What questions can only be answered by Christianity?

[Deconi]

And if Christianity were the only religion that claimed to have an evil adversary, this would hold water. The Jews have Satan, maybe Satan played the role of Christ to get people to stop following the law. Hinduism also has dark forces, and that’s not even getting into the lesser religions, or even hypothetical religions that no longer exist precisely because their Satan-figure was so effective.

You are dragging this away on a tangent, but here goes.

The point is that powerful acts do not make moral correctness. If a magician appeared out of the sky tomorrow shooting lightning from his fingers and shrugging off bullets, he would certainly be powerful. But that doesn’t mean I would follow his teachings if they conflicted with my internal morality.

And here you get to two things.
1.) Without going to circular reasoning, how do you know that these teachings are “highly moral… and would bring people closer to God?” In other words, there must be a secular concept of morality and what God should be like in order to say these teachings would bring us closer to Him.
2.) Even if the things he taught were morally good, is acting morally good sufficient to achieve salvation? No. Faith, not works, leads to salvation, so it doesn’t matter how well Jesus’ teachings make our works be, if we follow Jesus, and he is not the savior, then it’s irrelevant, right?

Agreed, but the theological context must be acknowledged before it can be seen as important.

As for Jesus claiming to be God, that only occurs in 1 of the 4 gospels. In all except Mark, He deliberately avoids saying that, instead, He simply says “that’s what you say I am.” And even then, it’s only in front of the council that the story changes, in front of Pilate He’s back to saying “that’s what you say.” So 7 out of 8 times that people ask Him if He’s the son of God, He deliberately avoids saying “yes.” Good historical record keeping dictates that, when faced with multiple conflicting sources, we take the most common account.

Really? The Qu’ran specifically says that Jesus was taken bodily up to heaven, and although He was never crucified, it was made to appear as if He was.
Additionally, Mohammad only ever claimed 2 miracles: the writing of the Qu’ran, and the defeat of the armies at Mecca, despite being hugely outnumbered. Both of these are also historically documented facts.

So if you want to follow historical precedent, why not be Muslim?
Jesus, born of a virgin, preached to the Jews and appeared to be crucified? Check!
Qu’ran written? Check
Mecca defeated? Check.

I’m not trying to go line by historical line with you. I’m asking what caused you to believe.

Was it the preponderance of historical information? If not, then it’s irrelevant to THIS discussion. I am agreeing that the circumstances of the crucifiction are relevant. All I’m saying is that, for the path that I’m taking, they are a much later step.
The arguments like the ones above can go on until both sides finds the other one clasping at straws or behaving illogically. I know. I’ve done it many times. Which is why I’m trying to look for a new angle.

The fact that you can’t stop talking about the arguments that you want to make, in order to address the issue I asked about, shows why I think I am better capable of reaching these people than you are.

Seems to me a fault often ignored in philosophical ‘musings’ is that it must necessarily have the starting point of from the feet of the ‘muser.’ Being an intangible pursuit, it often relies or cite previous intangibles, and by definition, the ‘unprovable’ can or cannot be accepted into one’s musings unless one opens the door of acceptance to the contaminants of ‘other’ musers, be they historical or contemporary! Without adhering to evidence, the pursuit is rudderless, endless in all directions and unltimately, futile.

There! That’s what I think of treatments of observable reality being reduced to musings purporting to wear the shroud of intellectual pursuits!

Just musing…

 

[Deconi]

…Not withstanding the above, it has been said, by scientist no less, that when scientists finally reach the peak of the mountain of knowledge, they will find a handful of philosophers and a group of theologians who had been waiting there awhile!

So. being a muser, I have a chance…,

 

[danserr]

The fact that you can’t stop talking about the arguments that you want to make, in order to address the issue I asked about, shows why I think I am better capable of reaching these people than you are.

That’s fine, I’m not interested in arguing who can better reach people; I have just found the historical evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection to be useful for myself and want to point out that I don’t think the objections you fear an atheist raising to it are very good.

For instance,
Suppose I presented a strong historical case for the Resurrection. You are afraid an atheist might object that Jesus could just be Satan incarnated to draw people away from God.

I pointed out in reply, that if the atheist makes this objection, he is no longer an atheist because this objection only works if both God and Satan exist! In reply you are concerned:

And if Christianity were the only religion that claimed to have an evil adversary, this would hold water.

Well, no matter how many religions there are, this point is true. That the atheist must believe that God and Satan exist to make this objection. Now your concern is answered by the fact that God would not have raised Jesus from the dead unless he wished to endorse his teaching.

So, I agree that acts of power do not make moral goodness. I do not follow Jesus because he is powerful, nor was he especially powerful on earth, I follow him because of his teaching confirmed by his Resurrection. Had God not raised him from the dead we would not have a reason to follow him.

Even if the things he taught were morally good, is acting morally good sufficient to achieve salvation? No. Faith, not works, leads to salvation, so it doesn’t matter how well Jesus’ teachings make our works be, if we follow Jesus, and he is not the savior, then it’s irrelevant, right?

But that was not my point. My point was that his moral teaching gives us good reason to think that he is not drawing people away from God.

As for Jesus claiming to be God, that only occurs in 1 of the 4 gospels.

I said Jesus claimed to be God for the sake of brevity since you were not disputing any historical facts, only the interpretation. But all the gospels agree that he forgave sins, told parables where he portrayed himself as God’s unique son and many other examples. Since you agree that we should agree what most witnesses say, you should believe this.

So if you want to follow historical precedent, why not be Muslim?
Jesus, born of a virgin, preached to the Jews and appeared to be crucified? Check!
Qu’ran written? Check
Mecca defeated? Check.

You left out “Jesus Resurrected.” That is a miracles far and away greater than the two you suggest for Muhammed.

I’m not trying to go line by historical line with you. I’m asking what caused you to believe.

That’s a good question and it’s hard to say. I was raised Catholic, had it challenged in college and university. I was helped by writers like C.S. Lewis, some stuff I learned about the historical Jesus, and some other writers, but it’s hard to say if they are actually the reason I believe. Still such evidence has helped me and others, and has even helped atheists (Lee Strobel). I don’t think I would say I believe because of the historical evidence, but it helps.

 

[LJH_80]

Danserr,

I am not responding to you any further because, it fails to meet two of my conditions for a reasoned, courteous discussion.

1.) You have admitted that you have no interest in talking about what the subject, and just want to talk about the stuff in your head.
2.) You don’t try to debunk your own arguments before you post them. Before I say anything, I try to disprove it as hard as I can, and only if I can’t find a fault, do I subject other people to it.

 

[jochoa]

As such, I am looking for questions which require
1.) the presence of a God.
2.) that that God be the Christian God.

Excellent post, my friend! I really like your approach to validating the Truth, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

First, please consider some development questions:
a. Since all humans have various desires and try to fulfill those desires, what one word encompasses what we all want? Happiness
b. What one-word action generates happiness? Kindness
c. What one-word feeling is necessary to experience any genuine level of happiness? Peace
d. What one-word action generates peace? Patience
e. What one-word thing must one have to will patience and kindness? Motivation
f. What are the qualities of the greatest source of motivation?
-Inexhaustible: because if it runs out, then so does the ability to will.
-Eternal: because it needs to be a source available to those before you as well as those after you.
-Omnipresent: because it must be available everywhere.
-Immaterial: because it needs to be deeply omnipresent.
-Personal: because if it is not of personal value, the source will not be considered for motivation.
To establish the presence of God:

1. What one-word name is used for the greatest source of motivation? God
   To recognize that God is the Christian God:
   2a. Since we all naturally want peace and happiness, what are the greatest actions in life to master? Patience, Kindness, and Motivation
   2b. Since we should give credit to the owner of fundamental philosophy, who first proclaimed this? The Word of the Christian God of Catholicism - 1 Corinthians 13:4 & 13 and the Greatest Commandments

Another questioning scheme:
a. Was the first material/physical thing to come into existence living (cell-like) or non-living (atom-like)? …
b. Is there a heavenly after-life? …
c. Since there is no way of proving and officially knowing the answers while living on earth, what one-word attribute must we have to answer the question, without consideration for the liveliness of the first material thing or the existence of a heavenly after-life? Faith
d. Since we have to have faith, what is the wise one-word feeling that should guide one’s answer to - is there a heavenly after-life? Hope
e. Is there a possibility of a heavenly after-life, if the first material thing was non-living? No because by the time the first living thing, which has the potential to think of a heavenly after-life, comes to exist, it is far too late to create a heaven.
Establishing God
Therefore, it is best to place your faith in a hopeful heavenly after-life, which was created by the living being which came to exist before anything, also known as, God.
f. What are qualities of a hopeful Heavenly after-life?
-Unbreakable Peace - no one ever experiences a loss of peace in Heaven
-Limitless Happiness - the potential for happiness is limitless for all.
-Unstoppable Energy - Although one can rest as much as needed, since there is never a loss of peace, there is no death.
g. Since unbreakable peace, limitless happiness and unstoppable energy are eternally present in a hopeful Heaven, how are these produced?
-Every individual has free-will.
-Every individual is perfect at patience and kindness and motivation for God for the peace, happiness, and unstoppable energy of every person/relationship of the society, including the self.
Establishing the Christian God
h. Given that every individual has free-will in a hopeful heaven, how are those qualities ensured?
God gives each individual the opportunity to demonstrate whether s/he will freely choose to learn, perfect, and spread the means to be patient and kind and motivated for God with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the blessings of peace, happiness, and energy, in an earthly life.
2. What is a more graceful method of answering question h.? The Greatest Commandments of the Word of God of Catholicism
And from these questions, one can conclude: Faith, Hope, and Charity/Love exist universally for all humans, and Charity/Love is the greatest to learn.
2. What/Who is the source of this fundamental philosophy? The Word of the Christian God of Catholicism - 1 Corinthians 13:4 & 13.

I will follow up with a selection of questions which require Catholic Teaching.

Thoughts?

 

[Micorhizea]

…And I think that’s where my approach is different, and potentially effective. Most intelligent atheists consider themselves willing to suppose the untrue for hypothetical purposes. So instead of “here is a proof of God,” I ask the listener to assume, hypothetically that some god exists, but that we know nothing about this god, except that
A: it exists, and
B: it is responsible for the creation of the universe.
From there, I attempt to make nigh-incontestible observations of the world (i.e. humans experience time in a linear fashion, people die, etc.) and work logical proofs of what those would tell us about this hypothetical god (to steal C.S. Lewis’ simile, this is like Hamlet looking at his world to learn about Shakespeare).
Again, I have found most atheists willing to go along with this type of gedanken experiment. Once an outline of this hypothetical God has been created, it bears an exceeding similarity to the Christian God. Thusly, the proof shows that the right way of living is the Christian way. And while no theory (to include Christianity) is ever certain to a skeptical mind, it is still consistent with good science to adopt the theory that best suits the observed world until you can find a better one.

I try to stay away from historical facts or scientific grey areas because they are unconvincing and sell God short. God is not merely the thing we use to fill in what we don’t yet understand, nor is he merely something that happened a long time ago. If God is God, he must be everywhere at all times, and we should thus be able to discuss Him without resorting to historical records of Jesus or the gaps in current scientific understanding.

I like your idea of questioning, rather than telling, for a number of reasons. However, I would conjecture that our questioning arrives at a simulacrum of a “Christian” God because we are westerners and Christians with exceptionally powerful unquestioned memes. And whatever the actual -beyond-our-abilities-to-know God really is, most people actually will default to a “God of the gaps,” not having other than a rote, though possibly passionate, acquaintance with the actual tenets, history, and requirements of their faith, which they practice, or not, as if it was the whole of the matter.

Science at least does not pretend to have a final answer, even to ideas currently used with great success in predicting or repeating phenomena. I think that many who protest that science claims a finished or finial answer to things are way off the mark and ignorant of the practicalities of science. Science is only convinced that there are answers to questions and that that process it uses will continue to define an increasingly accurate model of the physical Universe. It may hope for final answers, but I’m pretty sure no scientist worth their salt these days would ever believe that there are final answers in science, even if that “grail” is used as a motivational tool.

 

[Micorhizea]

…

I will follow up with a selection of questions which require Catholic Teaching.

Thoughts?

Are you sure you want to continue before you go through this post with a bit wider perspective as to whether only Christianity answers these questions, or whether they might have any meaning to an atheist? I’m definitly not an atheist, and I have difficulty with most of them.

 

[jochoa]

As such, I am looking for questions which require
3.) (If possible) That the Catholic teachings alone provide the answer.

Please consider the following questions:
A. What is universally the greatest being of society? The Holy Trinity
A society which models its governing method in alignment with the Holy Trinity will consist of:
The person of the governing head sets and enforces the Truly Loving commandments. Then the governed body of persons, including the head person, freely subject themselves to the same laws. Then the will of the body of persons, including the head person, perfectly proceeds from the commandments, as set by the head person, and the body of persons. To simply state this: The Father is the person of the Spirit of God (has the exact image of Jesus Christ). The Son is the person of the body of God that came down from heaven and subjected himself to the laws of existence in this world, therefore He has a human mind, a godly body, a human and godly will, and has a human spirit, which in His mind and will developed and grew to become at one with the Truly Loving Nature. The instance His mind and human will were at one with the nature of His Body, His Spirit revealed the Holy Spirit. But in order to reveal the Holy Spirit of Unity in the Truly Loving Nature to free-willed beings, a free-willed human must become at one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ to demonstrate to the free world the joy and beauty of being one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ!

B. Given ALL the following:
-You, as a thinking, feeling, acting, living being exist in solitude (Hint: It is best to think of yourself existing as a single-celled being, similar to how you first came to be).
-There is nothing else in existence.
-The only method to create something, living or non-living, is to first think of it.
-You want to experience limitless happiness without ever losing peace.
How do you make that happen? I have yet to discover the graceful presentation for the solution, but I assure you the answer requires Catholic Teachings.

c. What is the soul? The soul is the center of the spirit or image and knowledge, just as the heart is the center of the body and feelings, and the mind is the center of the thoughts and thinking.
Now to simply recognize the spirit, look at a physical photo of a loved one at a particularly emotional moment in your past. Although the photo is only a bunch of ink blots splattered on a page, it can have amazing effects on you. The reason is because your mind interacts with the spirit, or the exact image, knowledge and past-actions, of the person.
Therefore, the spirit is any instance of a person’s exact image, knowledge, or past-actions.
To simply understand the soul, consider the first Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular, “…in a plan…”:
Given that God generated a plan, one must ask how did God generate a plan? He did so by thinking of it.
So in thinking of the plan, He thought of all the men and women, including all of their free-willed thoughts, feelings, and actions, that would occur in the process of fulfilling His plan. Since thinking of a person’s exact image, knowledge, and actions is the spirit of the person, when God thought of each one us, our soul was created.
Therefore, when God set His plan in motion, aka Creation, the soul somehow exists in union with the body.

C. How does one willfully (thoughts, feelings, actions, and spirit) worship God with the soul? The Sacrament of Eucharist

Thoughts?

 

[Micorhizea]

…I am asking because I feel capable of proving observance of the natural world leads to Christian beliefs…

If this was actually and completely true, would not then every civilization from the beginning of time, many of them being* very* astute observers of Nature, have all come up with Christian values and cosmology independent of having been preached the Gospel?

 

[jochoa]

Are you sure you want to continue before you go through this post with a bit wider perspective as to whether only Christianity answers these questions, or whether they might have any meaning to an atheist? I’m definitly not an atheist, and I have difficulty with most of them.

Please know that I share these concepts for subjection to harsh criticism. If you perceive my reasoning to be incomplete or invalid, please share your thoughts. For when you share your perspective, I will learn and understand your perspective, as well as apply any necessary adjustments to the solutions in efforts to be more universally applicable. I deeply appreciate harsh criticisms.

Please recognize that I first offer solutions which are essentially of the agnostic mindset. Then I share how the solutions I came to realize, have always been known, and were first documented and shared by the Word of God and Catholicism.

Since each of these solutions are of the agnostic mindset, the believer has the free-choice of whether or not s/he credits the Word of God and Catholicism.

One final concept to consider: If one willfully has no argument against the proposed solutions and fails to credit the Word of God and Catholicism, one will live as though s/he is self-made. If one lives as though s/he is self-made, can s/he self-make a heavenly after-life?

Thoughts?

 

[danserr]

Danserr,

I am not responding to you any further because, it fails to meet two of my conditions for a reasoned, courteous discussion.

1.) You have admitted that you have no interest in talking about what the subject, and just want to talk about the stuff in your head.
2.) You don’t try to debunk your own arguments before you post them. Before I say anything, I try to disprove it as hard as I can, and only if I can’t find a fault, do I subject other people to it.

As you wish, but there is nothing unreasonable or discourteous in anything I have said. On the contrary, the two accusations you throw at me are hardly courteous. You expressed the view that you considered history of limited value and I suggested that your reason for so thinking was not very good. That is hardly off topic. As for 2, I certainly do consider the weaknesses of arguments before I post them.

 

[LJH_80]

If this was actually and completely true, would not then every civilization from the beginning of time, many of them being* very* astute observers of Nature, have all come up with Christian values and cosmology independent of having been preached the Gospel?

I don’t know how to say this with humility, so I won’t try. I’m smart. I’m not saying anything stupid like “I’m the smartest person to ever live,” or even “the smartest person on the planet today.” But I am in the upper percentiles of intelligence.
But more to the point… if you look at scientific history, many times a person invented something that makes you think “how the heck did nobody think of that beforehand?”
Beer, tea and coffee were all drank because they were safer than water because in making them, the water had to be boiled, which killed the bacteria. Yet how many millenia did it take for humans to say “how about we just boil water and then drink that?”

I’m not saying all my ideas are new. I am saying that I have not before read someone who puts them together as I have, in the words I use, and has critiqued their points as skeptically as I have.

jochoa:

Please know that I share these concepts for subjection to harsh criticism. If you perceive my reasoning to be incomplete or invalid, please share your thoughts. For when you share your perspective, I will learn and understand your perspective, as well as apply any necessary adjustments to the solutions in efforts to be more universally applicable. I deeply appreciate harsh criticisms.

I thank you very much for your enthusiasm in responding. My issue is that I think you take too many leaps and assumptions. I can think of multiple answers for all those questions you ask. I get the feeling you knew where you wanted to end up, and asked created questions that you thought would give those answers.
As an example, I will use your first list of questions, placing in bold other, valid answers.

First, please consider some development questions:
a. Since all humans have various desires and try to fulfill those desires, what one word encompasses what we all want? Happiness
b. What one-word action generates happiness? Kindness fulfilling a purpose, scientific discovery, self-improvement, and receiving kindness all can create happiness
c. What one-word feeling is necessary to experience any genuine level of happiness? Peace puropse, satisfaction, hope, accomplishment
d. What one-word action generates peace? Patience **assuming we’re trying to get to peace, a sense
e. What one-word thing must one have to will patience and kindness? Motivation
f. What are the qualities of the greatest source of motivation?
-Inexhaustible: because if it runs out, then so does the ability to will.
-Eternal: because it needs to be a source available to those before you as well as those after you.
-Omnipresent: because it must be available everywhere.
-Immaterial: because it needs to be deeply omnipresent.
-Personal: because if it is not of personal value, the source will not be considered for motivation.
To establish the presence of God:

1. What one-word name is used for the greatest source of motivation? God
   All you’ve done here is say why God is a great motivating factor. You have said nothing about whether He actually exists, just that the idea of Him can be used to motivate people to do darn near anything. I know of few atheists who would disagree that God can be used to motivate believers, in fact that’s frequently one of their strongest criticisms.
   To recognize that God is the Christian God:
   2a. Since we all naturally want peace and happiness, what are the greatest actions in life to master? Patience, Kindness, and Motivation
   again, you assume all people want peace, and that depends on the definition of peace. I thrive in occupations where I have 3 places to be at one time, and am constantly busy. I enjoy the hectic and the stressful because that is where the most stuff gets done. If you say that people want to be at peace with themselves, then I would argue patience isn’t the most important thing, it’s purpose. Patience can come after purpose, but it’s subordinate.
   2b. Since we should give credit to the owner of fundamental philosophy, who first proclaimed this? The Word of the Christian God of Catholicism - 1 Corinthians 13:4 & 13 and the Greatest Commandments
   Buddhism actually predates Christianity by ~600 years, and definitely teaches to love others as yourself because the concept of “self” is an illusion and we all are the same.
   And even if I give you everything up to and including this line, being the first person to mention it doesn’t mean you’re entirely right. People knew stuff fell to the ground before Newton, but that doesn’t mean that their concept of gravity was as good as his. And even his concept was eventually found to be inadequate. Therefore the idea that Christian scholars happened to be the first to write this down (if it were true) may simply mean they observed something first, and made an incomplete guess about it, much like pre-Newtonian physicists.

I’m glad this stuff works for you, and I mean no offense by this, but I don’t think it will have the desired effect.
Let me put it another way. You are providing a well-paved path from natural observation to Christianity. But I’m not looking for just an easy path to show people. I’m looking for something more like the inside of a slaughterhouse, where they’re penned in on all sides and there’s no escape until they get to the end.**

 

[LJH_80]

I like your idea of questioning, rather than telling, for a number of reasons. However, I would conjecture that our questioning arrives at a simulacrum of a “Christian” God because we are westerners and Christians with exceptionally powerful unquestioned memes. And whatever the actual -beyond-our-abilities-to-know God really is, most people actually will default to a “God of the gaps,” not having other than a rote, though possibly passionate, acquaintance with the actual tenets, history, and requirements of their faith, which they practice, or not, as if it was the whole of the matter.

Science at least does not pretend to have a final answer, even to ideas currently used with great success in predicting or repeating phenomena. I think that many who protest that science claims a finished or finial answer to things are way off the mark and ignorant of the practicalities of science. Science is only convinced that there are answers to questions and that that process it uses will continue to define an increasingly accurate model of the physical Universe. It may hope for final answers, but I’m pretty sure no scientist worth their salt these days would ever believe that there are final answers in science, even if that “grail” is used as a motivational tool.

I will agree with your assessments on science, but I want to discuss with you the concept of the Christ simulacrum.

There is a phrase “if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Imagine an agnostic (like Richard Dawkins), who acknowledges a tiny chance of God existing, but lives his life entirely as if no God existed. I would call this man an atheist because he lives his life as if there is no God. Likewise, even if you had no problem eating meat, but all you ever ate were plants, I would call you a vegetarian.
If I can convince a person to
a: Acknowledge that s/he is inherrantly sinful
b: That s/he cannot find happiness or peace without forgiveness for their sinful nature
c: That God’s existence does not violate any aspect of their rational beliefs
d: That they will live life as if God were watching over them at all times, praying for His forgiveness and trying to carry out His will
e: That the Chirstian God most closely resembles the image of God they see in the world and humanity.
f: That the Christian God claims to have created the world and humanity in His image.
g: That, therefore, if they are to live as if there is a God, the Christian God is the one they should be living as if is there.

Now these people will still acknowledge the fact that God may not exist, just as Dawkins admits the possibility that God does exist. But they will be thinking and acting like Christians. If that’s not enough, if the people have to believe there is NO chance God doesn’t exist, then I may as well stop trying, because even I cannot get to that point.

So I guess my question to you is: How close must a Simulacrum be to the real thing for God to accept it?

 

[Micorhizea]

I will agree with your assessments on science, but I want to discuss with you the concept of the Christ simulacrum.

There is a phrase …
So I guess my question to you is: How close must a Simulacrum be to the real thing for God to accept it?

Happy to oblige.

First, you forgot the “walks like a duck” component, which is vital in this consideration, as in “walking your talk.” But you kind of described it in your delineation of Dawkins.

Second, the Christ “simulacrum” is a different idea that the “simulacrum of a Christian God,” as I used it. What is common to the two is the concern that the human mind uses symbols to calculate or perceive what limited, very limited, portion of reality it might perceive. Most of us believe, with personally and socially devastating results, that what we have as thoughts in our head has a one-to-one correspondence with how things actually are. I invite you to look upon your experience and assess if among the several billions of folks on the planet even one has a one-to-one model in their mind of the totality of existence, never mind God.

So, as I might have answered another thread which asks how to combat relativism. it is a simple answer. “God is Absolute; all else is relativism.” Given that, what we usually ave and operate by means of is a consensus reality based on common tracts of words that are yet interpreted in vastly different ways. You are likely aware of Korzybski’s structural differential whis is a beautiful and mostly adequate visual of this dynamic. If not, it is worth discovering and studying closely.

Itis soon easy to see why, aside from the comic, though fact based, idea of the male-female translating dictionary, that sort of dictionalry might very well be useful between religions, economic memes, political partys (oh, lord!!!) and other dispararate groups of people, not to mention between every living individual on the face of the Earth. This is why language is always an interpretive skill, as is especially the communication of interior spiritual experience. We all might benefit if we all read and digested Ken Wibur’s idea of the four quadrants as delineated in A Brief History of Everythingthere is an exercise that might put your considerable intellect to an important task: figure at least five meanings for each one of those sentences.

And as far as non believers acting like Christians, you might be fascinated by the heaps of praise that Christopher Columbus placed upon the Native Americans he encountered in a letter, perhaps more, to Queen Isabella. He delineated how these men and women were more Christian than Christians.then he proceeded to cut the hands off all of them because they wen’t in name and belief, only in action. Go figure.

Finally, why does it have to be “the Christian God?” If it is true, as we believe, that Man is made in the image and likeness of God, than all Good that proceeds from any person is from that Source and needs be labeled only “good” if one has to do that through some personal compulsion. If that person doing the good needs to find some intellectual accounting for where that came from, they surely will, as have all faithful through the millennia. And look at the astonishing diversity there! But some have never bothered with that kind of parsing and just were effulgent with their love without having to do much more than credit something larger than themselves. Maybe God is OK with that,

 

[Micorhizea]

I don’t know how to say this with humility, so I won’t try. I’m smart. I’m not saying anything stupid like “I’m the smartest person to ever live,” or even “the smartest person on the planet today.” But I am in the upper percentiles of intelligence.
But more to the point… if you look at scientific history, many times a person invented something that makes you think “how the heck did nobody think of that beforehand?”
Beer, tea and coffee were all drank because they were safer than water because in making them, the water had to be boiled, which killed the bacteria. Yet how many millenia did it take for humans to say “how about we just boil water and then drink that?”

I’m not saying all my ideas are new. I am saying that I have not before read someone who puts them together as I have, in the words I use, and has critiqued their points as skeptically as I have.

It is said that if you put 20 words together in a coherent English sentence, you have said something that no one else ever has. That’s a fun factoid. But you bring focus to one of my favorite topics and pet peeves: critical thinking, or the astonishing lack of it, even in people who came through the Catholic school system as I did.

For me, the use of critical thinking is paramount, but it ought, in my view, go as well with personal maturity. Both appear to be hard to come by these days. I may be wrong, but that is what I see from the media and most social contact I have. I can count my friends on about one hand. You can imagine why. But you’d be wrong, lol!

But levity aside, it is possible to categorize human maturity into roughly nine levels, each with its fulcrum of transformation. At each point the nature of the awareness transforms, growing into a new level which is different and yet includes the previous level. As a race, we are not doing too well on that chart, being emotionally mostly stuck somewhere between two and twelve years old.

This is mostly due to a serious lack of introspection and examination of unconscious memes inherited from family, friends, and society as we grow up, all inculcated before the age of seven, and most of it non verbal. We are also entrenched in the belief the our personal view completely comprehends reality and all its dynamics. Until some sort of shock literally knocks one out of their personal belief system, we have nary a clue that any of that is going on or that it even exist, save for a few who might intellectually understand the significance of that dynamic. For someone who experiences it, it is a world and soul transforming event. And while that happens, I believe, to many, it is overall a rare thing, usually misinterpreted, and the person who goes through that is likely to become a pink monkey amongst brown ones and have his life in danger if he speaks.

All that is to say that I applaud your skepticism and valuing of critical thinking. I can only encourage you to become more active in this area. Git 'er done!

 

[jochoa]

I thank you very much for your enthusiasm in responding. My issue is that I think you take too many leaps and assumptions.

Thank you very much my friend for taking the time to consider and share some thoughts on my initial questioning sequence. I believe I have understood your issues, and would like to present a refined presentation of some of the questions for your critiques:

Given the following definitions taken from Google:
Happiness: state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy.
Peace: Freedom from disturbance.

a. Since the most fundamental purpose for a person to will anything is to fulfill various wants, what one-word encompasses what we all want? Happiness
Regarding kindness: Though you are correct in that all of those can create happiness, they are all also acts of kindness. Even receiving kindness is an act of kindness because if one were to reject kindness, it would be considered an act of unkindness or possibly meanness.
c. What one-word feeling is a prerequisite to experience any level of happiness? Peace
Regarding your proposed terms. Please recognize that I have placed purpose prior to all. Though all the other terms could work on some levels, they are not all encompassing. Since one could be content and still have unfulfilled wishes to satisfy and goals to accomplish, satisfaction and accomplishments are incomplete. Since one can be content believing there is no hope of an after-life, hope has its limitations.

1. What one-word name is used for the greatest source of motivation? God
   All you’ve done here is say why God is a great motivating factor. You have said nothing about whether He actually exists, just that the idea of Him can be used to motivate people to do darn near anything. I know of few atheists who would disagree that God can be used to motivate believers, in fact that’s frequently one of their strongest criticisms.

Please recognize that the intention of the question and answer is to establish the presence of a God, and not the physical existence of a God. Given that one can be motivated for something with the mentioned qualities, the something has a presence. Please note that I connected the greatest source of motivation to willing patience and kindness. I assure you, there is nothing damning about patience and kindness. Also, will you please clarify your statements of the few atheists? Are they stating that God cannot be used to motivate people or are they stating they do not like that God can be used to motivate people?

I enjoy the hectic and the stressful because that is where the most stuff gets done.

Please consider the following analysis of your statement: Technically, you find happiness from getting stuff done and peace from much stuff being completed. The hectic and the stressful are the means to fulfilling your true want: getting the most stuff done. Unless perhaps you really mean to say, “I enjoy being stressed out.”

Buddhism actually predates Christianity by ~600 years, and definitely teaches to love others as yourself…

Please consider a few concepts:
First, I really like Buddhism. Its teachings are very righteous. Its 4 immeasurables are just that…immeasurable. And it is really amazing to know how much wisdom the Buddha found pre-Jesus Christ, which is some of the reasoning as to why he is a Catholic Saint. However, we are discussing the Fullness of Truth, and Buddhism is incomplete. The major point: Buddhism defines love as wanting others to be happy. This would still keep the Word of the Christian God of Catholicism as the owner of fundamental philosophy.

…being the first person to mention it doesn’t mean you’re entirely right.

Please know that I know I am far from being entirely right, rather, I am far from being partially right. However, I also know that the Holy Spirit is entirely right, and I listen to the Holy Spirit in others to guide me to grow closer in oneness with the Holy Spirit. You were correct in that peace is subordinate to purpose, and that my approach needed greater definition and less assumption. So I listened to the Holy Spirit in you, to adjust and make the approach more universal and closer to being entirely right.

Regarding complete and incomplete concepts:
Please recognize that fundamental philosophy is both complete and incomplete. To understand how it is incomplete, recognize that it is only fundamental and requires development for real application. In regards to an action considering qualities of patience, kindness, motivation, peace, and happiness, there are many factors, which are unique to role, relationship, and situation, to be developed and understood. To understand how it is complete, recognize that any developments will operate according to the fundamentals, thereby making them complete. An example, if one can find a method of obtaining peace while being disturbed.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I greatly appreciate your criticisms! I would especially appreciate critiques on the other proposed question sequences. Your critiques have been very valuable.

Thoughts?

 

[jochoa]

To understand how it is complete, recognize that any developments will operate according to the fundamentals, thereby making them complete. An example, if one can find a method of obtaining peace while being disturbed.

I apologize for incorrectly presenting the example.

I meant to state: An example discovery which would make the fundamental philosophy incomplete to the point of requiring better definition, would be if one found a method of obtaining peace while being disturbed.

 

[LJH_80]

It is said that if you put 20 words together in a coherent English sentence, you have said something that no one else ever has. That’s a fun factoid. But you bring focus to one of my favorite topics and pet peeves: critical thinking, or the astonishing lack of it, even in people who came through the Catholic school system as I did.

I would venture that this is intentional. I perceive Christianity to have a “danger zone” of critical thought. For those who aren’t very good at it, they will still believe because they can’t formulate a coherent argument against anything that they believe.
But then there comes a middle ground where the individual begins to find things to pick at. “Isn’t there a better way of dealing with children mocking a bald man than having them be eaten by bears?” “Wait, there are two different genealogies for Jesus?”
Essentially, there’s a level at which some of the minor issues in the Bible create dissonance and would drive people away from belief.
I believe that there is a third level of understanding, if that middle layer can be pushed through, that will get to a deeper understanding, bringing people back to God, and possibly even strengthening their faith. There is a saying that goes, “if you’ve never doubted, you don’t really believe” (which might count as questioning some people’s beliefs so I’m not actually allowed to agree with this on this forum, but saying the statement exists is a factual statement, so I might be able to get away with it).

I wonder if some educators feel it’s dangerous to push everyone to reach their potential in the fear that some might get stuck in that gulf. Therefore they keep everyone on one side, except those who independently push on to the other side.
Just like learning how to use explosives; not knowing anything, or knowing enough are both safe, but there’s a middle ground where you know just enough to blow your hand off.

As a race, we are not doing too well on that chart, being emotionally mostly stuck somewhere between two and twelve years old.

I have previously taken the image of God as the “father” of humanity to look at the development of humanity as “children.”
In infancy, a child has no concept of right or wrong, they just sort of eat and exist. This is like Eden or pre-sentience in evolution (whichever you prefer). But at some point, a child will do something it knows is wrong, and it will be punished by a parent, entering into a world of consequence (loss of innocence, the fall, etc.).
Then, when you are raising toddlers, you give rules that are absolutes, because they are not yet developed or wise enough to fully comprehend the reasoning.
“You do not cross the street.”
“You do not go near the oven.”
And other, very Old-Testament-sounding phrases.
But when a child grows and evidences some ability to make decisions, you rescind the rules and instead put in guidelines.
“Crossing the street can be dangerous because of cars, look both ways first, and cross where it’s safest.”
This reminds me of the teachings of Jesus, where he actively taught that the rules were not as important as the spirit behind the rules (i.e. curing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath).

Now I see humanity developing atomic energy, breaking into genetic engineering, and developing chemistry. This looks to me like an adolescent who is starting to play with his father’s power tools. A radial saw can be used to produce wonderful constructive things, or it can take your hand off, if used incorrectly.

This is not a theory that can hold its own to an assault of abusive criticism, but it does give me hope for our future, and shape the type of relationship I have with God.

 

[LJH_80]

Happy to oblige.

…

So I guess my really important question is why anyone would try to intellectually convince someone that their particular take on God is the one and only true one, when God isn’t even a question for the other alleged participant in the discussion, that kind of baffles me. I’m with the Saint, Anthony or Francis, I think, who said “Preach always; use words if necessary.” So far, I have found words necessary only if someone asks me a direct question, or there is an open forum inviting comment. Perhaps you find it needful to be different for some reason. I wonder what that might be?

There are many ways of asking a direct question. You might say that I have asked C.S. Lewis, Dawkins, Keller, Haught, Plato, and many others direct questions by actively seeking out and consuming their words.
I would try to convince others that my take on God is the correct one for the same reason that scientific papers get published. Because that way someone else can critique, build off of, or use something, without having to do develop it from scratch. If I’m even partially right, I may be saving other people effort of developing a portion of their concepts (as multiple authors and friends have done for me), and if I’m wrong, then maybe people can tell me how and where so that I can improve my own ideas.

Finally, why does it have to be “the Christian God?” If it is true, as we believe, that Man is made in the image and likeness of God, than all Good that proceeds from any person is from that Source and needs be labeled only “good” if one has to do that through some personal compulsion. If that person doing the good needs to find some intellectual accounting for where that came from, they surely will, as have all faithful through the millennia. And look at the astonishing diversity there! But some have never bothered with that kind of parsing and just were effulgent with their love without having to do much more than credit something larger than themselves. Maybe God is OK with that,

Are you familiar with da Vinci’s ornithopter? Leonardo studied the motions of bat and bird wings and modeled them perfectly, and then designed them into a flying machine designed to be powered by human muscle. The fatal flaw was that humans lacked the physical strength to actually flap those wings (compare the amount of our weight that is pectoral muscle to that of a bird). While some might say this failure was not due to design, but due to human frailty, I disagree.
Any design that does not account for human frailty will be doomed to fail, and it is the fault of the designer. I think many people try to get from one point to another, and get lost, or misdirected. Moreover, many people in the world are not happy and don’t understand why.

I believe in the Gospel of Uncle Ben, “with great power comes great responsibility.” And if I have insights that help me to achieve happiness and morality, then I feel compelled to make them available for others to take or discard at their whim. Many will certainly disregard me as not fitting their view of the world, but as the parable of the girl throwing starfish into the ocean says, just because I can’t help everyone doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try to help a few.

 

[Micorhizea]

There are many ways of asking a direct question. You might say that I have asked C.S. Lewis, Dawkins, Keller, Haught, Plato, and many others direct questions by actively seeking out and consuming their words.

Yes, that kind of delving is very admirable, and few seem to do it these days, at least in the geographical are I’m in and the contacts I’ve made. I trust it is “better” elsewhere.

I would try to convince others that my take on God is the correct one for the same reason that scientific papers get published. Because that way someone else can critique, build off of, or use something, without having to do develop it from scratch. If I’m even partially right, I may be saving other people effort of developing a portion of their concepts (as multiple authors and friends have done for me), and if I’m wrong, then maybe people can tell me how and where so that I can improve my own ideas.

Well, here is an interesting idea. What you are doing is, I think, very useful. My question is, “to whom?” I ask this because due to the religious persuasions of some relatives, I occasionally find myself in a Mormon church, listening to the adventures of newly returned young missionaries back from “the field.”

I am always truck by one glaring contrast: I am very much in awe of the effort and energy they have devoted to the conversion of many people, in the course of which they acquired experiences which yielded what anyone would call virtues, such as persistence, devotion. forbearance, patience, charity, etc., etc. But the theology they are promoting??? to me, very highly questionable. In fact, it is pretty clear to me that the missionary program of that church is designed to forge believers by means of exhorting the young 'uns to go forth and save people from hellfire by means of feeding them God’s Truth–which they thoroughly from infancy if they are part of any such devout family.

So the virtues thus acquired are wonderful! What they are utilized for in terms of promotion? Hmmmm; not so sure. Many many Catholics in third world countries are being swept up in a rather extensive campaign, and I’m not convinced that that is an improvement. But all that is another matter. What I’m wondering about here is an interesting distinction.

We can’t argue that virtues are not useful and helpful in the endeavor of salvation. But we can argue that perhaps who’s brand of salvation and what salvation really is, even in Catholic terms, might bear some clarification. So in your model below–

Are you familiar with da Vinci’s ornithopter? Leonardo studied the motions of bat and bird wings and modeled them perfectly, and then designed them into a flying machine designed to be powered by human muscle. The fatal flaw was that humans lacked the physical strength to actually flap those wings (compare the amount of our weight that is pectoral muscle to that of a bird). While some might say this failure was not due to design, but due to human frailty, I disagree.
Any design that does not account for human frailty will be doomed to fail, and it is the fault of the designer. I think many people try to get from one point to another, and get lost, or misdirected. Moreover, many people in the world are not happy and don’t understand why.

I believe in the Gospel of Uncle Ben, “with great power comes great responsibility.” And if I have insights that help me to achieve happiness and morality, then I feel compelled to make them available for others to take or discard at their whim. Many will certainly disregard me as not fitting their view of the world, but as the parable of the girl throwing starfish into the ocean says, just because I can’t help everyone doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try to help a few.

–the ornithopter is a fortuitous example.

But here we are not talking about physical strength applied to a mechanical device, though I like the dynamic. What if we used the machine to rep[resent and actual means of “flying” to what is symbolically labelled “heaven?” In* that instance the analogy might read as one using mortal thoughts and beliefs to utilize a system that requires more of a zero point energy Source, So the real task at hand is to replace the mortal thoughts with a thought structure transparent to Deity so the experience of Grace might be had.

So I guess that it can be somewhat useful to make this effort by engaging in argu-mentation to hone ones mind. But my tactic has been to go with the dictum relevant to removing obstructions from one’s own vision before attempting delicate surgery on someone else’s. It is to this end that I read not the mystics so much as the purer and more pragmatic contemplatives. The fact that those of that group who became “advanced” through prodigious effort had people coming to them to ask questions which then changed their lives is not lost on me. Sometimes I wish it was not lost on other folks, but that is another matter,

So I admire your intentions and see merit in your methods, but they are not for me, except as perhaps a cautionary tale to watch as it unfolds. And there is where there is actual merit in an activity. The stance of someone actually watching is "I don’t know. no, really, i don’t I have some relative knowledge useful in navigating these dimensions of Creation, but as to what might be prescribed to someone even in the course of a stream of logic clearly inadequate to the task of encompassing Deity? uh-uh.

I know, as delineated above, you will definitely learn something, and your partner in discourse might, as well. I would observe to what degree such activity is functional in changing someone’s mind. A large number of people familiar with public debate observe that argument serves to entrench opponents further in their paradigm. Maybe you are better or more skilled than these., I hope so. But in any case, I have no doubt that if you are watchful, you will learn,