Science knowldege religion bible

[rossum]

Someone in CAF, can’t remember who, makes me smile with their sig: 2 + 2 = 5 (for extremely large values of 2)

It is even better in ternary: 2 + 2 = 11

rossum

 

[inocente]

What does neuroscience mean? How our brains mysteriously self-upgraded themselves?

No, I mean it very differently. For example, looking at today’s new I spotted this:

Brain works more like internet than ‘top down’ company, BBC

If the findings are correct, and if they also apply to the human brain (both big ifs) it says that brains can never be understood in terms of physicality - an entirely different model will be needed, using an entirely different form of abstraction.

Meaning that even the brain of a rat is independent of the hardware – it exists in nature but cannot be explained by physics or biology.

What then of the human mind, and our souls?

Well, it brightened up my day anyway.

 

[inocente]

It is even better in ternary: 2 + 2 = 11

And 666 is 29A in hexadecimal

 

[buffalo]

And 666 is 29A in hexadecimal

Perfect - different ways of using symbols to convey the same thing. In each case though a key is needed. Symbols and language always come from a mind. The DNA language too.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is even better in ternary: 2 + 2 = 11 eossum

Science says 2 + 2 = 4

YEC says 2 + 2 = 6

Intelligent Design says let’s compromise: 2 + 2 = 5

 

[StAnastasia]

The answer was that, so long as they have never been taught the truth, they will be allowed to go to limbo. It’s a nice place, not heaven, with iron instead of gold plated faucets, but the water is still good. No, they don’t get to meet God.

Limbo sounds a lot closer to Hell than to Heaven. Poor unbaptized babies!

Does Hell have running water?

 

[buffalo]

Science says 2 + 2 = 4

YEC says 2 + 2 = 6

Intelligent Design says let’s compromise: 2 + 2 = 5

Terrible analogy. ID says there is 99.9999999% certainty that 2+2=4. It also states there is .00000000000001% certainty that 2+2=6.

 

[buffalo]

Limbo sounds a lot closer to Hell than to Heaven. Poor unbaptized babies!

Does Hell have running water?

Really now - don’t misrepresent the teaching - what it says is the child’s capacity to be satisfied will be complete. No pain, no torment - they will be happy.

 

[4Horsemen]

Really now - don’t misrepresent the teaching - what it says is the child’s capacity to be satisfied will be complete. No pain, no torment - they will be happy.

“Teaching?” What teaching? The Church has never had an official teaching on the existence (or lack of) of some illusory place called Limbo. The cathechism does not necessarily negate it, but it seems to smooth it over saying these poor children are in God’s hands. Here is what the catechism says:

However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261),

Below is a link to a lengthy article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Limbo.

Look under the heading “Limbus Infantium” which delineates the Church’s acceptance of the concept of Limbo pre-Augustinian, Augustinian, post-Augustinian and Thomistic. There’s a variety of thinking of the doctors of the Church. St. Ambrose considers original sin a tendency to evil rather than guilt in the general sense. However, it was St. Gregory Nazianzus who represents what the Greek fathers thought. Because of statements in the New Testament, such as what Our Lord said that men are born into this world in a state of sin, St. Gregory proposed a state of existence for children dying without baptism. However, Tertullian didn’t even think children should be baptised due to their innocense. But St. Augustine figured they had to suffer pains in hell however minor. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who initiated the idea that Limbo was a special place of happiness rather than penalty and suffering.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

 

[buffalo]

“Teaching?” What teaching? The Church has never had an official teaching on the existence (or lack of) of some illusory place called Limbo. The cathechism does not necessarily negate it, but it seems to smooth it over saying these poor children are in God’s hands. Here is what the catechism says:

However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261),

Below is a link to a lengthy article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Limbo.

Look under the heading “Limbus Infantium” which delineates the Church’s acceptance of the concept of Limbo pre-Augustinian, Augustinian, post-Augustinian and Thomistic. There’s a variety of thinking of the doctors of the Church. St. Ambrose considers original sin a tendency to evil rather than guilt in the general sense. However, it was St. Gregory Nazianzus who represents what the Greek fathers thought. Because of statements in the New Testament, such as what Our Lord said that men are born into this world in a state of sin, St. Gregory proposed a state of existence for children dying without baptism. However, Tertullian didn’t even think children should be baptised due to their innocense. But St. Augustine figured they had to suffer pains in hell however minor. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who initiated the idea that Limbo was a special place of happiness rather than penalty and suffering.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Well I was taught Limbo. But as I remember it was a somewhat uncertain teaching.

 

[greylorn]

How about the expansion of his love for He is the God of love; He is love, its origin and perfection? His love expands as the universe expands–for the purpose of an analogy. Of course, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, human reason can attain to the affirmation of the existence of one God, but only faith is able to attain to the mystery of the love of the Triune God.

Reply 1 of 2 to Post 93

In effect, you are proposing that God made humans to love him. That might fly if He had made them capable of doing so. Humans are more in love with themselves, their dogs and cats, and their nice houses and fast cars than they ever will be with God. However, humans do need God, which is why most cultures invent at least one. But let us not confuse need with love. They are two different mental states.

The faith of humans does not address the motivations of God.

As created beings, we have an innate desire to create things since we are made in the image of God. Parents try to mold their children, artists fashion their creations, etc. .

.

Molding a child is not creation. It is training the poor kid to be something like you, which he will never be, and will not want.

Go to an art museum. Half the junk you’ll find isn’t worth putting on your refrigerator door.

Only a very small portion of the human population is creative. Most people are content to dope their brains with drugs and pills, and to live on food stamps, welfare, or common thievery. Tune in Fox News and listen to Nancy Pelosi, Barry Soweto, and Harry Reid. The only creativity you’ll get out of our nation’s leaders are bigger, better, and increasingly outrageous forms of verbal nonsense.

Here’s where a discussion of free will comes in. God created us in His image and likeness, as understood in Scripture, and gave us the moral law, which is rooted in human nature. That’s true for both believers and nonbelievers. From this law, humans create positive law to form a just society. So we’re not like a bunch of little ants

Tell me more about just societies. Start with the world of Islam, where the approved punishment for a raped woman is death at the hands of her family members or husband. Maybe you should live with the Taliban awhile, or try to teach human rights to the Chinese. I wonder what world you are living in. When you turn on the TV, do you ever bother to watch balanced news, or just stick with “The Simpsons?”

Perhaps you should read the health care bill recently rammed down the throats of Americans protesting to no avail, before you preach about a just society.

I relayed already that “this intelligence” (we call God, right???) had to be perfect in every way–Perfection itself. Doesn’t that make sense?

No. Not one bit of sense.

The problem with the notion of “perfection” is that it means different things to different people. Typically, every religionist defines his God as perfect.

Generals Eisenhower and Patton, among others who have seen to this nations’ military duties, were not perfect, but they were honorable men. When they finally marched into Germany, they killed defending soldiers as needed, accepted surrenders, and did not abuse the citizens or defenders they encountered.

But suppose that you recently learned of a town in Germany which had fought hard enough to make Patton really mad, so he radioed Ike and got permission to murder every male soldier and citizen, including male children and babies. He also got an okay to turn his troops loose on the women, and cart those too young to be worth raping at the moment off into eventual white slavery. Suppose Patton or any U.S. general had done such a thing? How would you regard them?

Personally, I would regard any man who did such a thing as an evil, rotten, scumbag. I would regard any “god” who did such a thing in exactly the same way, and would die before worshiping him. My understanding of “perfection” clearly differs from yours.

Now, your assignment is to open your Bible and study up on the battle of Jericho, Kindly pay attention to the fate of its inhabitants, and the ordainer thereof. When you’ve finished that, you might be able to understand why, although I believe in a created universe, I also find the attributes which men have assigned to God to be completely inconsistent with His actions.

However, since those actions were also attributed to God by men, men with the arrogance to consider their own words to be divinely inspired (and where have we heard that before?), inconsistency is hardly a surprise.

 

[greylorn]

You seem to be talking about evolution. But who are the “engineers”? And who is the Boss Engineer???

Reply 2 of 2 to Post 7-93

Have you ever heard of God’s angels?

There are anomalies in nature and, certainly, imperfection, but that’s due to the existence of “original sin.” I know you don’t believe in the first rebellious, disobedient action which is rooted in all of human nature. As it is called, our human condition.

There are no anomalies in nature— just lots of interesting stuff which we do not understand, that is trying to tell the intelligent mind something about its creators.

I had mentioned inefficiencies in nature. For example, why do some single-celled critters have a much larger genome than human beings? (Not even the Darwinists have figured out a story to explain that one.)

How do you possibly connect original sin with inefficient engineering design? You are not thinking honestly on this subject.

What does the “human condition,” as you put it, conceivably have to do with the design of biological life forms? God is supposed to have done that, by your beliefs. Humans did not design so much as a cockroach.

You seem to be claiming that bad human behavior is an excuse for incompetent design on the part of God. Huh?

You seem to denigrate religion, if I’m not too obtuse.

And, what does you being obtuse, or not, have to do with my opinions towards religion?

I regard all beliefs which are held without reason to be suspect. Those held in the face of contrary evidence are worthless. All religions I know of except classicalBuddhism fall into both categories.

But I am fair minded about this. I denigrate human beings specifically and in general for consistently holding beliefs falling into the above categories. For example, Darwinists, whose beliefs are as out of line with reality as the religious beliefs I held, when younger. But Darwinists do something far worse than religionists, who merely declare their beliefs to be divinely inspired. Darwinists declare their beliefs to be scientific. That claim is absurd. That educated men should make it is not excusable.

So how do you propose that religion “regain its rightful place?”

Easy.

1. 
   *]Forget everything currently “known” about God. Scrap the attributes invented by Augustine and Aquinas.
   
   *]Forget everything written in any holy book pertaining to actions attributed to God.
   
   *]Give up the idea that God has inspired man to know his nature. Were that the case, we’d have one religion, and it would work.
   
   *]Upon discarding the bibles and dogmas of man, start reading the only Bible certain to have been written by God. That’s the physical universe.
   
   *]Stop giving up the interpretation of this excellent Bible to nitwit atheists. Do it yourself. That requires a hard science education, like physics, math, biology, neuroscience, etc.— so get one.
   
   *]Start with the premise that we live in a created universe, but forget all else.
   
   *]Forget the idea that there is only one creator.
   
   *]Forget the idea that man is a created entity.
   
   *]Start seriously studying the only true Bible from the perspective of open-minded ignorance.
   
   *]Seek your understanding of the creator’s nature and purpose in his known works.
   
   *]When some human rises up and begins to interpret this material according to God’s personal revelations, strap him in a rubber suit and put him in a padded cell.
   
   In even fewer words— use your own mind.

 

[greylorn]

4 and greylorn (and anyone else of course).

While not wanting to interrupt, what are your views on the following so as to better understand your positions. Thanks.

1. 
   *]Are there absolute truths and can we can we ever be 100% convinced that we have found them?
   *]Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God, the work of men with varying degrees of insight, or just a bit of history?
   *]When you look in a mirror do you see a sliver of the Divine, a child of God, just a colony of cells, etc.?
   *]Is Bonhoffer here arguing for a radical change in belief, or just trying to protect traditional religion from science, or is he way off the mark?
   
   
   …how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved. Dietrich Bonhoeffer​

1. 1. Yes, and yes.
   2. A little history, and a lot of made-up stuff. Also lots of stories which the Jews cribbed from more advanced cultures and stuck at the beginning of the Bible to make it look like the ideas were actually theirs.
   3. None of the above. An elucidation would be way too personal.
   How would anyone know what Bonhoffer was arguing for? He didn’t say— at least not here. I see no point in making something up, but might do so if it seemed relevant.
   
   I especially have no clue as to what he means about God being in retreat, mainly because the context of his comparison is vague and sloppy.
   
   I agree that we are to find God in what we know. Moreover, I encourage the acquisition of knowledge with the intent of applying it, at the most sophisticated level, to the understanding of God and His purposes.
   
   He lost me with his absurd statement, “God wants us to realize his presence.…” Bonhoffer does not know any more about God’s wants than I know what Bonhoffer was arguing for. Any man who implies knowledge of the wants of God, is, in my opinion, a pretentious fool. He and I would not get along.

 

[4Horsemen]

Reply 1 of 2 to Post 93

In effect, you are proposing that God made humans to love him. That might fly if He had made them capable of doing so. Humans are more in love with themselves, their dogs. . .

The faith of humans does not address the motivations of God.

God made humans to love and be loved. He loves us with an everlasting love and wants some recognition of that love in return. He wants us to love Him for creating us and all of the universe for our enjoyment and speculation, the natural world with its myriad forms of biological life, and our own ability to make use of creation. I shouldn’t say “create;” since only God can create, so I stand corrected. We do use the word loosely, though, to describe our own endeavors to bring ideas to fruition, including children. With our free will, we choose things and actions that are not good for us oft times, but He is there to catch us if we allow Him. His death gives us life, and more abundantly.

I agree that humans, in general, are “more in love with themselves, their dogs, their cats . . .” as you stated. They call on God (if at all) only during a time of crisis.

The “motivations of God?” Yes, as you said, “The faith of humans does not address the motivations of God.” Who are we that we should know the mind of God. Scripture tells us, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord . . .” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

.

Go to an art museum. Half the junk you’ll find isn’t worth putting on your refrigerator door.
Only a very small portion of the human population is creative. Most people are content to dope their brains with drugs and pills, and to live on food stamps, welfare, or common thievery. Tune in Fox News and listen to Nancy Pelosi, Barry Soweto, and Harry Reid. The only creativity you’ll get out of our nation’s leaders are bigger, better, and increasingly outrageous forms of verbal nonsense.

Children have their own free will and will eventually either go the way of their parents or find their own. Some kids have become Christian with atheistic parents, you know.

I went to an art museum recently. I must agree that some of what is called “art” is a waste. Mostly made for outrage. And I do listen to Fox News. Most of the conservative opinions I agree with.

Tell me more about just societies. Start with the world of Islam, where the approved punishment for a raped woman is death at the hands of her family members or husband. Maybe you should live with the Taliban awhile, or try to teach human rights to the Chinese. I wonder what world you are living in. When you turn on the TV, do you ever bother to watch balanced news, or just stick with “The Simpsons?”

Perhaps you should read the health care bill recently rammed down the throats of Americans protesting to no avail, before you preach about a just society.

A “just society” is an ideal. The U.S. with its Christian origins probably came closest, but, alas(!), I fear we are going astray from our roots. The world of Islam is a different story. Not having the fullness or understanding of the Triune God, some Islamic countries are falling under Sharia law, which oppresses not frees human beings.

I never watch “The Simpsons?” I find that an unusual question and somewhat condescending. Not that watching it would deprive me of my sense of right and wrong.

Even our Congress hasn’t read the over 2000 pages of the health care bill. Justice is hard to come by. Yet, we should still strive for it.

The problem with the notion of “perfection” is that it means different things to different people. Typically, every religionist defines his God as perfect.

Generals Eisenhower and Patton, among others who have seen to this nations’ military duties, were not perfect, but they were honorable men. When they finally marched into Germany, they killed defending soldiers as needed, accepted surrenders, and did not abuse the citizens or defenders they encountered.

But suppose that you recently learned of a town in Germany which had fought hard enough to make Patton really mad, so he radioed Ike and got permission to murder every male soldier and citizen, including male children and babies. . .

Huh? I would regard them the same as you. What does the machinations of evil men have anything to do with a just God?

Personally, I would regard any man who did such a thing as an evil, rotten, scumbag. I would regard any “god” who did such a thing in exactly the same way, and would die before worshiping him. My understanding of “perfection” clearly differs from yours.

Really? Explain further both your notion of “perfection” and your idea of mine.

Now, your assignment is to open your Bible and study up on the battle of Jericho,

However, since those actions were also attributed to God by men, men with the arrogance to consider their own words to be divinely inspired (and where have we heard that before?), inconsistency is hardly a surprise.

Assignment?
I already know about the battle of Jericho. That happened in B.C. before the time of Mercy–God gives us this opportunity to repent in the name of Jesus, so as St. Paul says, we are not under the law (as in the extensive dictates of OT times). The world was first being prepared for the coming of the King, but as the “Suffering Servant.”

Now for your assignment:

1. Attend Mass and wait for God to act and speak to you. But prepare your heart first. Humility is the key.
2. Read the New Testament first before the Old. All of it.
3. Read the biographies of the doctors of the Church and the great saints.
4. Open your heart and mind for love to enter. Love, truth and goodness (also, justice) come from the same source.

Many blessings,
4

 

[4Horsemen]

Reply 2 of 2 to Post 7-93

Have you ever heard of God’s angels?

Sure. Angels are spiritual beings created by God. They had no part in creation. I don’t believe you believe in angels. I think you boxed them up with the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, leprachauns and the rest.

There are no anomalies in nature— just lots of interesting stuff which we do not understand, that is trying to tell the intelligent mind something about its creators.

However, among all species, we can establish a particular norm, just as for homo sapiens. When we see something abnormal in nature, we know it is because it doesn’t conform to a definition of normalcy. For example, the two-headed person(s) born in China in the early part of the last century.

How do you possibly connect original sin with inefficient engineering design? You are not thinking honestly on this subject.

What does the “human condition,” as you put it, conceivably have to do with the design of biological life forms? God is supposed to have done that, by your beliefs. Humans did not design so much as a cockroach.

You seem to be claiming that bad human behavior is an excuse for incompetent design on the part of God. Huh?

Sorry, my explanation wasn’t precise, but I’m still learning. The “human condition” is a result of our tendency to choose evil over good, from the very first sin (called “original sin”) to all sins ever committed. Genesis opens with two different creation stories. We know that God created everything perfectly. . . He said after each design that it was “good.” The change in Paradise happened when his best specimans of creation used their gift of free will to “eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” (No apples, pears, dates. . .) They were tricked into thinking they could be like God. We know that in their pride, they rejected God, so that God had to call their attention to it, and that is the beginning of our present “human condition.” The garden of Eden was no more.

And, what does you being obtuse, or not, have to do with my opinions towards religion?

Nothing.

I regard all beliefs which are held without reason to be suspect. Those held in the face of contrary evidence are worthless. All religions I know of except classicalBuddhism fall into both categories.

But I am fair minded about this. I denigrate human beings specifically and in general for consistently holding beliefs falling into the above categories. For example, Darwinists, whose beliefs are as out of line with reality as the religious beliefs I held, when younger. But Darwinists do something far worse than religionists, who merely declare their beliefs to be divinely inspired. Darwinists declare their beliefs to be scientific. That claim is absurd. That educated men should make it is not excusable.

So. . . would evolution (Darwinism) be considered unscientific? Could you accept it as just another theory? Darwinists act like they discovered the Holy Grail of the origin of life.

I got a book I’m looking forward to reading up in the Northwoods on vacation in a couple days for the next three weeks. It titled, New Proofs for the Existence of God–Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer. You might want to check it out as well.

Another book I ordered is titled, The Evidential Power of Beauty–Science and Theology Meet by Thomas DuBay, S.M. I hope to read parts of each.

Easy.

1. 
   *]Forget everything currently “known” about God. Scrap the attributes invented by Augustine and Aquinas.

1. 
   Just reinvent the wheel, huh?
   

   *]Forget everything written in any holy book pertaining to actions attributed to God.

   But it’s at least a source.
   

   *]Give up the idea that God has inspired man to know his nature. Were that the case, we’d have one religion, and it would work.

   *]Upon discarding the bibles and dogmas of man, start reading the only Bible certain to have been written by God. That’s the physical universe.

   *]Stop giving up the interpretation of this excellent Bible to nitwit atheists. Do it yourself. That requires a hard science education, like physics, math, biology, neuroscience, etc.— so get one.

   *]Start with the premise that we live in a created universe, but forget all else.

   So how did we get here?
   

   *]Forget the idea that there is only one creator.

   *]Forget the idea that man is a created entity.

   So how many creators are there? What is man?
   

   *]Start seriously studying the only true Bible from the perspective of open-minded ignorance.

   *]Seek your understanding of the creator’s nature and purpose in his known works.

   *]When some human rises up and begins to interpret this material according to God’s personal revelations, strap him in a rubber suit and put him in a padded cell.

   In even fewer words— use your own mind.

   Not everybody can study the sciences so vigorously. So, therefore, only true scientists can know God?
   
   Are you here to convert Catholics? To believe in the universe as its own creation? Oh, what about those angelic beings?

 

[greylorn]

The “motivations of God?” Yes, as you said, “The faith of humans does not address the motivations of God.” Who are we that we should know the mind of God…

Unfortunately IMO, the faith of humans does address God’s motivations. Else the Catechism answer to, “Why did God create man?” would be an upfront, We don’t have a clue!

Children have their own free will and will eventually either go the way of their parents or find their own. Some kids have become Christian with atheistic parents, you know.

I went to an art museum recently. I must agree that some of what is called “art” is a waste. Mostly made for outrage. And I do listen to Fox News. Most of the conservative opinions I agree with.

A “just society” is an ideal. The U.S. with its Christian origins probably came closest, but, alas(!), I fear we are going astray from our roots. The world of Islam is a different story. Not having the fullness or understanding of the Triune God, some Islamic countries are falling under Sharia law, which oppresses not frees human beings.

I never watch “The Simpsons?” I find that an unusual question and somewhat condescending. Not that watching it would deprive me of my sense of right and wrong.

I am delighted to learn this about you, and take you at your word. The “Simpsons” crack came out of disappointment in you. I’d earlier formed an impression of someone young but interesting. Then you come along with a post which spoke of “just societies” as if such things actually existed. Usually people who make such statements are those who pay no attention to history or the real world.

So I retract my remark. Rather than apologize for it, I’d suggest that it stands as a reminder to you how important it is that your statements come from your personal knowledge and understanding, not from beliefs. That way others can take you for who you are, not what you believe.

If that doesn’t make sense, we can discuss it via PM.

Even our Congress hasn’t read the over 2000 pages of the health care bill. Justice is hard to come by. Yet, we should still strive for it.

“Even” our Congress? How about, ‘of course’ our Congress hasn’t read the Health Care Bill or much of anything else except their personal financial reports and some Donald Duck comic books.

Yes we should strive for justice. But let’s get real clear that we must strive for it if we want it because it has yet to exist on this planet, except in short flurries of isolated man-to-man interaction. Governments and societies can’t make good money on it.

Huh? I would regard them the same as you. What does the machinations of evil men have anything to do with a just God?

They are a lead-in to my Jericho request.

Really? Explain further both your notion of “perfection” and your idea of mine.

IMO: Perfection is an ideal and non-existent standard. Women expect it of their men, but don’t care to even approach it themselves because they are already perfect, in their opinion. Perfection is an attribute which every believer assigns to the God He believes in, and has nothing to do with what that God is alleged to have done. It is an ideal realized only in mathematical logic.

I’d guess that your notion of perfection is as described above for other believers.

Assignment?
I already know about the battle of Jericho. That happened in B.C. before the time of Mercy–God gives us this opportunity to repent in the name of Jesus, so as St. Paul says, we are not under the law (as in the extensive dictates of OT times). The world was first being prepared for the coming of the King, but as the “Suffering Servant.”

I do not believe that you really know the story. God ordered the death of all males, including children. Likewise old women. Other women were to be enslaved.

Now, I do not believe that God, the Creator of the Universe, ordered any such thing. Given Christ’s teaching about children, this would imply a significant change of attitude in a very short period of time. I do believe that human beings, the Hebrews, went on another bloodthirsty rampage, as humans are known to do, killing and murdering for loot and territory, then justified their butchery by declaring that God authorized it.

I personally refuse to believe that the Creator of the Universe would be morally inconsistent. And remember, I believe in a created universe.

Now for your assignment:

1. Attend Mass and wait for God to act and speak to you. But prepare your heart first. Humility is the key.
2. Read the New Testament first before the Old. All of it.
3. Read the biographies of the doctors of the Church and the great saints.
4. Open your heart and mind for love to enter. Love, truth and goodness (also, justice) come from the same source.

Many blessings,
4

Sorry, but I’ve been there, tried that. I used to serve mass. When I last attended my local Catholic Church I found it filled with illegal Mexicans pretending that they could understand a word of English spoken in the priest’s thick Ugandan accent. Their children were annoying and disruptive. Maybe God was speaking to them and they were talking back in Spanish. If God was speaking to me, it must have been in Ugandan and I missed it.

I’d previously made some 90 mile trips to the nearest city, to attend Midnight Mass. My lady friend assured me that the Church had changed. It had not. Being there was like going into a 40 year time warp, hearing the same old platitudes and requests for money. Disappointing. But the choir was awesome!

 

[greylorn]

Sure. Angels are spiritual beings created by God. They had no part in creation. I don’t believe you believe in angels. I think you boxed them up with the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, leprachauns and the rest.

I don’t believe in anything, but rather strive to invent (as in make up) theories about the origin of the universe and myself (you too) which are logically consistent, and also consistent with the solid laws of the universe. My theories include a concept very close to the traditional concept of angels.

Sorry, my explanation wasn’t precise, but I’m still learning. The “human condition” is a result of our tendency to choose evil over good, from the very first sin (called “original sin”) to all sins ever committed. Genesis opens with two different creation stories. We know that God created everything perfectly. . . He said after each design that it was “good.”

But He did not say that it was “perfect,” did He?

So. . . would evolution (Darwinism) be considered unscientific? Could you accept it as just another theory? Darwinists act like they discovered the Holy Grail of the origin of life.

They do that, don’t they? Darwinism is no more scientific than old-fashioned six-day creationism. Darwinist theories slipped through the cracks because religions had nothing better to offer.

I just finished a pair of book chapters which show Darwinism for the absurd theory it is. In the process, I calculated the probability for the evolution of a single, small human gene by the driving force of random changes to DNA, which came out to one chance in 10exp542.

Moreover, there are no theories which explain abiogenesis. Science mostly ignores this issue.

I got a book I’m looking forward to reading up in the Northwoods on vacation in a couple days for the next three weeks. It titled, New Proofs for the Existence of God–Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer. You might want to check it out as well.

Let me query you after you finish it. I will be interested to see if it contains any alternative ideas about the nature and purpose of God. Proving the existence of an entity which is poorly defined (IMO) does not seem relevant.

Be sure to pack mosquito repellent, ammonia, and anti-histamines on your August trip to the (Wisconsin?) northwoods. Been thereabouts, too.

Another book I ordered is titled, The Evidential Power of Beauty–Science and Theology Meet by Thomas DuBay, S.M. I hope to read parts of each.

No need. I’ve gazed through very large telescopes, and squinted into microscope eyepieces. I see beauty in orchids and wart hogs and concise mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena. I could write such a book, except that I’m not poetic enough. Thank you nonetheless.

Just reinvent the wheel, huh?

No. Invent an anti-gravity drive.

But it’s at least a source.

If it is a false source, it clouds the mind and inhibits alternative ideas.

So how did we get here?
So how many creators are there? What is man?

All worthy questions. The books you will be reading up north will prepare you to read mine.

Not everybody can study the sciences so vigorously. So, therefore, only true scientists can know God?

No man can “know” God. The best we can do is develop an understanding of His physical nature which is, at least, consistent with the best knowledge we are able to obtain, and then to modify our understanding as we develop better knowledge.

I believe that this level of understanding about God and creation is available to anyone with a competent mind.

Are you here to convert Catholics?

No. There is too much good in fundamental Christianity that I would invite those who know that good to find something else. I’m here to convert atheists, or at least get in some practice at it. Hard to do, since the atheists who post here are rather dull.

I’m also here to learn, and have benefited considerably from this excellent website, through those I’ve been able to engage.

In the process, I have apparently been helpful to a few who were on the cusp of disbelief by offering a science-based alternative.

I also use the CAF as a source of serious conversation, in the absence of physical friends or acquaintances with the mind for such things. In the process, new ideas have appeared.

To believe in the universe as its own creation?

No. That’s Big Bang and Darwinism, both absurd.

Oh, what about those angelic beings?

Should you ever read my stuff, expect to appreciate them.

 

[Big_Dummy]

where does common sense come from? Book of Proverbs or ???

 

[davidv]

where does common sense come from? Book of Proverbs or ???

It comes from the Law of God written on our hearts.

 

[4Horsemen]

So I retract my remark. Rather than apologize for it, I’d suggest that it stands as a reminder to you how important it is that your statements come from your personal knowledge and understanding, not from beliefs. That way others can take you for who you are, not what you believe.

May I respectfully suggest that one’s beliefs are a part of the person you are. How can you untangle what is belief from knowledge and understanding. IMO, beliefs are formed through the understanding of the body of knowledge a person acquires in life.

BTW, with the little time I have before dropping out of CAF for awhile during vacation, I’ll try to discuss some of the issues brought up, but I can’t get to everything.(Busy family life).

Yes we should strive for justice. But let’s get real clear that we must strive for it if we want it because it has yet to exist on this planet, except in short flurries of isolated man-to-man interaction. Governments and societies can’t make good money on it.

Justice flourishes with the virtues. Our democracy is based on justice, but you can see that so many injustices are committed (by men and women lacking in virtue).

Quote from John Adams:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

They are a lead-in to my Jericho request.

I did re-read the book of Joshua, Chapter 6. You must consider that God was working with tribal people who had no home and allowed their invasion of Jericho. He is Lord of life and death. At the time, He was preparing the children of Israel for the coming of the Savior. Also, He chose the Jewish race because they were the most despised among the nations. He sent His Son to be a servant and teach the law of love. (Hopefully, some brilliant theologians on CAF would explain this better).

IMO: Perfection is an ideal and non-existent standard. Women expect it of their men, but don’t care to even approach it themselves because they are already perfect, in their opinion. Perfection is an attribute which every believer assigns to the God He believes in, and has nothing to do with what that God is alleged to have done. It is an ideal realized only in mathematical logic.

I’d guess that your notion of perfection is as described above for other believers.

Mathematics is God’s handwriting. My idea of perfection is an absolute quality that can only be reached in a very limited way as imperfect human beings. But the idea is to stay on track and attempt to be perfect. As Jesus tells us, “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (There are a bunch of refs. if you have a concordance to the Bible).

I do not believe that you really know the story. God ordered the death of all males, including children. Likewise old women. Other women were to be enslaved.

Now, I do not believe that God, the Creator of the Universe, ordered any such thing. Given Christ’s teaching about children, this would imply a significant change of attitude in a very short period of time. I do believe that human beings, the Hebrews, went on another bloodthirsty rampage, as humans are known to do, killing and murdering for loot and territory, then justified their butchery by declaring that God authorized it.

I personally refuse to believe that the Creator of the Universe would be morally inconsistent. And remember, I believe in a created universe

Again, it’s the difference in the Old Testament way of thinking as compared to the New Testament which is the Law of Love: to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, strength and our neighbor as ourselves. God is working in human history. All we can do is trust that He will bring to fruition all He has begun.

Sorry, but I’ve been there, tried that. I used to serve mass. When I last attended my local Catholic Church I found it filled with illegal Mexicans pretending that they could understand a word of English spoken in the priest’s thick Ugandan accent. Their children were annoying and disruptive. Maybe God was speaking to them and they were talking back in Spanish. If God was speaking to me, it must have been in Ugandan and I missed it.

I’d previously made some 90 mile trips to the nearest city, to attend Midnight Mass. My lady friend assured me that the Church had changed. It had not. Being there was like going into a 40 year time warp, hearing the same old platitudes and requests for money. Disappointing. But the choir was awesome!

How do you want the Church to change? I know people who would like the Church to go back to the Traditional Latin Mass. (I attend here and there. It’s been said that it’s the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven). I’d take the Ugandan priest at our parish which has no priest anymore, just a deacon and circuit-riding priests for the 2-parish system with a school to top it!

All churches need a collection to help support them. They have bills too.
So IMHO, I hope you will give the Catholic Church another chance. Let’s disregard the negative things (there are plenty) and think only of God’s Third Commandment to keep holy the Lord’s day. It’s a time for the community to come together for group worship. That’s just as important as individual worship.

Many blessings,
4