Moral Argument for the Existence of God

[Charlemagne_III]

I can understand your moral outrage about those things. And as you know, your list could be much longer through our rather vulgar history. Notably, you have avoided listing any of the incidents perpetrated by our own Church, that others not of the Faith would include in your list. Or perhaps those weren’t due to the influence of Satan? But it all merits a closer look.

Oh, Satan is everywhere.

I’m a little confusaed about how to proceed with you.

Under the label of Religion you have indicated “none declared.” But above you refer to “our own Church.” Which is it?

I cannot list everywhere the devil appears, but I know he is present among Catholics. Even though he cannot prevail against the Church, as Christ promised he would not, Satan can send a lot of smoke everywhere, including inside the Vatican.

The number of religions and the number of variations within the same religion is no proof that a natural law does not exist. Christ (and others) summed it up best when he said we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Love, not hate, is the natural moral law. Anyone who thinks hate is the natural moral law is usually in Satan’s camp. So at bottom it should be possible to derive all moral principles for good under the banner of the golden rule. Abortion, for example, is wrong, because it makes an enemy of the unborn, an enemy to be destroyed. Sodomy is wrong, because it perverts the natural act of love into a violent desecration of the mouth or the anus. Racism is wrong because if we were the object of racism the doer of it would have done something to us that he would not have wanted us to do to him. Etc. etc.

Doing good and avoiding evil is the natural law, but there are some who are pledged to do the opposite. There are some who are truly dedicated to evil. They are in Satan’s camp. The fact that the human race is pretty much divided between those in Christ’s camp and those in Satan’s camp is no argument in favor of the notion that there is no such thing as a natural law instituted by God for all of us to follow.

The clearest expression of that sense of natural law is embodied in the war crimes tribunals held to judge the war criminals of Germany for their crimes against humanity. “Judgment at Nuremberg” is a classic film whose plot lays out the premise of a natural and universal law governing all mankind that was violated with impunity by the Nazi war criminals.

 

[ynotzap]

Having faith in general is reasonable, we have faith naturally, we don’t question everything and everyone. We act with the idea that people in general are telling us the truth. If we don’t we are considered paranoid, a psychological disorder. If I for one (and I can safely assume others would do the same,) found my Catholic faith to be based on anything but the truth, I would reject it. Instead I have found it to be based on the truth. I realize my Faith is a gift from Jesus Christ. It’s been confirmed for me in ways that this forum is hesitant, or won’t allow because it could open the door,to some real forum problems. But I don’t need this particular witness to share the truth of my Faith. I know that the desire to know the truth is in our nature, even a liar doesn’t like to be lied to. The desire for happiness is in all of us, the desire for freedom is us, we will even die for it. Many people have died for the Catholic Christian Faith, there is the martyrology, a book naming these people an historical document.
The Bible is an historical document of the Jewish people. If one knew its contents, one would find that it is also a prophetical document. My Faith is on solid ground. I t also explains why evil exists in the world, and what the remedy for this evil is, and it works verified by people who experienced this human phenomenon.and supernatural phenomenon. We humans are attracted to fiction, and fantacy, not realizing that this attraction lies deep within our nature, a thirst for the divine (for which we were created) We pacify ourselves with so many distractions and illusions. We look for happiness and love in all the wrong places. I know that I can;'t pass on the Faith as some people believe, even among Catholic teachers. But we can pass on the truths of our Faith, they can be accepted or rejected, but thats what happened to Jesus Christ God-man, so why should we expect different. The Catholic Church is based on objective , universal truth, and it stands by her claim not because of human reason ( even though she is consistent with reason, but because of her founder Jesus Christ who promised He would be with her to the consummation of the world She in every way fulfills the principle of the moral law,

That whatever is objectively conducive to the well being of man is good, and right. (and I add- leads to true and eternal happiness.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Reasoning, no mater how astute, applied to parochial conjectures of any alleged god are properly called “rationalization.” That doesn’t mean any particular religion it isn’t helpful or harmful to its adherents, only that any religion is not properly derived as a matter of reason, but by conjecture (even from leading data,) inculcation, or personal preference. That is neither science or reasoning in a strict sense.

Either I don’t understand what you are talking about, or you are dead wrong.

The existence of God has always properly belonged to reasoned philosophical speculation.

The idea of creation and intelligent design have long been approached as philosophical questions.

Yes, one might adopt one religion as a matter of personal preference over another religion, but “personal preference” is no decider of whether a religion is true or false. Einstein, for example, personally preferred to believe the universe was infinite and eternal. Astronomers later succeeded in proving that his personal preference was wrong on both counts. The universe is finite and created.

Do we agree or disagree on the above?

 

[Sochi]

Either I don’t understand what you are talking about, or you are dead wrong.

The former is far more likely.

The existence of God has always properly belonged to reasoned philosophical speculation.

What I said, QED “Speculation.” You said it.

The idea of creation and intelligent design have long been approached as philosophical questions.

Yes, by speculators, as you defined above, who have some need to fill gaps not allowed by greater imaginations, insights, or tolerances.

Yes, one might adopt one religion as a matter of personal preference over another religion, but “personal preference” is no decider of whether a religion is true or false.

QED. And personal preference was not the only factor I listed: “…conjecture (even from leading data,) inculcation, or personal preference.” And the burden of proof is on the ones holding any particular religion as “true.” Who says any of them, due to innumerable factors, is “true?” In fact despite self labeling, you and I both know, and it is evident on here, that religion is completely interpretive. That is to say it is in the mind of the beholder/believer.

Einstein, for example, personally preferred to believe the universe was infinite and eternal.

Yes, I remember that quote. The whole thing goes: “The Universe and human stupidity are both infinite. But I am not sure about the Universe.”

Astronomers later succeeded in proving that his personal preference was wrong on both counts. The universe is finite and created.

I guess you can play with senses of the word “infinite.” But you have to be kind of making a very extreme statement of personal preference if you claim that astronomers as a group proved or even vaguely believe it was created.

Do we agree or disagree on the above?

As you read.

 

[Sochi]

Oh, Satan is everywhere.

If you make it so, then for you, yes.

I’m a little confusaed [sic] about how to proceed with you.

Yes, your spelling indicates that. But here, I use spell check religiously. Couldn’t spell my way out of a bag! LOL! Why worry about proceeding, and where would you proceed with me? We are just stating what our perception or experience is. I have no ax to grind with you, or have any intention of convincing you of anything. I’m powerless to do that.

Under the label of Religion you have indicated “none declared.” But above you refer to “our own Church.” Which is it?

I am a baptized Catholic who practiced for decades until something forced me to reassess everything, totally. So though I don’t practice, it is my understanding that in the eyes of the Church, due to my baptism, I am still a Catholic, whatever the status of my current belief. If I’m wrong, I’ll put that phrase in other words.

I cannot list everywhere the devil appears, but I know he is present among Catholics. Even though he cannot prevail against the Church, as Christ promised he would not, Satan can send a lot of smoke everywhere, including inside the Vatican.

That is an interesting thesis. As far as I can tell, “Satan” is a construct used to account for the vagaries of the immature human ego which hasn’t examined it’s own nature. In fact, ego itself has been, usefully, imho, labeled as Satan. It computes, given the subtext of the expulsion.

The number of religions and the number of variations within the same religion is no proof that a natural law does not exist.

Don’t believe I disputed that. I only mentioned that they exist. In fact I have argued that a natural law operates despite opinions, etc.

Christ (and others) summed it up best when he said we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Love, not hate, is the natural moral law. Anyone who thinks hate is the natural moral law is usually in Satan’s camp.

Well yes, due to your belief system, you must necessarily phrase it that way. I used to as well.

So at bottom it should be possible to derive all moral principles for good under the banner of the golden rule.

Yes, in one or another of its forms, in a manner of speaking.

Abortion, for example, is wrong, because it makes an enemy of the unborn, an enemy to be destroyed. Sodomy is wrong, because it perverts the natural act of love into a violent desecration of the mouth or the anus. Racism is wrong because if we were the object of racism the doer of it would have done something to us that he would not have wanted us to do to him. Etc. etc.

I agree and disagree. Too many worms in those cans to make a useful comment.

Doing good and avoiding evil is the natural law, but there are some who are pledged to do the opposite. There are some who are truly dedicated to evil. They are in Satan’s camp. The fact that the human race is pretty much divided between those in Christ’s camp and those in Satan’s camp is no argument in favor of the notion that there is no such thing as a natural law instituted by God for all of us to follow.

Yes, if you propose an objective right and wrong with impossibly divided categories under your belief system. Your division as to “Christ’s” and “Satan’s” camps are totally a structural function of your inculcated or adopted belief system, and not of a wider, more inclusive perspective. So, it works for you, internally, and with a few who agree with your terminology and limited dynamics of interpretation. But as with me, you will find that your lens is not adequate for all the colors of the spectrum, those all being part of the original Light. I mean each one of us is driven to account for our experience in some way, yes? However, some will find in their experience and agree with what someone else has put forth that seems to make sense. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just what we do. But the difference between a religious solution and the scientific method is that religion gives the air of finality to its paradigm. Science, to it’s foundation, knows that that its paradigm is ad hoc, given current understanding, and is willing to keep looking. In fact, it cannot stop. Religionists or politcals of any stripe, on the other hand, will take their belief system and cram round observably facts into their too small square holes.

The clearest expression of that sense of natural law is embodied in the war crimes tribunals held to judge the war criminals of Germany for their crimes against humanity. “Judgment at Nuremberg” is a classic film whose plot lays out the premise of a natural and universal law governing all mankind that was violated with impunity by the Nazi war criminals.

So you go to a film for clarity, not your religion. That is interesting. There’s hope then.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you make it so, then for you, yes.Yes, your spelling indicates that. But here, I use spell check religiously. Couldn’t spell my way out of a bag! LOL! Why worry about proceeding, and where would you proceed with me? We are just stating what our perception or experience is. I have no ax to grind with you, or have any intention of convincing you of anything. I’m powerless to do that.I am a baptized Catholic who practiced for decades until something forced me to reassess everything, totally. So though I don’t practice, it is my understanding that in the eyes of the Church, due to my baptism, I am still a Catholic, whatever the status of my current belief. If I’m wrong, I’ll put that phrase in other words.That is an interesting thesis. As far as I can tell, “Satan” is a construct used to account for the vagaries of the immature human ego which hasn’t examined it’s own nature. In fact, ego itself has been, usefully, imho, labeled as Satan. It computes, given the subtext of the expulsion. Don’t believe I disputed that. I only mentioned that they exist. In fact I have argued that a natural law operates despite opinions, etc.Well yes, due to your belief system, you must necessarily phrase it that way. I used to as well. Yes, in one or another of its forms, in a manner of speaking. I agree and disagree. Too many worms in those cans to make a useful comment.Yes, if you propose an objective right and wrong with impossibly divided categories under your belief system. Your division as to “Christ’s” and “Satan’s” camps are totally a structural function of your inculcated or adopted belief system, and not of a wider, more inclusive perspective. So, it works for you, internally, and with a few who agree with your terminology and limited dynamics of interpretation. But as with me, you will find that your lens is not adequate for all the colors of the spectrum, those all being part of the original Light. I mean each one of us is driven to account for our experience in some way, yes? However, some will find in their experience and agree with what someone else has put forth that seems to make sense. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just what we do. But the difference between a religious solution and the scientific method is that religion gives the air of finality to its paradigm. Science, to it’s foundation, knows that that its paradigm is ad hoc, given current understanding, and is willing to keep looking. In fact, it cannot stop. Religionists or politcals of any stripe, on the other hand, will take their belief system and cram round observably facts into their too small square holes. So you go to a film for clarity, not your religion. That is interesting. There’s hope then.

Good luck with your life … :sad_bye:

 

[ynotzap]

Intelligent design is a very scientific concept. The root meaning of the word science is taken from the Latin word “sciens” meaning"to know" True open science does not limit itself to knowledge of the empirical or the physical. There are mathematical truths, there are metaphysical truths. These truths are “extrinically” dependent upon the physical for our initial awareness of them because of our present mode of existence, the union of body and soul. Another obstacle to empirical science, they can’t explain how we know that we know, a feat impossible to the material world.

By the power of reasoning we go from the initial sense awareness of physical reality to the idea (is an idea physical or spiritual) Does it represent reality truly? How could it be physical if it represents eg. a tree. We can’t contain a tree in our minds But we admit that the idea of a tree is real and in accord with what we sense, we say it is objective truth We can go to deeper levels of comprehension such as metaphysics and still remain objective in our reasoning To some since their reasoning remains on the empirical level call this type of reasoning, semantics, conjectures, and opinions. Predjudice and bias are form of ignorance If the knowledge we gain from our objective and logically accurate reasoning, not our subjective reasoning about the physical world around us leads us to the knowledge of God’s existence is this “unscientific”? Isn’t the quest for knowledge, the minds quest for truth? A child asks “Why”, a scientist “Explores” We have Metaphysicians, Philosophers and Theologians in the Catholic Church they take care of the questions about how we can use our reason to prove the existence of God, on the rational level. They can also prove on a supernatural level that God is known, and can be known on a personal level, the Saints have proven this by the witness of their lives. In the rational field it remains " an argument, such as the metaphysical proofs of God’s existence from motion, dependence, order, grades of beings and origin using self-evident principles. Faith is a supernatural gift, and it can verify what we know about our material world.

 

[Sochi]

Good luck with your life … :sad_bye:

Thanks! Appreciate the good wishes. Doing very well. Best to you, too Appreciate your quote from Aquinas.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks! Appreciate the good wishes. Doing very well. Best to you, too Appreciate your quote from Aquinas.

You probably are already familiar, they don’t go away, you know that, in fact they come walking through your mind when unexpected. They bear witness to the good, thus an affirmation of both-the Truth. The entire tape is played back at the final judgment…instantly. This was my referral with near death, moment of death. Most already know this, they suppress it. There are no atheists, only people on various stages moving toward or away from the Church. Intelligence can indeed be a stumbling block with denial, but the Truth is “still” there. “Its written in your heart” Such goes my moral argument for Gods existence. Your a witness!!!

The Church is in your mind and heart, you wouldn’t be here otherwise. My prayers are with you. Don’t forget to pray.

Peace

 

[Sochi]

You probably are already familiar, they don’t go away, you know that, in fact they come walking through your mind when unexpected. They bear witness to the good, thus an affirmation of both-the Truth. The entire tape is played back at the final judgment…instantly. This was my referral with near death, moment of death. Most already know this, they suppress it. There are no atheists, only people on various stages moving toward or away from the Church. Intelligence can indeed be a stumbling block with denial, but the Truth is “still” there. “Its written in your heart” Such goes my moral argument for Gods existence. Your a witness!!!

The Church is in your mind and heart, you wouldn’t be here otherwise. My prayers are with you. Don’t forget to pray.

Peace

Yes, I look forward to the statements of others regarding Truth coming to me at unexpected times. They are always a joy and a perk. Are you implying I would want that to go away? I don’t think so.

The Church isn’t on my mind so much as my perceptions about the people who have their multitudinous impressions and concepts of what it is. As a former practicing Catholic I’m fascinated by the structure and nature of faith, and am on here rather than a Protestant or Muslim or Jewish board because Catholicism is most familiar to me, and given my background in studies of the faith, is more easily understandable than the others.

I don’t know how closely you read my posts, Gary, but you talk to me as if I am an atheist. I am not. Or am I missing something? And did you miss that I had an NDE? I’m kind of puzzled here with your adamant insistence on some points that may be applicable to some atheist, though I highly doubt it. As for your hypothesis regarding movement relative to the Church, I have to say that in reality, as far as I can perceive it, that is a diversion. I have no absolutely no doubt you mean very well, and are saying something true an meaningful in the best way you know how. I appreciate that.

Yes, the Truth is written in the Heart. And that is of interest far surpassing any minor interest in the Church as an institution. And yes, the witnessing function exists, and plays in what might be called the “particular judgement.” But it is not finally the Soul. And as for praying, if that is something “done” as opposed to being, it is only practice for what is yet to come. And what that is, is rather astonishingly wonderful.

Anyway, it seems that you are not paying much attention to what I’m really saying and are going off on some story about what you think I’m about because you don’t really know, or can’t figure, or don’t imagine. There are a lot of dots you are not connecting, and I can’t do it for you. Can’t blame you, as you have an agenda of proof. I don’t, because I can’t, for you. And I have no need to convince you of anything anyway. I’m just stating my experience freed from limits I had before my NDE, and which continued to be loosed after, even to this day. I’ve never been happier or more satisfied in my life, even with the monumental amount of work left to do. But that is what kind of makes it so exciting! This is a constant unfoldment of wonder and beauty.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I look forward to the statements of others regarding Truth coming to me at unexpected times. They are always a joy and a perk. Are you implying I would want that to go away? I don’t think so…

Can’t imagine how you concluded this?

The Church isn’t on my mind so much as my perceptions about the people who have their multitudinous impressions and concepts of what it is…

.
The apple didn’t fall far from the tree. Not “as-much” being the validation?

As a former practicing Catholic I’m fascinated by the structure and nature of faith,…

Yes you are.

and am on here rather than a Protestant or Muslim or Jewish board because Catholicism is most familiar to me,.

Of course it is.

and given my background in studies of the faith, is more easily understandable than the others…

Well of course that’s true also

I don’t know how closely you read my posts, .

Eh, pretty closely, your rather cryptic along with intellectual trivia. You can read it on this post.

Gary, but you talk to me as if I am an atheist. I am not. Or am I missing something?..

Your obviously missing something according to this very conversation? yes?

And did you miss that I had an NDE? I’m kind of puzzled here with your adamant insistence on some points that may be applicable to some atheist,…

You shouldn’t be puzzled at all at this point, your assuming I think your an atheist, I don’t believe in the concept. And no I didn’t read about your NDE perhaps that’s part of this dilemma also? My comments had nothing to do with your NDE experience. I’d love to read it though. In fact send it to me… PM. I was talking about something completely different.

As for your hypothesis regarding movement relative to the Church, I have to say that in reality, as far as I can perceive it, that is a diversion. have no absolutely no doubt you mean very well,…

Yes I meant well. As far as diversion, your losing me but there are apparently points missed by both of us safe to say. No biggie.

and are saying something true an meaningful in the best way you know how…

And your attempting to comprehend and communicate as best you can also. Amen.

I appreciate that…

Visa verse.

Yes, the Truth is written in the Heart. …

Yes it is

And that is of interest far surpassing any minor interest in the Church as an institution. And yes, the witnessing function exists, and plays in what might be called the “particular judgement.” But it is not finally the Soul. …

Depends how you see past-future in the present.

And as for praying, if that is something “done” as opposed to being, it is only practice for what is yet to come. And what that is, is rather astonishingly wonderful.

Its direct communication with God again as above in the present. The rest is cryptic again. You’ll have to elaborate clearly if you would like to communicate.

Anyway, it seems that you are not paying much attention to what I’m really saying and are going off on some story about what you think I’m about because you don’t really know, or can’t figure, or don’t imagine. …

I think its part of your defense mechanism. The way you communicate is intentional. Its illusive, cryptic and intentional. Then astonishingly you contend people are not listening to you? You are way out there with “assumptions”

There are a lot of dots you are not connecting, and I can’t do it for you. Can’t blame you, as you have an agenda of proof. I don’t, because I can’t, for you. …

Above post, perhaps its your not connecting the dots?

And I have no need to convince you of anything anyway…

Nor do I

I’m just stating my experience freed from limits I had before my NDE, and which continued to be loosed after, even to this day. I’ve never been happier or more satisfied in my life, even with the monumental amount of work left to do. …

Sorry I am unfamiliar with your experience, perhaps its where part of the issue is with your assumptions? I wasn’t talking NDE. I mentioned “abstract testing”.

But that is what kind of makes it so exciting! This is a constant unfoldment of wonder and beauty.

That you lived? Where do you think you were going if you were not returned? How long has this been now since this event? .

Listen to me carefully, I know your a lapsed Catholic, and I know “many” of them, they are not a mystery to me. That’s “why” the prayer intention. I knew it wouldn’t offend you. Sorry it confused you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hey Sochi, lets start here…

“NDE, and which continued to be loosed after, even to this day, even with the monumental amount of work left to do.”

Help me understand from here. How does your experience relate to the Church or you don’t think it does? What did your experience tell you, whats written in your heart from this experience? Whats the conviction in other words which allows you to continue to be loosed, what responsibility [work left to do] does this have since the general judgment was mentioned and in particular the particular?

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

I have friends who are avowed atheists from birth… Their arguments for being good on the simple basis of reciprocity are both sufficient and unassailable.

Reciprocity or conditional morality (“Be good to others, if they are good to you”) turns Jesus’ Golden Rule upside-down to make it read: ‘Do not as you would be done by others, but as you are done by them.’ Reciprocity is just Old Testament retributive justice disguised as mutual benevolence. Better than no morals at all, the old scriptures are certainly not the last word in morality.

In fact, Jesus taught just the opposite, i.e. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you… Love you enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you…” etc., etc. (Mat. 6:38-44).

The one categorical imperative is just a generalized version of the personal Golden Rule, and it is an object of reason which is true, not because God says it, but God says it because it is true. Whatever your moral maxims are, it is only rational that they apply to you and not just to others. The necessary “universality” of any maxim worthy of the name moral is widely recognized, and the differences among civilized cultures do not amount to anything like a fundamental disagreement with the universal moral law – “Act as you would have everybody act.”

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Sochi]

Reciprocity or conditional morality (“Be good to others, if they are good to you”) turns Jesus’ Golden Rule upside-down to make it read: ‘Do not as you would be done by others, but as you are done by them.’ …etc

Huh? Where did that come from???

 

[ynotzap]

You are baptized and you are an adopted child of God, you may be prodigal but still a son.

Quote “Satan is a construct used to account for vagaries of the immature human ego which hasn’t examined it’s own nature.” Quote Your judgement. Have you examined your own nature?
Satan or evil spirits, or fallen angels are very real. They are not the creation of the human imagination. Satan’s works are why Jesus Christ became man to destroy. I have experienced him, his control over me, not possession, just control over my voice, and I exorcised an evil spirit in the presence of priests, nuns, college students, and lay people more than once. I have witnesses. I can tell he has you trapped. How do you know your NDE is true? Did the experience bring you closer to Christ? Or did it make you question the Catholic faith? Were you ever converted to the Catholic faith? Many were baptized but not converted. Did you turn from sin and turn to Christ and accepted Him? Satan can appear as an angel of light, he is a liar, murder and deceiver. He imitates the Holy Spirit. What I am about to say is no way a judgement, but a discernment as to what spirit is active in your life, and actually all of us in some way. You are a victim of accidental pride, unknown to your self. You made a false and erroneous judgement when you denied the reality of Satan. For reasons I istated above. Again no judgement. St. Paul was also a victim when he persecuted Christians thinking he was right. Jesus had to “enlighten him, like all of us. We must work hard on the virtue of humility, it’s the foundation of all virtue. When we do and as we succeed we will see"more truth, more light”

 

[fnr]

It is for the highest theoretical and practical reasons of systematic unity that we will that the maxim of our actions should conform to a universal law. This objective moral law – the categorical imperative – is expressed personally in the Golden Rule; Do as you would be done by others. In regard to any action of moral significance, this rule prompts the personal question: “How would you like it if somebody did that to you?” In more general terms, the universal categorical imperative boils down to; Act as you would have everyone act, which suggests the universal question regarding the morality of any contemplated action: “What if everybody did that?”

I’m not at all convinced that Kant was a theist. A number of atheist web sites claim him as their own.

The one thing that I think Kant gets right is the notion that there is an ethical imperative to act on the basis of some maxim (or reason), which can be reduced to “being true to yourself.” However, his application of the Categorical Imperative is problematic.

The Categorical Imperative has its own problems as a universal standard for morality. It can very much be read as a matter of maximizing rational self-interest, which in itself is not a basis for good or evil. Don’t kill, so people don’t kill me or people I like. Don’t steal, so people don’t steal from me or from people I like. And so on…

I think Kant is off the mark when it comes to saying that experience or acting out of obligation to external rules cannot form the basis of morality. The cultivation of the moral sense – in an Aristotelian sense – is one of grasping for greater expression of one’s truest telos. The will and intellect certainly are involved in finding one’s vocation, the expression of which leads us to the good. What Kant gets wrong is that a moral sense can be cultivated on the basis of experience. The pleasure and pain of experience, as Kant argues, do not for a basis for personal morality in that it’s about self-interest. But that leads us back to the lack of grounding of universal morality in the Categorical Imperative.

God is pure action, pure creation, pure telos. It is in moving toward God that our greatest good is found. Teleology, to me, forms the core basis of the moral argument for God. Teleology is backed up by empirical (e.g. experiential) evidence. For example, that people need relationships to flourish.

 

[Sochi]

…Have you examined your own nature?..

Yes, I have. And I wasn’t zapped! And all that you say points to one underlying assumption: Anything I see or think can be the work of the alleged Satan. Including the Church and your exhortation. Good work.

 

[ynotzap]

I see that you need to be zapped by the Holy Spirit, just ask Jesus and join the gang.

 

[Sochi]

I see that you need to be zapped by the Holy Spirit, just ask Jesus and join the gang.

Thanks for your misplaced and misconstrued, though very well meaning. I’m sure, invite. I’ll pass.

 

[Sochi]

… The entire tape is played back at the final judgment…instantly. This was my referral with near death, moment of death…

Gary, I understood this to mean that you had experienced this as some have. Mine was a little different. I don’t talk about it to people who haven’t “been there.” I find that there is no useful referent for discussion unless there is experience in this. Sorry. All I can usefully say is that your insistence on a particular iteration of a death scene for atheists, or anyone, or your question about it, is too narrowly founded.

Help me understand from here. How does your experience relate to the Church or you don’t think it does? What did your experience tell you, whats written in your heart from this experience? Whats the conviction in other words which allows you to continue to be loosed, what responsibility [work left to do] does this have since the general judgment was mentioned and in particular the particular?

I can’t. From what I’ve read on here in some other threads, if I went there, it is likely I would be banned, despite that what I would say is completely congruent with my understanding of some of the great mystics of the Church. The Church, as far as I can tell, in general, and specifically on here, misunderstands some of its own. Even the “greats,” I have nearly no doubt, had to restrain themselves from speaking plainly on and from what they experienced and saw.

And while I’m convinced that in the original version, at the Masters feet, they would have had free reign, it was a very different story later. Perhaps if you look at Church history, you might understand a bit better about this, but likely not. So this is an exploration you will have to undertake yourself, if you wish. But you seem very comfortable where you are, so I definitely recommend against it. As one man said “The search for Truth is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your world.” I can attest that that is completely true. And since that happened, I’ve never been happier!

Nevertheless, if I spoke simply, plainly, and directly, I have very little doubt that censure would follow. Few enough have a clue as to what I’m saying anyway. But that is enough. I’m not here to convince anyone or whatever. But there are ideas that very much merit discussion, and some, from a more common frame of reference, get that and we do well. Thank you very much for your interest.

Loved the CT coast. Lived in Norwalk, worked in Stamford, Greewich, and Westport. Beautiful area. Sometimes I miss it!