What is your favorite proof for God?

[donsnow]

Hello, again, graylorn,

I did some thinking and came back to address your opinion about energy, but I was to late to edit my previous post.

You say that energy cannot be created, in a fruitless attempt to remove the concept of our Creator. If what you say is true, then energy was not created, if it cannot be created. Which means, energy always was, is now and always will be. However, astronomers, cosmologists and physicists all have shown ample evidence that our universe has a beginning. If and only if energy cannot be created and therefore was not created, then our universe has no beginning. However, reputable scientists from the above three disciplines of science show evidence that our universe has a beginning. Ipso facto, energy was not always here. The evidence shows that there is a beginning to energy and thus a beginning to creation and therefore a Creator. imho.

Just wanted to address your opinion.

 

[lemondiesel]

Hello, again, graylorn,

I did some thinking and came back to address your opinion about energy, but I was to late to edit my previous post.

You say that energy cannot be created, in a fruitless attempt to remove the concept of our Creator. If what you say is true, then energy was not created, if it cannot be created. Which means, energy always was, is now and always will be. However, astronomers, cosmologists and physicists all have shown ample evidence that our universe has a beginning. If and only if energy cannot be created and therefore was not created, then our universe has no beginning. However, reputable scientists from the above three disciplines of science show evidence that our universe has a beginning. Ipso facto, energy was not always here. The evidence shows that there is a beginning to energy and thus a beginning to creation and therefore a Creator. imho.

Just wanted to address your opinion.

I just want to add a few things.

Many physicist do not believe energy was created. In a sense, it always has been, but the energy came in and out of existence until the point of the Big Bang Theory.

Watch “A Universe from Nothing” if you want to get more insight on this subject.

 

[greylorn]

Sorry but the wolves don’t have any teeth. Getting rid of Christianity will no more work today than it did when Rome tried eliminating Christianity through the persecutions. The more difficult it becomes for Christians the stronger their faith becomes. It has been that way since the beginning.

I genuinely hope that you are correct. However, consider a few things…

Historically, religions, like nations and political systems have come and gone, and often for interconnected reasons. Generally, what happens is that nations become successful, then overconfident, imagining themselves to be unbeatable. Then they get soft, while leaner and tougher nations make sacrifices and prepare themselves for the coming takeover. (e.g. the U.S. vs. China)

Political systems, likewise. This morning I listened to a newsman asking a Republican congressman why, after the Republican congressional victories in 94, did they so quickly fail to deliver on the promises that got them elected? He dodged, hemmed and hawed, mouthing the kind of dimwitted platitudes certain to guarantee another defeat.

Your attitude expresses a similar overconfidence about Christianity.

Religions have been supplanted by better religions. Christianity won’t go away, just like paganism, Druidism, Wicca, and Zoroastrianism are still hanging around. It will simply become ineffectual and tiny. Here’s a nice pie chart ovc.edu/peppercenter/survey/world_demo.htm#popgraph
showing the percentage of believers of different religions. Note that Judaism, supplanted by Christianity, now warrants nary a sliver. There are more Sikhs than Jews. Statistics I’ve read elsewhere show atheism and Islam as the fastest growing religions.

The Catholic Church is losing is best people, and I suspect that other Christian churches are performing similarly. I was raised in a devoutly Catholic family, and of five kids, one became a born-again evangelist, three have left the Church for nothing in particular, and then there’s me. Every one of the four Catholic grade schools I attended has been closed for lack of staff. Christian churches in the U.S. are actively recruiting illegal Mexican aliens by promoting sanctuary and amnesty. As the Catholic population in third world countries increases, the Church forbids birth control, insuring more kids whose parents cannot afford them a good education. Churches appears to be stocking their pantries with beans and rice to fill the spaces once occupied with more interesting foods.

Years ago, I was taught by Norbertines, a fine teaching order of intelligent, well educated priests. Yet, my school had to farm out its math and science teaching jobs to lay teachers for lack of Norbertines who understood those rigorous subjects, Now, my local Catholic church is pastored by a Ugandan peasant, a nice man whose accent is so thick that I cannot understand him. Since about half the parish consists of illegals who only speak Spanish, it doesn’t matter much so long as the coffers get filled.

St. Gerard’s Church, closed by the diocese of Buffalo NY in 2008 for lack of attendance, is being moved to Peachtree Corners, Georgia at a cost of 15 million dollars. (For an organization which regularly complains that rich nations are not doing enough for the world’s poor, isn’t moving an edifice a peculiar use of its own wealth?) The Northeast United States, once strongly Catholic, has failed to keep its children, unable to compete with atheistic education. Is moving an edifice to a place where the people work hard but don’t get college degrees a real solution? Is encouraging the influx of people who don’t have grade school educations but are Christian and prolific, a wise, long term choice?

I know that it is not politically correct to speak some of these things. I mean no offense by writing the truth, but I once adored the Church and believed in everything it stood for. Now I cannot determine exactly what it stands for, and really hope that whatever it may be, it is more than its own perpetuation.

 

[greylorn]

Hello, again, graylorn,

I did some thinking and came back to address your opinion about energy, but I was to late to edit my previous post.

You say that energy cannot be created, in a fruitless attempt to remove the concept of our Creator. If what you say is true, then energy was not created, if it cannot be created. Which means, energy always was, is now and always will be. However, astronomers, cosmologists and physicists all have shown ample evidence that our universe has a beginning. If and only if energy cannot be created and therefore was not created, then our universe has no beginning. However, reputable scientists from the above three disciplines of science show evidence that our universe has a beginning. Ipso facto, energy was not always here. The evidence shows that there is a beginning to energy and thus a beginning to creation and therefore a Creator. imho.

Just wanted to address your opinion.

Being more thoughtful than your first reply, this one deserves consideration.

I pay attention to just enough pop-science to understand where you come from, as that seems to be your only source of physics-related information. Better that than none, but do be aware that popular science contains a mixture of junk and speculative science, glued together with just enough honest information to give it credibility. Carl Sagan turned to broadcasting because he could not cut it as a research astronomer.

It is really not possible to understand physics without mathematics, and real life textbook problem solving. Nonetheless, even an honest outside interest in the subject is more than most people are willing to obtain. But don’t put yourself in the position of quoting pop physics lit unless you are among English lit, sociology, or biology majors, or high school graduates and philosophers.

Your point is actually a good one, so let’s address it. Cosmologists have decided that before the beginning, all the mass-energy (i.e. the energy) in the universe was contained in a tiny little object which I call the cosmic micropea. The micropea subsequently exploded, creating matter and distributing its contained energy throughout the universe. Thus, energy is conserved.

However there are other problems with this theory. After discovering that they could not determine the size of the micropea they took to calling it a singularity, nevermind that a physical singularity cannot exist. (Singularities are mathematical things, like 1/0 or the tangent of 90 degees, and when they appear in physics exam answers, the student gets an F.)

Your points are basically good and show something rarely seen in this context— the willingness to seriously engage a tough question, and to engage it with your own thinking. If your curiosity persists, you may want to peruse my book when it gets published in a few months. Therein, the conservation law is nicely reconciled (in my opinion, obviously) with the concept of a created universe.

Think about learning calculus. You might be good at it. Then you can really understand the awesome logical beauty of physics, and perhaps contribute to Galileo’s project, the complete interconnection of beliefs in God and the human soul with all aspects of hard science.

 

[greylorn]

I just want to add a few things.

Many physicist do not believe energy was created. In a sense, it always has been, but the energy came in and out of existence until the point of the Big Bang Theory.

Watch “A Universe from Nothing” if you want to get more insight on this subject.

Wrong. Instead, read a physics book.

 

[greylorn]

Doesn’t this discussion rate something better from you than this closing flippancy?

Perhaps it needs a better sense of humor?

 

[FanChan]

Perhaps it needs a better sense of humor?

Perhaps if you weren’t so condescending in some of your comments, this discussion would be a lot easier on us lowly non-scientific folk. Some of us, as you’ve pointed out, don’t study physics, astronomy, etc, and so may misspeak on the subject. If we’ve learned things from popular television shows or books that were incorrect, you may want to send your criticism towards those sources, who set themselves up as reliable sources, and not towards the general public. I had very little talent for physics and chemistry in school, and I still can’t wrap my brain around the whole relationship between time and traveling at the speed of light.

In regards to the questions about my earlier comments:

When I mentioned the Earth experiment, I was simply giving a name to life here on Earth. There’s no philosophy or dogma attached to it, it’s just a way I’ve taken to viewing what life is. God created Adam and Eve, gave them one restriction, then let things go do as they would. We go through our lives, with the possibility of encountering God in some way, with various possible outcomes in the end. It seems to me all one big experiment, or lots of little ones, though I certainly don’t suggest God thinks of it that way.

The bit regarding black holes and God, honestly I can’t figure out how what you said differs from what I was trying to say. I have the utmost respect for astronomy, and for science in general, even if I think many scientists are too pigheaded and arrogant for their own good or for the good of science. I know how and why scientists believe that the black hole is there, it was the fact that they can’t prove it (and may never be able to outright prove it) that I was comparing to the inability to prove God’s existence. We can have mountains of evidence, but without that concrete proof, without seeing it for yourself, there will still be people out there finding the room to disagree.

What was that about the current god-concept being invented by Aquinas and Augustine?

And I fail to see how I’m foisting anything as God’s own truth. I don’t pretend to speak with any authority, I’m simply trying to have a discussion.

 

[donsnow]

Being more thoughtful than your first reply, this one deserves consideration.

I pay attention to just enough pop-science to understand where you come from, as that seems to be your only source of physics-related information. Better that than none, but do be aware that popular science contains a mixture of junk and speculative science, glued together with just enough honest information to give it credibility. Carl Sagan turned to broadcasting because he could not cut it as a research astronomer.

It is really not possible to understand physics without mathematics, and real life textbook problem solving. Nonetheless, even an honest outside interest in the subject is more than most people are willing to obtain. But don’t put yourself in the position of quoting pop physics lit unless you are among English lit, sociology, or biology majors, or high school graduates and philosophers.

Your point is actually a good one, so let’s address it. Cosmologists have decided that before the beginning, all the mass-energy (i.e. the energy) in the universe was contained in a tiny little object which I call the cosmic micropea. The micropea subsequently exploded, creating matter and distributing its contained energy throughout the universe. Thus, energy is conserved.

However there are other problems with this theory. After discovering that they could not determine the size of the micropea they took to calling it a singularity, nevermind that a physical singularity cannot exist. (Singularities are mathematical things, like 1/0 or the tangent of 90 degees, and when they appear in physics exam answers, the student gets an F.)

Your points are basically good and show something rarely seen in this context— the willingness to seriously engage a tough question, and to engage it with your own thinking. If your curiosity persists, you may want to peruse my book when it gets published in a few months. Therein, the conservation law is nicely reconciled (in my opinion, obviously) with the concept of a created universe.

Think about learning calculus. You might be good at it. Then you can really understand the awesome logical beauty of physics, and perhaps contribute to Galileo’s project, the complete interconnection of beliefs in God and the human soul with all aspects of hard science.

Until this post, I had difficulty determining where you stand. If what you say about the Roman Catholic church is true, then, that’s for the good. It reads like God is pruning His church and the end may be closer this time than for the recent 2,000 years. We started with 120 disciples on the day of Pentecost who went out and by the power of the Holy Spirit brought 3,000 souls into the infant church. It’s best the unbelievers drift out of church; for our faith will be refined by His Spirit and political events worldwide. I just hope I can keep faith with God the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin Mary when my turn comes.

 

[donsnow]

Perhaps it needs a better sense of humor?

I guess my sense of humor was out of pocket, today. Your blessing was not meant to be flippant. My apologies.

 

[greylorn]

Perhaps if you weren’t so condescending in some of your comments, this discussion would be a lot easier on us lowly non-scientific folk. Some of us, as you’ve pointed out, don’t study physics, astronomy, etc, and so may misspeak on the subject. If we’ve learned things from popular television shows or books that were incorrect, you may want to send your criticism towards those sources, who set themselves up as reliable sources, and not towards the general public. I had very little talent for physics and chemistry in school, and I still can’t wrap my brain around the whole relationship between time and traveling at the speed of light.

Don’t feel badly about being unable to understand special relativity. It requires math and lots of working at. Most who claim to understand it have a partial grasp at best.

Sending comments to TV networks is highly unrewarding. In this case, it would be a complete waste of time, since they know that they are producing junk science. That’s what interests people and sells products.

However, an end-user like yourself might actually pay attention.

I found long ago that attitude is an excellent filter of people too wimpy to communicate with constructively. I’m working on even better filters for the future.

Thank you for clarifying your comments.

What was that about the current god-concept being invented by Aquinas and Augustine?

It is a guess. Not fond of most philosophical writing, I only tried reading them many years ago and failed to get interested. Perhaps now, if time permitted.

I did wade through the Bible, and found it obvious that the Jews did not teach that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Nor did Christ. Some Gnostic writings dealt with these ideas, but after the Council of Nicea, all the Gnostics seem to have caught a sudden, terminal case of the flu. I’ve been told that Augustine believed in an omniscient God, and after Aquinas, the Church apparently adopted it.

These details could be incorrect, and I’d be delighted to be corrected by anyone who can point me in the direction of relevant parts within the source documents. I’ve already heard the opinions of people who’ve done even less study of original documents than I.

 

[greylorn]

Until this post, I had difficulty determining where you stand. If what you say about the Roman Catholic church is true, then, that’s for the good. It reads like God is pruning His church and the end may be closer this time than for the recent 2,000 years. We started with 120 disciples on the day of Pentecost who went out and by the power of the Holy Spirit brought 3,000 souls into the infant church. It’s best the unbelievers drift out of church; for our faith will be refined by His Spirit and political events worldwide. I just hope I can keep faith with God the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin Mary when my turn comes.

You still do not know where I stand. Other posts on other threads could help should you ever get curious.

 

[Abu]

It’s essential to know that it is only in the West that science developed due to the reason and faith of the Catholic Church. The present worsening in reason and faith is the obvious result of the relativism and secularism following the revolt and so-called Enlightenment – that anything goes.

 

[cranster]

I genuinely hope that you are correct. However, consider a few things…

Historically, religions, like nations and political systems have come and gone, and often for interconnected reasons. Generally, what happens is that nations become successful, then overconfident, imagining themselves to be unbeatable. Then they get soft, while leaner and tougher nations make sacrifices and prepare themselves for the coming takeover. (e.g. the U.S. vs. China)

You raise an interesting point. There isn’t a country around today that is the same as it was 2000 years ago. Some in name only like Greece and Egypt, but the governments, societies, and customs are totally different than they were 2000 years ago. There isn’t an institution on earth that is as old as the Catholic Church which believes and practices exactly the same way today as it did 2000 years ago. There is a simple reason for that… Jesus told Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.

Your attitude expresses a similar overconfidence about Christianity.

I don’t believe it’s overconfidence at all. The reason Christianity won’t go away aside from the reason stated above is that as long as there are people who feel lost and without hope they will turn to God. Don’t underestimate the power of Jesus to touch a human heart. My own experience is that Jesus Himself came to me unsolicited at 17 and asked me if I would let Him love me. I said yes and had the most overwhelming sense of love, joy, peace, and completeness that can’t be expressed in words. Even if the Catholic Church is driven underground it won’t change God’s pursuit of humanity. If that encounter happened to me it will happen to others.

It will simply become ineffectual and tiny.

Maybe on society as a whole but not ineffecutal in the lives of those who seek hope and a reason for living beyond a hopeless, Godless, materialistic world. All though I believe God wishes for all to be saved he isn’t so much concerned with numbers as with the faithfulness of His followers. I believe pope Benedict or JP2 said something similar.

The Catholic Church is losing is best people,

That’s just an opinion. There isn’t any evidence for that. While it is losing some to the western atheistic education system and materialism, it’s also gaining some very intelligent, faithful people.

Note that Judaism, supplanted by Christianity, now warrants nary a sliver. There are more Sikhs than Jews. Statistics I’ve read elsewhere show atheism and Islam as the fastest growing religions.

One thing that I think is bound to happen is there are too many liberals in the western world who “call” themselves Christian but practice abortion. Since Muslims don’t abort their babies, and have large families, the western world will abort itself right into Sharia law. It will become a Muslim world population wise somewhere around 2050. If liberal Catholics don’t like being told what to do with their bodies by the Catholic Church, and atheists don’t like the morality of Christianity, they are really going to hate Sharia law, but they will have no one to blame but themselves. Even if the Catholic Church becomes smaller than it is today, it will continue but will live like Christians do in Islamic countries. The western world of Christianity will become accustomed to something that it hasn’t known in a long, long time… martyrdom!

 

[ProveIt312]

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Some quick retorts not meant to be combative, but simply to think about:

To make it virtuous for one to be “poor in spirit” not only encourages malaise, but is the bait used to hook people based on their despair rather than facilitate or provoke a way out of that despair. It prey’s on a person’s hopelessness, offering hope when they have none, but it works because of their vulnerability, not because the underlying beliefs have any merit.

I’ve not seen believers “comforted”; in fact, those that take the simpler, rational and naturalistic approach to things like death, tragedy anything else that prompts mourning tend to deal with things much more clearly and, when applicable, proactively. I experienced this first-hand at my own grandmother’s funeral.

I for one hunger and thirst for justice, yet the Pope, for example, has yet to be held accountable for his crimes in enabling, aiding and hiding widespread child rape. Many believers are equally appalled. It’s another example of encouraging passivity and inaction when perhaps neither should be. Then, when someone does take action, such “justice” is attributed to god rather than the person or people who actually took the initiative.

Not always true, but this is basically a rewording of “do unto others as they’d do undo you”, which has been around since Confucious and beyond.

The bible’s definition of “clean of heart” is less than clear and pretty repulsive in some spots. I could kill a disobedient child, kill a person picking up sticks on a Sunday, own and beat slaves and rape a woman so long as she wasn’t engaged, I married her afterward and paid her father properly. I’d still be well within the laws of the bible. Lot was another biblical character who’s deemed “righteous” in spite of offering his daughters up to be gang-raped, then later having sex with them himself. I agree, encouraging one to be “clean of heart” is a good thing, but secular, humanist concepts are far clearer and far more universal than what the bible deems as acceptable.

Perhaps the most ridiculous one; religious people have started more wars and been responsible for more evil, death, pain, suffering and intolerance than non-believers, for sure, and have done so directly do to instructions and inspiration found within holy books. There’s a positive correlation between peaceful (as well as educated and tolerant) nations and atheism, with the most religious nations being the most prone to war, violence and intolerance - see the U.S., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan compared to Sweden, France, Canada, etc. This is of course an over-simplification, but the stats are pretty clear: visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009/

And a video with further analysis and additional information: youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA&feature=player_embedded

As far as suffering for “justice’ sake”, I don’t disagree, though I may disagree with the definitions or idea’s of what’s defined as “justice”, depending on the situation.

I just can’t find justification, either moral or factual, for asserting that the bible is consistent or even accurate on either topic with any degree of reliability. For every “do unto other’s as you’d have them do unto you”, there’s instructions to hate yourself, intentions to divide families and demand that when made by men are deemed despicable, or incorrect scientific and historical claims, or blatant self-contradictions.

Bottom line, if some of the bible is obviously inaccurate or questionable, how does that not undermine the entire books credibility?

 

[Thing]

Some quick retorts not meant to be combative, but simply to think about:

Don’t be combative. As you would be combating the source, the fountain, of everything you see which is good.

To make it virtuous for one to be “poor in spirit” not only encourages malaise, but is the bait used to hook people based on their despair rather than facilitate or provoke a way out of that despair. It prey’s on a person’s hopelessness, offering hope when they have none, but it works because of their vulnerability, not because the underlying beliefs have any merit.

Blessed are the poor in spirit. “The poor in spirit”… That is, the humble; and they whose spirit is not set upon riches.

I’ve not seen believers “comforted”; in fact, those that take the simpler, rational and naturalistic approach to things like death, tragedy anything else that prompts mourning tend to deal with things much more clearly and, when applicable, proactively. I experienced this first-hand at my own grandmother’s funeral.

They may mourn all their live-long days. The promise is that they shall be comforted.

I for one hunger and thirst for justice, yet the Pope, for example, has yet to be held accountable for his crimes in enabling, aiding and hiding widespread child rape. Many believers are equally appalled. It’s another example of encouraging passivity and inaction when perhaps neither should be. Then, when someone does take action, such “justice” is attributed to god rather than the person or people who actually took the initiative.

The Church, like yourself, is not perfect. In fact the Church is sometimes called the hospital for the sick. Jesus, God, said he came for the sick not the healthy.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Justice will be done in the end. Even the Apostle chosen by God failed, and has seen justice done.

Not always true, but this is basically a rewording of “do unto others as they’d do undo you”, which has been around since Confucious and beyond.

The bible’s definition of “clean of heart” is less than clear and pretty repulsive in some spots. I could kill a disobedient child, kill a person picking up sticks on a Sunday, own and beat slaves and rape a woman so long as she wasn’t engaged, I married her afterward and paid her father properly. I’d still be well within the laws of the bible. Lot was another biblical character who’s deemed “righteous” in spite of offering his daughters up to be gang-raped, then later having sex with them himself. I agree, encouraging one to be “clean of heart” is a good thing, but secular, humanist concepts are far clearer and far more universal than what the bible deems as acceptable.

Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
And recall, the leaders of the ancient jewish religion were called, by God, hypocrites, a brood of vipers, ‘which of them will escape’. Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, gave the final word on morality. Evil eminates from the heart of the man not just from his acts. And the man will be judged on what is in his heart.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.
It is funny how God says blessed are the peacemakers and you find fault with that; the corollary is unblessed are the warmongers.

Perhaps the most ridiculous one; religious people have started more wars and been responsible for more evil, death, pain, suffering and intolerance than non-believers, for sure, and have done so directly do to instructions and inspiration found within holy books. There’s a positive correlation between peaceful (as well as educated and tolerant) nations and atheism, with the most religious nations being the most prone to war, violence and intolerance - see the U.S., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan compared to Sweden, France, Canada, etc. This is of course an over-simplification, but the stats are pretty clear: visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009/

And a video with further analysis and additional information: youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA&feature=player_embedded

As far as suffering for “justice’ sake”, I don’t disagree, though I may disagree with the definitions or idea’s of what’s defined as “justice”, depending on the situation.

I just can’t find justification, either moral or factual, for asserting that the bible is consistent or even accurate on either topic with any degree of reliability. For every “do unto other’s as you’d have them do unto you”, there’s instructions to hate yourself, intentions to divide families and demand that when made by men are deemed despicable, or incorrect scientific and historical claims, or blatant self-contradictions.

Bottom line, if some of the bible is obviously inaccurate or questionable, how does that not undermine the entire books credibility?

The books of the bible were written over a long period. Towards the end of one part God gave laws to man. There was nothing bad in these laws. Towards the end of the last part God gave the Spirit of those same laws to man, and there is nothing bad in them either. Not all Catholics, Jews from the bible, will or have gone to heaven. Only those who managed to see the spirit of the law; love God, love neighbour; every other law from God stems from these two thoughts.

 

[ProveIt312]

You raise an interesting point. There isn’t a country around today that is the same as it was 2000 years ago. Some in name only like Greece and Egypt, but the governments, societies, and customs are totally different than they were 2000 years ago. There isn’t an institution on earth that is as old as the Catholic Church which believes and practices exactly the same way today as it did 2000 years ago. There is a simple reason for that… Jesus told Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.

I don’t believe it’s overconfidence at all. The reason Christianity won’t go away aside from the reason stated above is that as long as there are people who feel lost and without hope they will turn to God. Don’t underestimate the power of Jesus to touch a human heart. My own experience is that Jesus Himself came to me unsolicited at 17 and asked me if I would let Him love me. I said yes and had the most overwhelming sense of love, joy, peace, and completeness that can’t be expressed in words. Even if the Catholic Church is driven underground it won’t change God’s pursuit of humanity. If that encounter happened to me it will happen to others.

Maybe on society as a whole but not ineffecutal in the lives of those who seek hope and a reason for living beyond a hopeless, Godless, materialistic world. All though I believe God wishes for all to be saved he isn’t so much concerned with numbers as with the faithfulness of His followers. I believe pope Benedict or JP2 said something similar.

That’s just an opinion. There isn’t any evidence for that. While it is losing some to the western atheistic education system and materialism, it’s also gaining some very intelligent, faithful people.

One thing that I think is bound to happen is there are too many liberals in the western world who “call” themselves Christian but practice abortion. Since Muslims don’t abort their babies, and have large families, the western world will abort itself right into Sharia law. It will become a Muslim world population wise somewhere around 2050. If liberal Catholics don’t like being told what to do with their bodies by the Catholic Church, and atheists don’t like the morality of Christianity, they are really going to hate Sharia law, but they will have no one to blame but themselves. Even if the Catholic Church becomes smaller than it is today, it will continue but will live like Christians do in Islamic countries. The western world of Christianity will become accustomed to something that it hasn’t known in a long, long time… martyrdom!

Actually, the church has changed, most obviously from it’s original flat earth, geocentric position. They’ve also just recently changed their stance on purgatory for unbaptized babies. Additionally, previous religions have lasted longer than Christianity has, and much of the reason Christianity and Islam thrived (and in some cases, the reason they continue to) is because it was illegal NOT to believe. If people weren’t forced believe at the point of a sword it would not have been nearly as successful. Additionally, if childhood indoctrination didn’t happen, they’d have both largely died out long ago.

Still, in spite of these historical obstacles, religious belief, on the whole, has seen a steady decline in recent years - even in the United States, which is among the most religious in the world. Specifically, all Christian denominations have had drops in their numbers, while non-belief has grown in every state. With increases in global communication and simply education, that trend will continue.

I will say that I don’t expect or even deem it necessary that all religious belief go the way of the dodo. However, it has no place in law, in government or in dictating the rights or lives of unwilling individuals. Faith is a very personal phenomenon by it’s very definition, and without further justification beyond religious faith or an old book, it’s not sufficient to legislate as truth, fact or law.

A final comment on abortion; I’m pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I’d even support a ban on late-term abortions. However, I don’t believe in a soul, or that a fertilized egg is the same as a 4 month old fetus. There are real reason’s this is done, and most of the time it’s a very difficult and unwelcome conclusion when abortion is deemed the best choice. Any woman I know who has had one - for reason’s ranging from rape to birth control failure, has had that stick with them, and while they don’t regret the decision, they profoundly regret that it was the best decision and, therefore, necessary. For the minority that use it as birth control, those are the kinds of people I’d prefer not breed in the first place. Ultimately, it’s a complex issue with varying perspectives, and they ARE done in Muslim nations - just illegally, often due to rape or forcible sex from their husbands in spite of their unwillingness to have children. This guarantees a certain amount of women will either die or be unable to reproduce in the future due to shoddy care and is a good example of why abortion is legal in this country; if abortion is illegal, they’ll still be done, so it’s better to have professional counseling and care when it comes to this decision. I also find it a bit ironic that the Catholic church is most against any kind of birth control, which itself would prevent countless unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce the number of abortions. Yet the undeservedly revered Mother Teresa claimed condoms were just the same as aborting a developed fetus? This notion is asinine and I’ll place my trust elsewhere thank you very much!!

 

[ProveIt312]

Don’t be combative. As you would be combating the source, the fountain, of everything you see which is good.

Blessed are the poor in spirit. “The poor in spirit”… That is, the humble; and they whose spirit is not set upon riches.

They may mourn all their live-long days. The promise is that they shall be comforted.

The Church, like yourself, is not perfect. In fact the Church is sometimes called the hospital for the sick. Jesus, God, said he came for the sick not the healthy.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Justice will be done in the end. Even the Apostle chosen by God failed, and has seen justice done.

Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
And recall, the leaders of the ancient jewish religion were called, by God, hypocrites, a brood of vipers, ‘which of them will escape’. Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, gave the final word on morality. Evil eminates from the heart of the man not just from his acts. And the man will be judged on what is in his heart.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.
It is funny how God says blessed are the peacemakers and you find fault with that; the corollary is unblessed are the warmongers.

The books of the bible were written over a long period. Towards the end of one part God gave laws to man. There was nothing bad in these laws. Towards the end of the last part God gave the Spirit of those same laws to man, and there is nothing bad in them either. Not all Catholics, Jews from the bible, will or have gone to heaven. Only those who managed to see the spirit of the law; love God, love neighbour; every other law from God stems from these two thoughts.

Alright, well first off we’ve already discussed here previously that the bible is flawed, inaccurate and it’s existence isn’t enough to prove it’s validity or accuracy. That said, there is a LOT of “bad” in the laws of god; killing disobedient children, those who work on Sunday, endorsement of slavery, the view of rape and blood sacrifice to name a few.

Bottom line, even if the god of the bible did exist, he would in no way, shape or form be worth of worship based on his bloodlust, insecurity, pettiness, ignorance, jealousy and general mismanagement of his supposed “creation”. He’s a fascist tyrant, comparable to a Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler (the latter of which was endorsed by the Catholic church and motivated against the Jews by his faith in Jesus mind you). If anyone disagrees with that assessment, I’d love to know why and/or how.

 

[ProveIt312]

It’s essential to know that it is only in the West that science developed due to the reason and faith of the Catholic Church. The present worsening in reason and faith is the obvious result of the relativism and secularism following the revolt and so-called Enlightenment – that anything goes.

Wow - have you read a history book? The Catholic Church stifled everything from science, to literature to art; the period know today as the Dark Ages was the height of the Church’s power - no coincidence. Additionally, mathematics, literature and science were thriving in the middle east amongst the “heathens”. I also disagree that there’s lessoning of reason; in fact, reason is becoming more and more popular - at the expense of religious superstition and mythology. It’s not that people with a more naturalistic perspective believe “anything goes”, but our concepts of morality and ethics stem from a combination of instinct and thought about how an action or deed may adversely affect others or society as a whole, rather than arbitrary and baseless rules such that make sex or nudity evil, birth control sinful or shellfish an “abomination” while condoning slavery and praising ignorance. I’d recommend revisiting some history books as a good place to start before making such blatantly false assertions in the future.

 

[donsnow]

Actually, the church has changed, most obviously from it’s original flat earth, geocentric position. They’ve also just recently changed their stance on purgatory for unbaptized babies. Additionally, previous religions have lasted longer than Christianity has, and much of the reason Christianity and Islam thrived (and in some cases, the reason they continue to) is because it was illegal NOT to believe. If people weren’t forced believe at the point of a sword it would not have been nearly as successful. Additionally, if childhood indoctrination didn’t happen, they’d have both largely died out long ago.

Still, in spite of these historical obstacles, religious belief, on the whole, has seen a steady decline in recent years - even in the United States, which is among the most religious in the world. Specifically, all Christian denominations have had drops in their numbers, while non-belief has grown in every state. With increases in global communication and simply education, that trend will continue.

I will say that I don’t expect or even deem it necessary that all religious belief go the way of the dodo. However, it has no place in law, in government or in dictating the rights or lives of unwilling individuals. Faith is a very personal phenomenon by it’s very definition, and without further justification beyond religious faith or an old book, it’s not sufficient to legislate as truth, fact or law.

A final comment on abortion; I’m pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I’d even support a ban on late-term abortions. However, I don’t believe in a soul, or that a fertilized egg is the same as a 4 month old fetus. There are real reason’s this is done, and most of the time it’s a very difficult and unwelcome conclusion when abortion is deemed the best choice. Any woman I know who has had one - for reason’s ranging from rape to birth control failure, has had that stick with them, and while they don’t regret the decision, they profoundly regret that it was the best decision and, therefore, necessary. For the minority that use it as birth control, those are the kinds of people I’d prefer not breed in the first place. Ultimately, it’s a complex issue with varying perspectives, and they ARE done in Muslim nations - just illegally, often due to rape or forcible sex from their husbands in spite of their unwillingness to have children. This guarantees a certain amount of women will either die or be unable to reproduce in the future due to shoddy care and is a good example of why abortion is legal in this country; if abortion is illegal, they’ll still be done, so it’s better to have professional counseling and care when it comes to this decision. I also find it a bit ironic that the Catholic church is most against any kind of birth control, which itself would prevent countless unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce the number of abortions. Yet the undeservedly revered Mother Teresa claimed condoms were just the same as aborting a developed fetus? This notion is asinine and I’ll place my trust elsewhere thank you very much!!

All that you say notwithstanding my opinion that any nation which indulges in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of its unborn citizens can no longer call itself civilized.
What ever this new age is, it’s not civilized.

 

[Thing]

Alright, well first off we’ve already discussed here previously that the bible is flawed, inaccurate and it’s existence isn’t enough to prove it’s validity or accuracy. That said, there is a LOT of “bad” in the laws of god; killing disobedient children, those who work on Sunday, endorsement of slavery, the view of rape and blood sacrifice to name a few.

Bottom line, even if the god of the bible did exist, he would in no way, shape or form be worth of worship based on his bloodlust, insecurity, pettiness, ignorance, jealousy and general mismanagement of his supposed “creation”. He’s a fascist tyrant, comparable to a Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler (the latter of which was endorsed by the Catholic church and motivated against the Jews by his faith in Jesus mind you). If anyone disagrees with that assessment, I’d love to know why and/or how.

Here are his laws, commandments, if you will;
Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. 10 But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his donkey?, nor any thing that is his.

Love God

Love your neighbour as yourself.