T
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is the question of God's existence the most important question of your life?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
But you didn’t “discover” that. That’s like me saying I discovered there’s no sun.I know lots of people who are convinced they have discovered the reality of God but whose reactions are not in any significant way different from mine.
BTW I was born and raised Catholic and my discovery that God doesn’t exist has not really changed my life at all.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
YES! When I go to church I show up an half hour late. Why? Because at 10:30 AM the sermon starts. I do not care for the singing and ritual.
It is important to make people do good and I contribute to charities generously. However, that is preaching to the choir. I already know what God wants. I want to know about God. Unfortunately, most sermons (even at my church) are about what God wants and how you can profit by that knowledge (enter heaven and avoid hell).
Luke 12:31
In other words (like that country song, to know me is to love me) if one knows God one will be righteous!
It is important to make people do good and I contribute to charities generously. However, that is preaching to the choir. I already know what God wants. I want to know about God. Unfortunately, most sermons (even at my church) are about what God wants and how you can profit by that knowledge (enter heaven and avoid hell).
Luke 12:31
In other words (like that country song, to know me is to love me) if one knows God one will be righteous!
W
wittgenstein
Guest
That is why I concentrate my spiritual research on the mathematical understanding of infinity and the philosophical understanding of BEING (Aquinas )!
R
R_C
Guest
Oh, truly so? If you could pm me with the evidence for God’s nonexistence, I will appreciate it. If God truly doesn’t exist, there is no point in me believing in Him.my discovery that God doesn’t exist
Then of course, I’ll share the evidence that I have of God’s existence - though for a nonbeliever no amount of empirical evidence is sufficient evidence.
R
R_C
Guest
(Off-topic warning - this post and next post diverge from original question to respond to wittgenstein.)
If the sermon was all that matters, then Christ would not have broken the bread and said: “Do this in memory of me.” Instead He would have said: gather together to proclaim my words to one another, or something similar.
The Bible and Christianity are full of traditions and rituals and exhortations to sing to the Lord.
continued…
That’s because you ignore the meaning behind liturgy, as well as its divine origin. You probably have a hard time understanding why would Christ put mud and spit on the eyes of a blind man to heal him, or why would He drop on His knees and say out loud: “I praise you in public, Father!”.When I go to church I show up an half hour late. Why? Because at 10:30 AM the sermon starts. I do not care for the singing and ritual.
If the sermon was all that matters, then Christ would not have broken the bread and said: “Do this in memory of me.” Instead He would have said: gather together to proclaim my words to one another, or something similar.
The Bible and Christianity are full of traditions and rituals and exhortations to sing to the Lord.
Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing! (Psalm 100)
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. (Mark 14)
About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them (Acts 16)
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Colossians 3:16)
As for the liturgy, this word means literally public work or public service. Christians came to employ the term for their system of worship, rich in sacred and secular meanings. For Christians, sacred liturgy was the public service owed to God and rendered by the Church on behalf of itself and of the world. At root this service was twofold. It consisted of thanksgiving and supplication: thanksgiving for a world created and redeemed through the Messiah and intercession through the same Messiah on behalf of a world not yet fully redeemed.Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart (Ephesians 5:19)
continued…
R
R_C
Guest
continued.
In Apostolic times, the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. Ceremonies, at first, were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to be done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, even when there was no fixed Liturgy, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches.
Something very like a regulated Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental outline of the rite of the Holy Eucharist was given by the account of the Last Supper. So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus of a Liturgy.
But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. The holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering “Amen” in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests.
the service crystallized into more or less set forms from the beginning. In the first half the alternation of lessons, psalms, collects, and homilies leaves little room for variety. For obvious reasons a lesson from a Gospel was read last, in the place of honour as the fulfilment of all the others; it was preceded by other readings whose number, order, and arrangement varied considerably. A chant of some kind would very soon accompany the entrance of the clergy and the beginning of the service. We also hear very soon of litanies of intercession said by one person to each clause of which the people answer with some short formula. The place and number of the homilies would also vary for a long time. It is in the second part of the service, the Eucharist itself, that we find a very striking crystallization of the forms, and a uniformity even in the first or second century that goes far beyond the mere nucleus described above.
We have already in the New Testament all the essential elements that we find later in the organized liturgies: lessons, psalms, hymns, sermons, prayers, consecration, communion.
In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual.
From about the fourth century our knowledge of the Liturgy increases enormously. We have definite rites fully developed. The more or less uniform type of Liturgy used everywhere before crystallized into four parent rites from which all others are derived. The four are the old Liturgies of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Gaul.
Then, after 1500 years, came forth “protestantism”, and with it, the antiliturgical heresy.
The basic tenet of this heresy is rejection of tradition as found in the formulas used in divine worship. A corollary to this is the substitution of the formulas of ecclesiastical teachings with readings from Scripture.
This involves two advantages: first, to silence the voice of Tradition. Then, propagation and support of error by affirmation and negation. By negation, in passing over in silence the texts which express doctrine opposed to errors they wish to propagate; by affirmation, emphasizing truncated passages which show only one side of the truth, hide the other the eyes of the unlearned.
In short: no ecclesiastical formulas, only Holy Scripture, but interpreted, selected, presented by the person or persons who are seeking to profit from innovation.
The final tenet of the antiliturgical heresy is the vindication of the “rights of antiquity”, the absurd pretension of going back to the primitive. To this end, they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.
The direct consequence of this heresy has been the destruction of the sacred. No more Sacraments, sacramentals, blessings, images, relics of Saints, processions, pilgrimages. No more altar, only a table, no more sacrifice, but only a meal. No more church but only a temple, as with the Greeks and Romans.
The suppression of the mystical element was bound to produce, infallibly, the total extinction of the spirit of prayer, substituted with a passable expression of respect or fear, with the pride of men who do not need of intercessors. And, at last, the final blow: the destruction in fact and in principle of all priesthood.
Thus, I am not surprised that you only care about the homily, while a devout Catholic could arrive half an hour or an hour early to pray the Matins (public prayer) and the Rosary (private prayer) and dwell in contemplative prayer before the Blessed Sacrament or the Tabernacle, then go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation to be properly disposed for the divine mysteries, and finally, after attending the entirety of the Mass, he may remain for at least half an hour more giving thanks and rejoicing in Christ.
In Apostolic times, the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. Ceremonies, at first, were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to be done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, even when there was no fixed Liturgy, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches.
Something very like a regulated Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental outline of the rite of the Holy Eucharist was given by the account of the Last Supper. So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus of a Liturgy.
But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. The holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering “Amen” in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests.
the service crystallized into more or less set forms from the beginning. In the first half the alternation of lessons, psalms, collects, and homilies leaves little room for variety. For obvious reasons a lesson from a Gospel was read last, in the place of honour as the fulfilment of all the others; it was preceded by other readings whose number, order, and arrangement varied considerably. A chant of some kind would very soon accompany the entrance of the clergy and the beginning of the service. We also hear very soon of litanies of intercession said by one person to each clause of which the people answer with some short formula. The place and number of the homilies would also vary for a long time. It is in the second part of the service, the Eucharist itself, that we find a very striking crystallization of the forms, and a uniformity even in the first or second century that goes far beyond the mere nucleus described above.
We have already in the New Testament all the essential elements that we find later in the organized liturgies: lessons, psalms, hymns, sermons, prayers, consecration, communion.
In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual.
From about the fourth century our knowledge of the Liturgy increases enormously. We have definite rites fully developed. The more or less uniform type of Liturgy used everywhere before crystallized into four parent rites from which all others are derived. The four are the old Liturgies of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Gaul.
Then, after 1500 years, came forth “protestantism”, and with it, the antiliturgical heresy.
The basic tenet of this heresy is rejection of tradition as found in the formulas used in divine worship. A corollary to this is the substitution of the formulas of ecclesiastical teachings with readings from Scripture.
This involves two advantages: first, to silence the voice of Tradition. Then, propagation and support of error by affirmation and negation. By negation, in passing over in silence the texts which express doctrine opposed to errors they wish to propagate; by affirmation, emphasizing truncated passages which show only one side of the truth, hide the other the eyes of the unlearned.
In short: no ecclesiastical formulas, only Holy Scripture, but interpreted, selected, presented by the person or persons who are seeking to profit from innovation.
The final tenet of the antiliturgical heresy is the vindication of the “rights of antiquity”, the absurd pretension of going back to the primitive. To this end, they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.
The direct consequence of this heresy has been the destruction of the sacred. No more Sacraments, sacramentals, blessings, images, relics of Saints, processions, pilgrimages. No more altar, only a table, no more sacrifice, but only a meal. No more church but only a temple, as with the Greeks and Romans.
The suppression of the mystical element was bound to produce, infallibly, the total extinction of the spirit of prayer, substituted with a passable expression of respect or fear, with the pride of men who do not need of intercessors. And, at last, the final blow: the destruction in fact and in principle of all priesthood.
Thus, I am not surprised that you only care about the homily, while a devout Catholic could arrive half an hour or an hour early to pray the Matins (public prayer) and the Rosary (private prayer) and dwell in contemplative prayer before the Blessed Sacrament or the Tabernacle, then go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation to be properly disposed for the divine mysteries, and finally, after attending the entirety of the Mass, he may remain for at least half an hour more giving thanks and rejoicing in Christ.
B
belorg
Guest
I am not an inanimate objectPurposeful activity is based on hindsight, insight and foresight, all of which inanimate objects lack.
B
belorg
Guest
Yes, I did discover that. And I haven’t discovered that there is no sun yet.But you didn’t “discover” that. That’s like me saying I discovered there’s no sun.
L
Love4All
Guest
I see the basis of your indifference.If God exists, nobody goes to hell.
Can you support your thesis, though?
Or is this another case of, “you didn’t understand my argument?”
B
belorg
Guest
Maybe there is a point. Maybe believing in God makes your life easier or something.Oh, truly so? If you could pm me with the evidence for God’s nonexistence, I will appreciate it. If God truly doesn’t exist, there is no point in me believing in Him.
Just like for a believer no amount of evidnece against God will be sufficient.Then of course, I’ll share the evidence that I have of God’s existence - though for a nonbeliever no amount of empirical evidence is sufficient evidence.
B
belorg
Guest
If God exists then He is Love4All and Love4All has no room for a terrible place/condition like hell.I see the basis of your indifference.
Can you support your thesis, though?
Or is this another case of, “you didn’t understand my argument?”
D
D_Martin
Guest
If one is an atheist probably so. If one already believes there is a God, the question might not be, is there a God, but how does one know God if one doesn’t know God already.Should it be? Why or why not?
R
R_C
Guest
Maybe there is a point. Maybe believing in God makes your life easier or something.
Belief in God means that I am called to put aside all selfishness and step out of each end every comfort zone, in order to dedicate my very existence for the sake of those who are in need, and being willing to embrace suffering and self-sacrifice for the sake of people who by all standards are strangers to me and may even dislike or hate me. I don’t know if that’s easier than not believing in God. You tell me.
Just like for a believer no amount of evidnece against God will be sufficient.
**It is kind of hard, when you have met someone, to believe that he doesn’t exist.
It’s quite much simpler to show that the person exists to he who has not met him, than to convince the one who met him that he doesn’t exist.
Also I may be humble enough to bear the idea that maybe I am missing something, that maybe I am not seeing something…but once I have seen something and have also been able to establish the logical soundness and reasonableness of the existence of that something (sort of like meeting someone and also checking his ID, so to speak), I would have to consider that I am not only missing something, but that I am in fact insane, for what I saw and established as reasonable, I am told it is not there and it is unreasonable.
Then again: I have seen plenty of evidence of God’s existence. If you have any of God’s nonexistence, I sincerely am interested in learning. I am not and never will be closed to the possibility that I am wrong and delusional. **
L
Love4All
Guest
Hell is defined as self-exclusion from God. So it seems you are saying that Love would never allow anyone to voluntarily exclude themselves. Then, Love is not free, but forced. How, then, can it be Love?If God exists then He is Love4All and Love4All has no room for a terrible place/condition like hell.
L
Love4All
Guest
To see the sun is easy, you just look in the sky on a sunny day. Where did you look for God, that you have verified His non-existence?Yes, I did discover that. And I haven’t discovered that there is no sun yet.
W
wcknight
Guest
It’s impossible to discover that:Yes, I did discover that. And I haven’t discovered that there is no sun yet.
First off have you look in every possible corner of the universe ??? then have you looked into every possible dimension expecially the spiritual realm ??? across all time periods ???
odds are you haven’t even reached beyond your little narrow plane of existence or your own life span… my guess is that you really have not looked at all !!
I’d advise you to read " PRoof of Heaven" by neuro surgeon Dr Eben Alexander and The Boy who Met Jesus" by Immaculee ILBAGAZIA
R
R_C
Guest
You more than anyone, given your username and religion, must know that love is on one side something we give and receive, on the other side a “shared property”.Hell is defined as self-exclusion from God. So it seems you are saying that Love would never allow anyone to voluntarily exclude themselves. Then, Love is not free, but forced. How, then, can it be Love?
Here’s what I mean:
X loves Y of unconditional love - where the premise, unconditional, means that X loves Y regardless of whether or not Y loves X.
Y also loves X, though he is unable, due to many imperfections, to love of unconditional love. However, they love each other, and thus long to remain together and be united forever.
Now suppose Y starts doing things that injure X. Suppose that Y decides that X doesn’t love him, or that X doesn’t care about him enough, or that X is not giving him enough. In short: suppose that Y refuses to love X. X will still love Y, but Y has excluded himself from the loving relationship.
There is no point in X holding a lamp in the darkness, if Y closes his eyes. Y will find himself in a self-imposed darkness, though light shines all around him.
R
R_C
Guest
I looked at Him in the Eucharist, and from the moment of that mystical encounter I was able to see Him in the clouds, in the plants, in the eyes of a parent, of a child, of a loved one, of a homeless man, of a hospital patient, in the words of the Scripture, in the words of a poem, in an icon of a man dying on a cross, in the ceiling of my room as I wake up, in a photograph of space, in the reconstruction of a molecule…how can you look at all of that and not recognize the masterpiece of the divine intellect, but instead think that it is the random product of chaos? And, ultimately, do you truly believe that everything comes from nothing?To see the sun is easy, you just look in the sky on a sunny day. Where did you look for God, that you have verified His non-existence?
L
Love4All
Guest
What are you saying? Did you mean to give me a better definition of hell than “definitive self-exclusion from God?”You more than anyone, given your username and religion, must know that love is on one side something we give and receive, on the other side a “shared property”.
Here’s what I mean:
X loves Y of unconditional love - where the premise, unconditional, means that X loves Y regardless of whether or not Y loves X.
Y also loves X, though he is unable, due to many imperfections, to love of unconditional love. However, they love each other, and thus long to remain together and be united forever.
Now suppose Y starts doing things that injure X. Suppose that Y decides that X doesn’t love him, or that X doesn’t care about him enough, or that X is not giving him enough. In short: suppose that Y refuses to love X. X will still love Y, but Y has excluded himself from the loving relationship.
There is no point in X holding a lamp in the darkness, if Y closes his eyes. Y will find himself in a self-imposed darkness, though light shines all around him.
The souls in hell are unlovable. God does not love them, because they are unlovable. They have rendered themselves unlovable by their own choice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.