D
doomhammer
Guest
and probably The Pietà is a masterpiece of wind erosion…
- Status
D
doomhammer
Guest
I’m with you all the way. Happiness without Truth is impossible. I consider atheism as a strange and evil case of self-mutilation. Why does a person decide to mutilate one self?
St. Peter says: “Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for (someone) to devour” (1 St. Peter 5, 8).
Atheism is another face the Devil has. And this applies not only to individuals but also to societies. Why does a society decide to kill the unborn? To destroy family? To despise natural law? To refuse Truth?
This is why I pointed out the “putrefied state and final fall of the Western Civilization” (Cfr. #214).
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Good point, and agrees with everything I said. Let’s not forget that while your analogy is very good, it is still an analogy and not an exact replica of the question at hand. You already were aware of Joe’s existence, you only had to change your mind about some of his percieved attributes. I can assure you, that if God ever shows up in my vicinity, I will not turn away, and I will gladly cross the road to meet him.
Since he is supposed to be omnipresent, and could manifest himself in a tangible form, it would present no hardship for him to materialize in front of my eyes.
Let me reverse the question you presented: If I am open to accept him, and the only impediment is his continued absence, why would you blame me for his absence?
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Physiologically happiness is a state of mind of fulfillment and balance. It is “just” a way the neurons fire. What causes this state of mind is unique to the individual. I already said that it is possible that the “rapture” some believers speak of is a very intense and emotionally uplifting feeing. This feeling usually comes from a state of meditation (or prayer, if you will), but it can also come from some halluciogenic drugs. (Many relifious “sects” use them.)
Since I do not meditate do not pray and do not take drugs, this feeling is necessirly closed to me.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Again, what I am speaking of is no feeling. It is a state of “being”. And as a drug and alcohol counselor who is constantly around 20-30 low bottom addicts a day, I can assure you that none of them possess what I am talking about through their drug of choice (or drug of no choice to be more exact). The one’s that are “sick and tired of being sick and tired” are seeking something different than the instant gratification (or feeling) that the drug offers. They are seeking a paradigm shift in thinking and living.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
I guess we have to agree to disagree, but we do it in a most cordial fashion. I understand that the addicts you speak of are not valid examples of what I brought up, but they are not the only types of drug users either.
D
doomhammer
Guest
The materialistic approach to everything is so shallow, absurd, meaningless and perverse, that atheism should be labeled as a mental disease.
Psalm 14, 1: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”.
T
Thal59
Guest
God did manifest Himself in a tangible form: Jesus. Yet, the people who should have recognized and accepted Him immediately, the Scribes and Pharisees, rejected Him immediately. This was because He did not fit their personal interpretation of the Messiah, i.e. the warlord who would restore Israel’s wealth and prosperity through the military destruction of their enemies.
It would be, therefore, safe to say that even if God manifested Himself to you in a way that met your standards, you still would not recognize, or accept Him because He would not be the kind of God you want Him to be. Your problem, Hitetlen, is that you feel that solid, material facts and evidence are the only standard by which one can “believe” that there is a God, or at least, a God worthy of one’s assent. Therefore, you reason that if God does not “physically” manifest Himself before me, He must be physically absent from me.
But consider the apple you once made mention of when you said something to the effect that nobody could deny the existence of the apple once they held it in their hand. You consider the apple as empirical evidence of the apple alone, and nothing more. In the apple, which was developed upon a living tree, I also see the mystery of life. To make a long dissertation short, contemplation of the apple, as well as the divine peach, becomes empirical evidence of something, or someone, that is independent of, and superior to, simple mathematics, science, and limited human reasoning.
Yet, in all of what you have said, there is something that is both awkward and obviously missing. The school master does not go to the individual homes of the students; the students go to his classroom. The star does not go to each individual fan’s home, the fan’s go to the star’s stage. The King does not go to his cabinet, his cabinet comes to him.
The lesser yields to the greater. (Yes, there are rare exceptions, but the rare exception does not dismiss or invalidate the rule.)
Yet, you expect God to come to you; and in a form of your choosing.
But to what avail? You, who are imperfect, cannot understand perfection. You, who have limited intelligence, cannot understand perfect intelligence. You, who have personality flaws, cannot understand His perfect character. Therefore, as long as God does not conform to your idea of what constitutes a true God, you will not accept Him no matter how He presents Himself to you.
If you, the lesser, will not seek out God, the greater - How can you expect God to seek out you?
Thal59
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Well, the only way to really “seek out” God is through suicide, which is a rather unpalatable option for me.
If God wishes to pay a visit to me, he does not have to do anything even remotely like that. Just snap his imaginary fingers, and voila, it would happen. No big deal for him.
D
Doreen
Guest
Wow, Thal, Kuddos to you for presenting your thoughts in such a loving, and clear way. This is the work of inspiration…that, alone, to me is evidence of a higher power!!
Hitetlen,
It would not be called “faith” if it weren’t to require a bit of a “leap!”
As for me, it was the most wondrous leap I’ve ever made! And once made, instead of falling, I have since been lifted up to new levels every day.
There is, indeed, a wondrous and glorious God. There would not be made so much fuss about it for all these years, if He hadn’t revealed Himself to so many. He does so every day…convincing us, not just of His existence, but of His grace, mercy, power, and faithfulness.
I pray that you might someday meet Him for yourself. I believe you will. And I believe the fact that you are stirred up with these questions shows that He already does have His finger on your heart! For **He calls us ** to Himself, in His way, in His time…
In His Mighty Grip!
D.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Atheism also takes a leap of faith. Atheists also normally prescribe to several dogmas like naturalism and scientism, so they’re not entirely non-religious. After all, the Supreme Court has declared Atheism to be it’s own religion. So my question is why can the public schools teach Atheism or at least imply it when there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state?
H
hurst
Guest
There is a problem with this approach, though. For if “God” were to appear to you according to a list of your own requirements, how will you know it is “God” and not some other powerful entity? For there are also good and bad angels with powers above ours.
St. Martin was “visited” by “Christ” who said he had returned to earth to reward him. He was arrayed in light and splendor of a sort, and acted as if Martin were some great personage. But Martin rejected this as a trick of the devil, which it in fact turned out to be. And it disappeared with a smoking stench.
The fact is, anything we can think of can be thought of by another, or picked up by another who is smarter or stronger than us. To be sure we are being visited by God and not an impostor would require that we be able to somehow identify that the visitor is the greatest possible being. But this requires faith on our part. Without faith, we will always be coming up with an alternate possible explanation.
Thus, such a visit will not prove to us whether God exists or not. It will not give us faith. We have to already have faith in order to acknowledge the visit as truly from God. It will surely strengthen and increase the faith we already have, but will not give us any if we don’t already have any. “He who has will be given more, but he who has not, even that which he has will be taken away from him.” (Matt 25:29)
hurst
H
hurst
Guest
Another thing, asking for God to show himself is like a fish asking the ocean to show itself! How can the whole in which one lives be shown to it? The fish lives in the ocean, and just has to believe it exists. Why? Because it is so big that it would not fit into its view, nor could it do so anyway since it must remain inside the ocean to stay alive. In the same way, “we live and move and have our being” in God (Acts 17:28). But like the fish, we can at least detect the part of the ocean in which we are living, and in that sense know for certain it exists, even if we don’t comprehend the whole. It takes no faith to know whether God exists, but it takes faith to believe He will love us and give us life if we freely give ourselves to Him.
hurst
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Then the Supreme Court was wrong. It is not the first time either. By the way I think that the SC declared secular humanism a “religion”, not atheism. Not that this difference made their opinion more correct.Atheism also takes a leap of faith. Atheists also normally prescribe to several dogmas like naturalism and scientism, so they’re not entirely non-religious. After all, the Supreme Court has declared Atheism to be it’s own religion. So my question is why can the public schools teach Atheism or at least imply it when there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state?
H
Hitetlen
Guest
I will worry about that when it happens. For the time being I am just waiting.
Please, not more mythology… God is enough.
D
doomhammer
Guest
Well, in historical terms our human lives last almost nothing, so the temporal difference between suicide and natural death is almost despicable. It is a matter of waiting such a little time to find out how just could be God’s mercy!Well, the only way to really “seek out” God is through suicide, which is a rather unpalatable option for me.
Rev. 20, 15: “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.”
H
Hitetlen
Guest
It is your choice, if you wish to throw away that small time, I will not try to prevent it. For me it is rather precious.
How perfectly “loving”!
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
You are correct. It was secular humanism and not atheism that the Supreme Court ruled as being a religion, however, there isn’t much of a difference. Secular Humanist organizations love to hand out atheistic tracts trying to disprove the existence of God (I have several of them somewhere). I also agree with you that the Supreme Court has failed miserably many times. My point was: the state-run education system instills implicitly if not explicitly an atheistic mindset in America’s children. How is *that * not violating the separation of church and state?! Anyways, here’s a little article that I found on the subject:
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
T
Thal59
Guest
Suicide? Not at all. I seek out God in life, and often, I find Him. But this is not because I am some unreasoning religious fanatic, it is because He has accepted my acceptance of Him and has therefore given me, as well as others who believe in Him, an innate ability to recognize the creator in the reflections of His creations; empirical evidence notwithstanding.Well, the only way to really “seek out” God is through suicide, which is a rather unpalatable option for me.
The converse may also be true. If God has accepted my acceptance of Him, through which He is pleased to reveal Himself to me, then He may also have accepted your rejection of Him, through which He is pleased to hide himself from you. Lets say that you wrote a letter to the Queen of England and told her that you do not believe she is the true Queen of England. Only if she personally visited you, in full royal regallia, with documentation and personal witnesses would you accept her identity. What would be the chances that she would make that trip for your benefit? She might not mind that you do not accept her queenship, since you are not one of her subjects anyway. But for you to make such a request would be an affront to her dignity. Would she go out of her way to prove herself to one who has insulted her?
While it is true that God’s love and mercy are perfect, so are His justice and dignity. For you to suggest that God should humble Himself by honoring your request is the height of sin and arrogance; not to mention absurdity - for why would He so bless someone who has only rejected him so far. And what would be the profit of such a visit? His appearence in your presence would only prove to you that He exists. From what I have read from you, you would probably then expect God to “demonstrate” His godlike qualities before you decided whether or not to serve Him.
I have tried to avoid Scripture thus far, but it is too relevant to the issue now to avoid it.
Satan
“And the tempter came to Him and said: If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread…” Matt 4:3
Jesus
“It is written further, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” Matt 4:7
I hate to break it to you, Hitetlen, but you are playing the part of the devil. (i.e. If God will do what I command Him to do, I will believe.)
“Now when He was at Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, many believed in His name, seeing the signs that He was working. But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, in that He knew all men, and because He had no need that anyone should bear witness concerning man, for He himself knew what was in man.” John 2:23
The children of Israel saw God manifest Himself in many ways as He lead them out of Egypt, yet even with this miraculous proof, they still found it possible to sin against Him and worship a golden calf. In the New Testament, many are believing in His name because they have physically seen with their eyes His power. (Something that you would like to do.) But He does not entrust Himself to them, or to you, because He knows that even if you were to accept the physical proof as they did, you have no love in your heart for him.
Love is a two-way street. I like to put it this way. Reach out your hand upward to Him, and He will reach down to you. Grasp His hand and He will grasp yours. Hold tightly to Him and He will hold tightly to you. But, release your grasp and He will release His. Draw your hand away from Him and He will draw his away from you. Certainly as a man of logic, Hitetlen, you understand the precept that one only receives from something in accord to that which they put into it. You have put nothing into Him, He has given you nothing in return. Is this His fault? Is it logical that the greater should condescend to the lesser, rather than the lesser first aspiring to the greater?
“This is why I have said to you, No one can come to me unless he is enabled to do so by my Father.” John 6:66
I truly regret, Hitetlen, that He has not yet enabled you.
Thal59
H
Hitetlen
Guest
I really appreciate your very nice tone of the conversation, even if we keep disagreeing.
Thal59:
Thal59:
In a way this reminds me of the claims of Uri Geller, who insists that one must have faith in his paranormal abilities, otherwise his “tricks” do not work.
I had to emphasise these two segments. In both you speak of a “gift” given out, which he did not “give” me. Therefore, why is it my fault that he never gave me the capability to step beyond the empirical evidence. If the “gift” is necessary for acceptance, I am not guilty since the “gift” was not extended to me.
In a way this reminds me of the claims of Uri Geller, who insists that one must have faith in his paranormal abilities, otherwise his “tricks” do not work.
- Status