I think it was he who said that “Man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal.” (and the only one that bares his teeth when happy, lol!) Man is moral, human even, by training in association with others who have inherited a way of coping with life and with each other. That way is called “morals” and is susceptible to codification.

Fantastic post! Especially the explanation of morality. I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary to be a theist in order to be a moral being, but nor do I believe that codified moral systems are of any less value - certainly not to those who hold them - than more “instinctive” or naturally acquired moral senses.

One of the greatest things in life is to be open to possibility…

 

[JLongoria]

Interesting that you said “the God.” that is a more open word structure that allows other than the christianist anthropomorphism to be considered. Good for you. To me the atheist/theist debate is a red herring.

Lol! I actually meant to put “thank the Lord”, but changed mid-sentence, and overlooked it before posting. You can kindly disregard it; I believe in the personal, trinitarian God.

And no, I’m not confusing aesthetic with spiritual. Any genuine appreciation of existence is a spiritual matter, as it rightly affects the soul and directs man towards sharing in the life of God; from the truly orthodox theological perspective, this is coherent.

Whether or not you accept the theological tradition of the Church that began was birthed at the Pentecost, guided by the Holy Spirit, and founded on Christ with St. Peter as His earthly representative is a different story entirely.

 

[Spock]

Looking at the range of human possibility, from feral child to Saint, from couch potato to philosopher, I tend to agree with Mark Twain. I think it was he who said that “Man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal.” (and the only one that bares his teeth when happy, lol!) Man is moral, human even, by training in association with others who have inherited a way of coping with life and with each other. That way is called “morals” and is susceptible to codification.

Thank you for your whole post, with special emphasis on this last paragraph. Ah, the wit of Mark Twain!

 

[Sair]

***Originally Posted by Detales
**Looking at the range of human possibility, from feral child to Saint, from couch potato to philosopher, I tend to agree with Mark Twain. I think it was he who said that “Man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal.” (and the only one that bares his teeth when happy, lol!) Man is moral, human even, by training in association with others who have inherited a way of coping with life and with each other. That way is called “morals” and is susceptible to codification.

Spock: Thank you for your whole post, with special emphasis on this last paragraph. Ah, the wit of Mark Twain!
*

And indeed, the best of wit is that which makes us look at our assumptions in entirely different ways.