Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil;What?

Resurrection is not resuscitation. Nor is it reincarnation.

Good morning Amandil: You need to pay attention and follow the line of discussion. You posited a situation wherein the bones of Chris were found. I said that would problematic for an ascension. Without an ascension, a resurrection is still possible and by no means less miraculous. It doesn’t necessarily make it resuscitation, and it is by no means reincarnation, which is not the reanimation of a dead corpse. Reincarnation refers to transmigration of souls. That is not the same thing.

As far as the rest of the sentence…I really don’t know what to say. It’s akin to some protestant who claims that Catholics “worship” Mary. Absurd doesn’t even begin to describe it.

I’m not seeing the connection. Can you elaborate?

You’re utter lack of any theological foundation is rather extraordinary. You’ve just about tossed out the entire whole of the Catholic faith while at the same time claiming to be a faithful Catholic.

You have gone off point again. You have come to a conclusion that I lack theological foundation and have thrown out the Catholic faith without explaining why you’ve come to that conclusion.

What’s problematic is that you have no concept of the purpose of the Passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.

You have gone off point yet again. It is customary to follow statements such as this with the reasoning behind them.

So then you make God out to be utterly arbitrary and pointless ,as well as the Church, you diminish the Redemption and the Salvation of souls, sin, etc.

Again, off point. The best way to make that sort of argument is to offer direct counterpoints and from there all parties who are engaged in the conversation can draw conclusions. You haven’t explained how I have made God pointless. If you make good points, the conclusions become self evident, which means you simply need to calm down and make some points, otherwise you are only getting yourself agitated. By the way, my statement sonly make God pointless for anyone who seek Him as an enterprise for gain.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Subjective religion is what the Reformation was all about … private interpretation of Scripture. And hence the ludicrous phenomenon of a thousand Protestant sects defying the plea of both Jesus and Paul that Christians should be objective one, “As I and the Father are one.”

Unfortunately, this Protestant disease of the soul, that one is justified in one’s feelings about the truth, and not by what is objectively what Jesus taught and preached, has deeply infected the Catholic realm. These subjectivists are rightly called Cafeteria Catholics.

So yes, I see what you mean.

But that is not the topic of this thread, and there might be more traction for this subject if it had its own thread.

God Morning Charlemagne: I thought I might point out that I am here for you to speak to directly.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God Morning Charlemagne: I thought I might point out that I am here for you to speak to directly.

Thanks,
Gary

The resurrection is not the topic of this thread. Why not start a new thread?

This one has been corrupted beyond recognition.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The resurrection is not the topic of this thread. Why not start a new thread?

This one has been corrupted beyond recognition.

Good Evening Charlemagne: I do see where the subject of the resurrection could rightly be the topic of another thread, however, if agreeable with the moderators and fellow participants, I think it could also dovetail nicely into a broader discussion as to why the universe was created. The reason I think this may be plausible is that there are many people who hold the belief that the resurrection of Christ is a precursor that conveys to the ultimate potential outcome of a personal resurrection for faithful followers. In turn, this view lends itself to the idea that the purpose of the creation of the universe is to allow for a transformative reanimation of a subset of one species on one planet within one small solar system on the outer edge of a medium sized galaxy among billions of other galaxies. This has profound implications (I think) in regards to the views of many as to why the universe was created.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[meltzerboy]

Good Evening Charlemagne: I do see where the subject of the resurrection could rightly be the topic of another thread, however, if agreeable with the moderators and fellow participants, I think it could also dovetail nicely into a broader discussion as to why the universe was created. The reason I think this may be plausible is that there are many people who hold the belief that the resurrection of Christ is a precursor that conveys to the ultimate potential outcome of a personal resurrection for faithful followers. In turn, this view lends itself to the idea that the purpose of the creation of the universe is to allow for a transformative reanimation of a subset of one species on one planet within one small solar system on the outer edge of a medium sized galaxy among billions of other galaxies. This has profound implications (I think) in regards to the views of many as to why the universe was created.

Thanks,
Gary

I think it’s more likely that the Hokey Pokey is what it’s all about.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I think it’s more likely that the Hokey Pokey is what it’s all about.

Good catch Melzerboy. Well, now that we’ve settled all that, I suppose we can move on to another thread.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

The resurrection is not the topic of this thread. Why not start a new thread?

This one has been corrupted beyond recognition.

I’m wondering if any such exercise would be even worth the time and energy with a religious subjectivist such as Mr. Sheldrake.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Why do people make discussions of religious topics so difficult?

 

[Amandil]

Why do people make discussions of religious topics so difficult?

I’m finding out more and more that people really would rather believe what they want to believe, that is they really just want to believe that which is more agreeable better suited to their current tastes and sensibilities, than believe what is true.

There’s many intellectual and psychological motives for this kind of disbelief in the truth which makes these discussions so difficult if not sometimes impossible, but mostly the source is sin. For some who are attached to a sin (or several) they foresee endless problems and difficulties if they do recognize the truth, so instead they convince themselves that it’s not that serious, or its not really sinful, or that there is no such thing as sin at all, that it’s just a “social construct”.

For others I think its rather flattering to convince yourself that you figured out some great mystery of God or about the philosophical notion of “truth” based upon modern philosophy and rationale, so instead of conforming their minds to the actual accounts of Jesus as conveyed by those who knew him and witnessed what He said and did, they create a “Jesus” based upon their own preferences and value opinions.

Of course the reasons are not limited tthese. But these are what I’ve often encountered.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m wondering if any such exercise would be even worth the time and energy with a religious subjectivist such as Mr. Sheldrake.

I think I see your point.

The vast size of the universe is a subjective obstacle for some Catholics who wonder if the fate of mankind, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and other assorted matters of great import could really matter at all. They are inclined to shrug their shoulders and think maybe the hokey-pokey is really what it’s all about.

Very droll, I suppose.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course the reasons are not limited tthese. But these are what I’ve often encountered.

In this vast universe () you’re not alone as to these encounters.

 

[TaurusRex]

I’m finding out more and more that people really would rather believe what they want to believe, that is they really just want to believe that which is more agreeable better suited to their current tastes and sensibilities, than believe what is true.

There’s many intellectual and psychological motives for this kind of disbelief in the truth which makes these discussions so difficult if not sometimes impossible, but mostly the source is sin. For some who are attached to a sin (or several) they foresee endless problems and difficulties if they do recognize the truth, so instead they convince themselves that it’s not that serious, or its not really sinful, or that there is no such thing as sin at all, that it’s just a “social construct”.

For others I think its rather flattering to convince yourself that you figured out some great mystery of God or about the philosophical notion of “truth” based upon modern philosophy and rationale, so instead of conforming their minds to the actual accounts of Jesus as conveyed by those who knew him and witnessed what He said and did, they create a “Jesus” based upon their own preferences and value opinions.

Of course the reasons are not limited tthese. But these are what I’ve often encountered.

Isn’t it possible that some folks have learned things that cause them to legitimately question some things in the Bible like for example the parting of the Red Sea?
Didn’t Moses go live on the east side near the Red Sea for a long time?
Isn’t it possible that in those days he found a place where when the tide went out a strip of land was exposed that allowed crossing of the Red Sea?

Believe it or not, aside from my education (110 college credits) and my fondness for National Geographic type programs, I went fishing at a local inlet of the Delaware River and exactly that phenomenon (on a very small scale occurred for me (i.e. when the tide went out, a small island appeared about 20 ’ farther out from the high tide shoreline and I was able to walk through some shallow water to reach it)).;

So anyway, that caused me to give some practical thought to the supposed parting of the Red Sea and if Moses had learned to time the tidal occurrences, he very well could still have spoken those awesome words:
“Behold His Mighty Hand”.

Even the pillar of fire could have been due to exposed petroleum and to desert folks unfamiliar with such phenomena, these awesome wonders would very well have seemed acts of God.

rex

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Amandil; I’m finding out more and more that people really would rather believe what they want to believe, that is they really just want to believe that which is more agreeable better suited to their current tastes and sensibilities, than believe what is true.

Good Evening Amandil: My opinion has been from the outset that the fundamental difference between the two of us is that I am aware of my own subjectivity.

There’s many intellectual and psychological motives for this kind of disbelief in the truth which makes these discussions so difficult if not sometimes impossible, but mostly the source is sin. For some who are attached to a sin (or several) they foresee endless problems and difficulties if they do recognize the truth, so instead they convince themselves that it’s not that serious, or its not really sinful, or that there is no such thing as sin at all, that it’s just a “social construct”.

To suppose that anything I believe or disbelieve is a matter of choice based on an appetition for certain sins may well be a symptom of what is known in psychology as projecting.

For others I think its rather flattering to convince yourself that you figured out some great mystery of God or about the philosophical notion of “truth” based upon modern philosophy and rationale, so instead of conforming their minds to the actual accounts of Jesus as conveyed by those who knew him and witnessed what He said and did, they create a “Jesus” based upon their own preferences and value opinions.

I haven’t offered any new truths that I am aware of, but have simply suggested that our own felt and direct experience of God is primary over any other approach. That is not a radical idea actually.

 

[Amandil]

Good Evening Amandil: My opinion has been from the outset that the fundamental difference between the two of us is that I am aware of my own subjectivity.

And here you go again imposing your subjective opinion onto me which proves that you are a rather inconsistent subjectivist at best.

I never denied that whatever I stated above was anything but my subjective experience. But my experience does not come from me. My mind does not dictate or project the behaviors that others commit nor the motives behind why they hold to those behaviors.

Rather it is those people with their motives and their behaviors which my mind has received and thus conformed to using my reason and my objective knowledge of my sinfulness to intuit the motives behind the behavior I observed.

So you’re quite wrong in saying that you are the only one aware of your own subjectivity. I am rather keenly aware of your subjectivity as well as an objective fact because you and your subjectivity are absolutely independent of me. You would still be Gary Sheldrake even if I never encountered you here or anywhere else. Just as I would still be Amandil even if you never had any experience of me.

The only other possibility is that this entire time you have been arguing with a figment of your imagination. There’s a psychological term for that I believe…

To suppose that anything I believe or disbelieve is a matter of choice based on an appetition for certain sins may well be a symptom of what is known in psychology as projecting.

I never said you explicitly. It was never directed at you nor did I have you in mind when I wrote it. Why you would ascribe some malice behind something not directed towards you is interesting though…

If you took those words in such a way as, metaphorically speaking, one would look into a mirror, then that says more about you than about some so-called “symptom” as “projecting”.

I haven’t offered any new truths that I am aware of, but have simply suggested that our own felt and direct experience of God is primary over any other approach. That is not a radical idea actually.

Not radical? This goes back to the main problem if religious subjectivism; you can never possibly know that anything that you"experience" is actually an “experience” of God because you deny any objective knowable content by which to discern a true experience from a false one. You deny the authority of the Bible and the Church, or you at least take it upon yourself to decide which parts or teachings you accept and which ones to ignore based upon no authority except your own opinion.

You basically uproot the whole of Scripture and Sacred Tradition and replace it with your own preferences and opinions.

Your “approach” has never been the approach of the Church. I would argue that your approach in fact obscures God instead of revealing Him.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I never denied that whatever I stated above was anything but my subjective experience. But my experience does not come from me. My mind does not dictate or project the behaviors that others commit nor the motives behind why they hold to those behaviors.

I thought you had said that your beliefs were based on objective fact. If you said otherwise, then we needn’t have had a discussion. Again, a “control f” search on the thread reveals that you were the first to bring up the idea of objectivity, and then labelled me as a subjectivist.

Rather it is those people with their motives and their behaviors which my mind has received and thus conformed to using my reason and my objective knowledge of my sinfulness to intuit the motives behind the behavior I observed.

Yes, that is projection. Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own qualities or feelings that you feel are unacceptable and ascribing them to other people.

So you’re quite wrong in saying that you are the only one aware of your own subjectivity. I am rather keenly aware of your subjectivity as well as an objective fact because you and your subjectivity are absolutely independent of me. You would still be Gary Sheldrake even if I never encountered you here or anywhere else. Just as I would still be Amandil even if you never had any experience of me.

Now the conversation finally has the potential to get interesting. Would you be agreeable to explaining who Amandil is?

The only other possibility is that this entire time you have been arguing with a figment of your imagination. There’s a psychological term for that I believe…

That is certainly possible, however, that would mean that Charlemagne, Metzerboy and TaurusRex are having the same delusional episode that I am having. Or, perhaps if we turned the woof and warp around, perhaps you have imagined us. The world is a strange place Amandil.

I never said you explicitly. It was never directed at you nor did I have you in mind when I wrote it. Why you would ascribe some malice behind something not directed towards you is interesting though…

I would have to ask you to please be honest if we’re going to have a discussion.

Not radical? This goes back to the main problem if religious subjectivism; you can never possibly know that anything that you"experience" is actually an “experience” of God because you deny any objective knowable content by which to discern a true experience from a false one.

I have never said that I am a religious subjectivist (if there is such a thing). I said that some of what I believe is subjective, and just a minute ago you said the same of yourself. I am wondering whether you ever really had a point or if you were just taken aback that someone would have the audacity to prefer his or her own direct experience. Insofar as I know, this isn’t prohibited by our Church.

You deny the authority of the Bible and the Church, or you at least take it upon yourself to decide which parts or teachings you accept and which ones to ignore based upon no authority except your own opinion.

Ultimately, I am responsible for me.

You basically uproot the whole of Scripture and Sacred Tradition and replace it with your own preferences and opinions.

Perhaps it is more that I have seen something in them that you have missed. Perhaps they’re not as you thought they were.

Your “approach” has never been the approach of the Church. I would argue that your approach in fact obscures God instead of revealing Him.

Do you know what conclusions or experiences my approach has wrought?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I think I see your point.

The vast size of the universe is a subjective obstacle for some Catholics who wonder if the fate of mankind, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and other assorted matters of great import could really matter at all. They are inclined to shrug their shoulders and think maybe the hokey-pokey is really what it’s all about.

Very droll, I suppose.

Good Evening Charlemagne: I think all things matter, because the whole is the aggregate of its constituent parts. There is no great without the small. However, I think it would be a mistake to think that in all the vast expanse of the cosmos, there is only one story of import, or that of all the people who inhabit, have inhabited or have yet to inhabit this one planet, there could be only one cultural encounter with God. Such self important views made it necessary for scientists just a few hundred years ago to invent epicycles to explain the movements of celestial bodies in order not to disturb the dangerous passions of religious zealots. The reason for this is that without epicycles that proposed impossibly disjointed tracks for stars and planets follow, it could no longer be said that the earth was the center of things. Of course we know that the earth has never been the center of things, and it is therefore rather unlikely that we are the center of things either. That would be akin to the notion that the beach existed because of a single grain of sand, or that the ocean was all about one drop of water. It’s about all of them I think. And because the observable universe is known to build in repeating patterns, it is hardly likely that we are unique among the stars. As for the hokey pokey, it is certainly what it’s all about if the hokey pokey is what you’re doing at he moment, so long as you are doing it fully immersed and fully awake.

 

[Amandil]

I thought you had said that your beliefs were based on objective fact. If you said otherwise, then we needn’t have had a discussion.

I did. And at the same time I never belittled the subjective aspects of religious experience. That’s not a subjectivist position as you seem to claim.

Religious truth does not come from us or our “experiences”, from “us”, but from something (or someone) independent of us and our consciousness which our minds must conform to. (That is an objective statement, not a subjective one."

What is “primary” is God. And God is a Being independent of us; He is a Trinity of Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not merely a “consciousness”. How we know God the Father is through God the Son, and He is proclaimed by the Church with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

My subjective experiences of prayer and worship are based upon the objective fact of God and the knowable content pertaining to Him(Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

How I know that my “experiences” are true is based upon the authority of God himself & His Church, not my subjective imagination.

Trusting your imagination to properly depict God is like building your house on sand.

Yes, that is projection. Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own qualities or feelings that you feel are unacceptable and ascribing them to other people.

You got it backwards. It would be “projecting” if I was trying to deny my sinfulness by pointing out others. That’s not what is happening at all.

I never denied my sinfulness. I used my knowledge of my sinfulness to intuit the motives of others who rationalize to deny their sinfulness.

Big difference.

Now the conversation finally has the potential to get interesting. Would you be agreeable to explaining who Amandil is?

This is where you expect me to answer “I am me.” and you go "Aha! See! You are a subject! Therefore truth is subjective.

Nice try. But all you’re doing is taking another extreme absolutist position. If you’re going where I suspect that you’re going you’re attempting to fudge the difference between Being and Having.

Although I am subject to me, I am object to you. Just as you are object to me and subject to you.

You even speak of the experiences of God you have as “your” experiences, which indicates a gap between the self which is you(the subject) with the “experience”(the object).

IOW “I” am me as subject, but my body, my feelings, my thoughts, etc. that I know in my soul I know them as objects. I know my past because I am more than my past, I know my body because I am more than my body. Therefore that which I know as object is distinct from “me” as subject. The subject(me) conforms its being to the knowable objects(objective content) it receives.

That is certainly possible, however, that would mean that Charlemagne, Metzerboy and TaurusRex are having the same delusional episode that I am having.

Indeed.

I would have to ask you to please be honest if we’re going to have a discussion.

How do you know that I’m not?

I have never said that I am a religious subjectivist (if there is such a thing).

If it walks like a duck…

I said that some of what I believe is subjective…

You’ve said much more than that.

…and just a minute ago you said the same of yourself.

I said that my experience conforms to objective observations I have made. That what I intuit from those observations may be subjective in nature, but that has yet to prove that my observations are wholly subjective, just that my observations have yet to be verified.

I still leave open the possibility of my mind to conform to other possible truths related to those observations.

Big difference.

I am wondering whether you ever really had a point or if you were just taken aback that someone would have the audacity to prefer his or her own direct experience.

Frankly I’m taken aback by people who claim to be Catholic, who recite the Creed at Mass and who reaffirm their Baptismal vows, yet who in practice ignore and undermine those very things which they say they believe.

Insofar as I know, this isn’t prohibited by our Church.

CCC 67:
“Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.”

The litmus test of any private “experience” in Christianity is Obedience. Since your “experiences” have lead you is various ways to diminish, to make the Church “secondary” to your “primary” experiences, your experiences cannot be from God, thus they cannot be true experiences.

Ultimately, I am responsible for me.

True. But as a Catholic Christian I am obligated to proclaim the truth. What you decide to do with it is entirely of to you(objectively speaking).

Perhaps it is more that I have seen something in them that you have missed. Perhaps they’re not as you thought they were.

That’s that pride and self-flattery I was speaking about.

Do you know what conclusions or experiences my approach has wrought?

Given what you’ve written so far I really don’t care to.

 

[TaurusRex]

I did. And at the same time I never belittled the subjective aspects of religious experience. That’s not a subjectivist position as you seem to claim.

Religious truth does not come from us or our “experiences”, from “us”, but from something (or someone) independent of us and our consciousness which our minds must conform to. (That is an objective statement, not a subjective one."

What is “primary” is God. And God is a Being independent of us; He is a Trinity of Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not merely a “consciousness”. How we know God the Father is through God the Son, and He is proclaimed by the Church with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

My subjective experiences of prayer and worship are based upon the objective fact of God and the knowable content pertaining to Him(Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

How I know that my “experiences” are true is based upon the authority of God himself & His Church, not my subjective imagination.

Exactly …
my belief in God is through my love and respect for the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings to me.

However, unless I were building the Tower of Babel where solid rock as a foundation would be best, generally most sand with exception of beach sand is satisfactory for most house construction:

Trusting your imagination to properly depict God is like building your house on sand.

Beach sand has had its particles rounded due to erosion by the sea, whereas the particles of pulverized rock sand have jagged edges so that they tend to pack instead of roll away from each other …
left college and finally obtained a builder’s license after ten years in the building trades back in the late 60s and 70s.

rex

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Good Evening Charlemagne: I think all things matter, because the whole is the aggregate of its constituent parts. There is no great without the small. However, I think it would be a mistake to think that in all the vast expanse of the cosmos, there is only one story of import, or that of all the people who inhabit, have inhabited or have yet to inhabit this one planet, there could be only one cultural encounter with God.

Even if we grant that there are other planets with other creatures inhabiting them and having their own encounter with God, you have no warrant to assume that Christ came in person to this planet to do the hokey-pokey, which is about what you argument amounts to when you ask if that may be what our life on this planet all about.

Your theology strikes me as altogether too flippant and subjectivist. Amandil has got your number, and so have I.

 

[meltzerboy]

Good Evening Charlemagne: I think all things matter, because the whole is the aggregate of its constituent parts. There is no great without the small. However, I think it would be a mistake to think that in all the vast expanse of the cosmos, there is only one story of import, or that of all the people who inhabit, have inhabited or have yet to inhabit this one planet, there could be only one cultural encounter with God. Such self important views made it necessary for scientists just a few hundred years ago to invent epicycles to explain the movements of celestial bodies in order not to disturb the dangerous passions of religious zealots. The reason for this is that without epicycles that proposed impossibly disjointed tracks for stars and planets follow, it could no longer be said that the earth was the center of things. Of course we know that the earth has never been the center of things, and it is therefore rather unlikely that we are the center of things either. That would be akin to the notion that the beach existed because of a single grain of sand, or that the ocean was all about one drop of water. It’s about all of them I think. And because the observable universe is known to build in repeating patterns, it is hardly likely that we are unique among the stars. As for the hokey pokey, it is certainly what it’s all about if the hokey pokey is what you’re doing at he moment, so long as you are doing it fully immersed and fully awake.

FYI, Gary, the whole is DIFFERENT than the summation of its parts, according to the Gestalt school of psychology. IOW the whole depends on the arrangement, pattern, configuration of its parts based on the laws of perceptual grouping and the principle of Pragnanz. Further, we humans have a motivational drive to perceive the universe as an organized whole structure of good configuration or form even though it may at first appear to consist of random stimuli. This is probably related to our need to attribute meaning and purpose to our lives by perceiving them as unified rather than disconnected moments of time and experiences.