Will we survive religion?

[whatever]

Where’s the hoplessness in my outlook?

That should be self-evident.

So your solution is to continue to do what we’ve been doing, until it works?

My solution is to fix problems to the best of our abilities. There will be incremental improvements, setbacks, stagnation, and strides forward.

What is that a definition of, again…?

A strawman.

If you want some real answers to real problems, check out the catechism.

I already said thanks, but no thanks. You have convinced me that it wouldn’t be a good use of my time.

 

[whatever]

And what Mirdath said in #479.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

They might if he put in an appearance ocasionally.

He does every day and every hour all over the world in the celebration of the Mass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilbert Keith forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*How do you know Nietzsche wasn’t being sarcastic?
*
Because he ended up in a lunatic asylum … a megalomaniac.

He didn’t kill though did he, unlike David Koresh.

And unlike his atheist follower, that other Superman … Hitler.

Here we go again!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

See next post!!!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

You’ve had 2000 years and held ultimate power over at least Europe for several centuries, I think we could expect a little more progress than has been made. And much of what progress has been made on them has been accomplished by non-theists, or was secular in intent and execution.

More revisionist history. The single greatest political invention during the Middle Ages was the signing of the Magna Carta, which was engineered by Archbishop Stephen Langton. The single greatest invention since the Renaissance was the printing press by a Christian, Johannes Gutenberg. The single greatest scientist since the Renaissance was the Christian, Isaac Newton. The single greatest composer was Amadeus Mozart, another Christian.

The greatest inventions by secularists? How about gas guzzling motors that are choking the environment … or enough nuclear missiles to blast us all to smithereens.

Or will you lay those** secular inventions** at the doorstep of the Vatican?

 

[Mirdath]

More revisionist history. The single greatest political invention during the Middle Ages was the signing of the Magna Carta, which was engineered by Archbishop Stephen Langton. The single greatest invention since the Renaissance was the printing press by a Christian, Johannes Gutenberg. The single greatest scientist since the Renaissance was the Christian, Isaac Newton. The single greatest composer was Amadeus Mozart, another Christian.

And what exactly do those prove? That Christians (and Isaac Newton, so you know, was not Christian, being unitarian and considering the worship of the Christ idolatry) have been political theorists, inventors, physicists, and composers? That’s nothing new – and by the way, Bach, de Victoria, and Mussorgsky are all better than Mozart, and Einstein trumps Newton

So the sciences and humanities have benefited from religious people, and I’ll grant, the humanities from religions (what can I say, I love plainchant and old religious art). But after two thousand years, millions of people are still starving and dying.

The greatest inventions by secularists? How about gas guzzling motors that are choking the environment … or enough nuclear missiles to blast us all to smithereens.

Or will you lay those** secular inventions** at the doorstep of the Vatican?

I am not sure whether Felix Wankel or Samuel Brown were religious, but given the times they lived in and the fact that atheists are a tiny minority, I’d say it’s likely. And Enrico Fermi was a Catholic, so there you go. If you’re going to credit the Church with inventions to the benefit of humanity, the Church also gets the blame for the atom bomb. Are you going to claim Fermi was an atheist now?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

If you’re going to credit the Church with inventions to the benefit of humanity, the Church also gets the blame for the atom bomb. Are you going to claim Fermi was an atheist now?

adherents.com/people/pf/Enrico_Fermi.html

And are you going to claim Einstein, who promoted the bomb with FDR, was a Catholic, and Oppenheimer, who ran the Manahattan project, was a Catholic? Whew!

By the way, Isaac Newton is not trumped by anyone … and his work on Scriptural prophecy in *Daniel *and Revelations is startlingly accurate … I guess from a revisionist point of view, you wouldn’t know that. Newton was certainly no secular atheist … having written more in the field of scriptural prohecy than he wrote on physics. Read any biography and weep.

The plain fact is that it was impossible for the modern world to really get going in any of the fields … music, science, literature, politics, etc. until the printing press was invented and it became suddenly possible to spread ideas much faster and more cheaply than before to hundreds of thousands of people. The printing press also hastened the advent of literacy and the popularity of literature in the modern world. Too bad for you it was invented by a Catholic, or do you want to claim that Gutenberg was an atheist?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

And what exactly do those prove? That Christians (and Isaac Newton, so you know, was not Christian, being unitarian and considering the worship of the Christ idolatry…

Again, you need to review recent scholarship on Newton, which indicates that yes, he most certainly was not Catholic, but also that he regarded himself as of the early Christian Church … claiming that early Christians did not regard Jesus as Divine. In this Newton was certainly in error as the Gospel of John makes clear in many passages that Jesus existed before the Creation (for example, as the Word made Flesh and dwelling among us). Even so, Newton regarded himself as a “true” Christian, so your view that his being a unitarian as opposed to a trinitarian does not mean that he repudiated the significance of Jesus’ mission in the world … especially as it relates to the Second Coming … which Newton certainly believed in. Read up more on Newton (try not to rely on exclusively atheist sources as they are often deliberately misleading).

 

[R_McGeddon]

Your not in class now…!?

Curious,… I am…

He’s not.

According to whom?

According to me, I don’t look at the suffering of innocent millions in Africa as a “teaching tool”.

That has to be the most flippant cop-out so far.

Oh,… that’s right,… you’re God. Sorry,… forgot.

Never said I was.

And you would have others be as miserable as you are?

Why do you think that I am miserable?

And by what methods of man would you bring that about?

I suggest you strive VERY VERY hard to use those methods, and see what the result is.

I’m not talking about methods of man, I am talking about a so-called caring and powerful God using some of that power to care.

Not much to ask of an omnipotent entity.

Then,… in your abject frustration, read the catechism to discover why those methods don’t work.

Why should I read a biased book such as that?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Will we survive religion?

Or will we survive secular “progressive” science?

tribuneindia.com/2001/20010805/spectrum/main2.htm

 

[R_McGeddon]

R McGeddon

They might if he put in an appearance ocasionally.

He does every day and every hour all over the world in the celebration of the Mass.

No wonder he gets nothing done if he spends every hour of the day letting people eat and drink him.

And unlike his atheist follower, that other Superman … Hitler.

We’ve already established that Hitler was religious.

 

[Mirdath]

And are you going to claim Einstein, who promoted the bomb with FDR, was a Catholic, and Oppenheimer, who ran the Manahattan project, was a Catholic? Whew!

Nah, Oppenheimer was a non-devout Jew with a serious interest in Hinduism. Einstein, a generic Spinozan theist, was not involved with the Manhattan Project and later regretted having sent that particular letter. This is about religion, not just Christianity.

By the way, Isaac Newton is not trumped by anyone …

Not even by the revelation that his works in physics are much like Euclid’s work in geometry – good enough for the time, but fundamentally imperfect?

and his work on Scriptural prophecy in *Daniel *and Revelations is startlingly accurate … I guess from a revisionist point of view, you wouldn’t know that. Newton was certainly no secular atheist … having written more in the field of scriptural prohecy than he wrote on physics. Read any biography and weep.

I never claimed he was a non-theist

Too bad for you it was invented by a Catholic, or do you want to claim that Gutenberg was an atheist?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Why would I? It’d serve no purpose. Unlike you, I’m not trying to compensate for anything. I’ve said several times in this thread that religious people have done a lot of good as well as harm, and that religion itself has inspired good and evil.

Again, you need to review recent scholarship on Newton, which indicates that yes, he most certainly was not Catholic, but also that he regarded himself as of the early Christian Church … claiming that early Christians did not regard Jesus as Divine. In this Newton was certainly in error as the Gospel of John makes clear in many passages that Jesus existed before the Creation (for example, as the Word made Flesh and dwelling among us). Even so, Newton regarded himself as a “true” Christian, so your view that his being a unitarian as opposed to a trinitarian does not mean that he repudiated the significance of Jesus’ mission in the world … especially as it relates to the Second Coming … which Newton certainly believed in. Read up more on Newton (try not to rely on exclusively atheist sources as they are often deliberately misleading).

I considered explicitly calling him an Arian in my post above but decided not to. However, let’s take another look: he considered worshiping Jesus idolatry – therefore, he thought of Jesus as a false god. Therefore, not a Christian, as Christians worship Jesus. He may have applied the label to refer to following the teachings of the Christ, but he did not worship him.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Your not in class now…!?

Curious,… I am…

He’s not.

He’s always in class.

The fact that you say He isn’t tells me you have a basic belief that God can not (not might not) exist.

Therefore, you’ve made your choice (at least to this point) as to the personal or societal value of God, and there’s not too much to discuss with you about the subject any longer.

…Though, curiously, you come into THIS forum to talk about such matters!

Hmm,… rather sounds like you have SOME interest in the subject after all.

Interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu

According to whom?

According to me, I don’t look at the suffering of innocent millions in Africa as a “teaching tool”.

That has to be the most flippant cop-out so far.

Then you don’t understand the meaning of “teaching”.

God does not INFLICT suffering or evil. He allows it.

I think you would agree that if mankind (as a whole) REALLY wanted to stop the “major” suffering in the world, they could do so. That in fact is your basic premise that “religion is useless and all we can rely on is the effort of man”.

So why doesn’t mankind simply do that?

Because MAN commits evils (sin) that prohibit that goal.

GOD doesn’t commit the evils that make the world worse off.

He allows them to show us the results of those sins.

That is His teaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Oh,… that’s right,… you’re God. Sorry,… forgot.

Never said I was.

If you don’t accept God as God, then you accept “something else” as God, because the “place” of God is a required concept in all human beings.

You may easily deny that, but consider both how much WORK it takes to push the idea of God out of your mind, and the fact of what history tells you about the ubiquitousness of God in every human culture.

When men push God from His rightful place, man fills the vaccuum with “himself” (or some aspect of himself).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu

And you would have others be as miserable as you are?

Why do you think that I am miserable?

You’re miserable only (as far as I know) in that you don’t know what the point is of your life or that of the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu

And by what methods of man would you bring that about?

I suggest you strive VERY VERY hard to use those methods, and see what the result is.

I’m not talking about methods of man, I am talking about a so-called caring and powerful God using some of that power to care.

Not much to ask of an omnipotent entity.

You would have God do as YOU prefer, regardless of the fact that the wisest possible course of things MUST come from the wisest possible PERSONS (the Trinity), and that course is preferable to anything anyone else could propose.

You put your wisdom above that of God. Is that really wise?

God IS omnipotent, and only that omnipotence could allow God to choose and implement the wisest course of events for our salvation (the present one) over simply “solving all the problems of his children which would teach them nothing”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Then,… in your abject frustration, read the catechism to discover why those methods don’t work.

Why should I read a biased book such as that?

If you want information on a subject, you read the opinions of those who are experts in that subject.

If you are simply mocking a subject, you need only read the opinions of those opposed to the experts, and parrot those condemnations.

If you’re really interested in truth, you’ll do the former.

Read it. Then you’ll have something of value to discuss.

(( By saying, “Why should I read a biased book such as that?”, you come very close to exposing yourself as a very juvenile person, by the way, and thereby losing ALL credibility. ))

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

We’ve already established that Hitler was religious.

No, we’ve proven with photos that Hitler admired the celebrated atheist Nietzsche. He also proved that he was not religious by murdering millions of Jews **and **Christians. He also proved he was an atheist by saying that he would destroy all the religions.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

He may have applied the label to refer to following the teachings of the Christ, but he did not worship him.

He certainly considered himself a Christian … studied the Bible (OT & NT) devoutly, and believed in the Second Coming of Jesus.

And your wry put-down of his achievements is really rather startling.

royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3848

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Where’s the hoplessness in my outlook?

That should be self-evident.

You’ll have to be more explicit my friend.

Quote:
So your solution is to continue to do what we’ve been doing, until it works?

My solution is to fix problems to the best of our abilities. There will be incremental improvements, setbacks, stagnation, and strides forward.

In other words, what we’ve been doing all along. Which is indeed God’s plan.

But you have to remember,… God’s Church has been part of that plan, and folks like you would remove that part as “worthless”.

The point is that you CAN’T NOT be part of God’s plan…!!

But you do have a choice as to “which side you’re on” in that plan.

Quote:
What is that a definition of, again…?

A strawman.

To continue to do that which doesn’t work hoping that it will work eventually is “Insanity”.

Quote:
If you want some real answers to real problems, check out the catechism.

I already said thanks, but no thanks. You have convinced me that it wouldn’t be a good use of my time.

Then you prove yourself not genuine in your claim to want the best for the world, because if you were you’d investigate all sources that might help.

Now, that’s rather uncharitable of me, though probably true, but I chock it up to laziness on your part (borne of disingenuousness) more than actual “evil”.

Why do you discuss things of which you know nothing about?

 

[Mirdath]

God does not INFLICT suffering or evil. He allows it.

A belief held by many, if not most, Christians – but not by all religious people.

I think you would agree that if mankind (as a whole) REALLY wanted to stop the “major” suffering in the world, they could do so. That in fact is your basic premise that “religion is useless and all we can rely on is the effort of man”.

So why doesn’t mankind simply do that?

Because we’re not perfect But religion has not been able to accomplish that either, and it is supposedly perfect.

If you don’t accept God as God, then you accept “something else” as God, because the “place” of God is a required concept in all human beings.

Not true in the slightest. You’re talking out of your hat – as a believer, how can you know what it’s like to be otherwise?

You may easily deny that, but consider both how much WORK it takes to push the idea of God out of your mind, and the fact of what history tells you about the ubiquitousness of God in every human culture.

Not much work at all. I do not spend my days worrying about what will happen to me if I’m wrong.

When men push God from His rightful place, man fills the vaccuum with “himself” (or some aspect of himself).

Both R. McGeddon and I are evidence to the contrary. Some people do worship themselves – and it doesn’t seem to make any difference if they’re theists or non-theists.

You’re miserable only (as far as I know) in that you don’t know what the point is of your life or that of the universe.

The universe may be pointless. That says nothing about our lives.

If you want information on a subject, you read the opinions of those who are experts in that subject.

If you are simply mocking a subject, you need only read the opinions of those opposed to the experts, and parrot those condemnations.

If you’re really interested in truth, you’ll do the former.

Read it. Then you’ll have something of value to discuss.

The Catechism is not an in-depth discussion and examination of techniques of humanitarian aid. It is a manual describing the rites and beliefs of one particular religion, nothing more. It has nothing to say on the subject of why particular methods do not work to end epidemics or famines.

Be relevant. Then you’ll have something of value to discuss.
Gilbert Keith:

And your wry put-down of his achievements is really rather startling.

Startling if your knowledge of science is stuck back in the 1800s, perhaps. Newton was brilliant and his work is fundamental to modern science, but he isn’t the be-all and end-all, and others have eclipsed his achievements and improved or disproved many of his theories… Putting Newton in the company of Euclid does no dishonor to either of them.

 

[R_McGeddon]

He’s always in class.

The fact that you say He isn’t tells me you have a basic belief that God can not (not might not) exist.

I have no firm belief either way.

…Though, curiously, you come into THIS forum to talk about such matters!

Hmm,… rather sounds like you have SOME interest in the subject after all.

Interesting.

Just trying to gain an insight.

Then you don’t understand the meaning of “teaching”.

I understand it perfectly.

God does not INFLICT suffering or evil. He allows it.

The mind boggles!!!

I think you would agree that if mankind (as a whole) REALLY wanted to stop the “major” suffering in the world, they could do so. That in fact is your basic premise that “religion is useless and all we can rely on is the effort of man”.

So why doesn’t mankind simply do that?

Because MAN commits evils (sin) that prohibit that goal.

GOD doesn’t commit the evils that make the world worse off.

He allows them to show us the results of those sins.

That is His teaching.

So the fact that Africa is largely infertile and gets little annual rainfall, is mankinds’ fault?

The cop-outs get worse.

If you don’t accept God as God, then you accept “something else” as God, because the “place” of God is a required concept in all human beings.

Would it, by any chance, be the church that told you this?

but consider both how much WORK it takes to push the idea of God out of your mind

Probably as much work as it took to push it into your mind in the first place.

When men push God from His rightful place, man fills the vaccuum with “himself” (or some aspect of himself).

Some might do, but certainly not me.

You’re miserable only (as far as I know) in that you don’t know what the point is of your life or that of the universe.

I am far from miserable, I have a lovely wife and child that mean more to me than anything else.

You would have God do as YOU prefer, regardless of the fact that the wisest possible course of things MUST come from the wisest possible PERSONS (the Trinity), and that course is preferable to anything anyone else could propose.

Not just what I prefer, the people themselves that are suffering, would prefer it.

I definitely would not call their suffering the results of wisdom, far from it.

You put your wisdom above that of God. Is that really wise?

You are doing just that in wanting an end to world suffering, just the same as I do.

God IS omnipotent, and only that omnipotence could allow God to choose and implement the wisest course of events for our salvation (the present one) over simply “solving all the problems of his children which would teach them nothing”.

This sounds like parrot-fashion regurgitation of what you’ve been brainwashed with.

If you want information on a subject, you read the opinions of those who are experts in that subject.

Religion has no experts, it’s all faith and opinion.

If you are simply mocking a subject, you need only read the opinions of those opposed to the experts, and parrot those condemnations.

I form my own opinions if I am going to mock something.

By saying, “Why should I read a biased book such as that?”, you come very close to exposing yourself as a very juvenile person, by the way, and thereby losing ALL credibility.

How is rejecting something biased, juvenile?

I wouldn’t take the word from a biased atheist source, so why should I take the word from a biased theist source.

By taking the word of the church without question, it is you that loses ALL credibility.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
God does not INFLICT suffering or evil. He allows it.

A belief held by many, if not most, Christians – but not by all religious people.

I can only speak from my own point of view. That’s my opinion. My question is what is YOUR opinion.

Quote:
I think you would agre…rely on is the effort of man".

So why doesn’t mankind simply do that?

Because we’re not perfect But religion has not been able to accomplish that either, and it is supposedly perfect.

“Religion”, as a thing, is a ubiquitous feature of all individual human beings. (That is an axiom. You may deny it regardless of course.)

The purpose of religion is to allow us to see God, and in that seeing understand what we are supposed to understand about the “reason for being” of the universe.

Just as one must read a book, and not merely “absorb” it’s information by touch in an instant, History (HIS-story) unfolds in the “reading” of it.

True religion (catholicity [no, I’m not particularly interested in being “tolerant”]) shows us the way to seeing God most clearly, with the most positive social effects possible in the obedience thereof.

False religions are either less effective or outright antithetical to showing us God.

God has given us free will. This free will allows us to err (ie. false religion). To err is to create personal and societal problems.

It is our job to NOT ERR to solve our problems, not God’s to “FIX” our problems.

Which do you choose?

Quote:
If you don’t accept God as God, then you accept “something else” as God, because the “place” of God is a required concept in all human beings.

Not true in the slightest. You’re talking out of your hat – as a believer, how can you know what it’s like to be otherwise?

It is axiomatic that humans have an inherent place for God.

Prove me wrong.

Quote:
You may easily deny that, …n culture.

Not much work at all. I do not spend my days worrying about what will happen to me if I’m wrong.

If you were wrong, you assume that “God will forgive you because”:

1. …you can’t be blamed for not believing in such an obtruse deity who doesn’t speak to me in words I understand.
2. …you can’t be blamed because it’s “God’s Will” that you NOT understand.

The very fact that you consider the fact that you COULD BE WRONG tells me that the thought has crossed your mind, and that points to the fact that the “place” of God exists in your mind.

(( As it must because you’re human. ))

Quote:
When men push God from His rightful place, man fills the vaccuum with “himself” (or some aspect of himself).

Both R. McG…sts or non-theists.

Both you and RM are perfect examples of people who fill God’s place with “the works of men”, because if you could you’d do what you think God SHOULD do.

Quote:
You’re miserable only (as far as I know) in that you don’t know what the point is of your life or that of the universe.

The universe may be pointless. That says nothing about our lives.

If the universe is pointless, then no act has consequences into the ultimate future.

If you do “good deeds” to relieve the suffering of people you love, for example, then you have pleased someone.

Who is that someone? Why is pleasing that someone of any value whatsoever if the universe will eventually anihilate all effects of your “good deed”?

Quote:
If you want information on a subject, you read the opinions of those who are experts in that subject.

If you are simply mocking a subject, you need only read the opinions of those opposed to the experts, and parrot those condemnations.

If you’re really interested in truth, you’ll do the former.

Read it. Then you’ll have something of value to discuss.

The Catech… end epidemics or famines.

It is a manual of right living.

When humanity lives right, many human problems will be solved.

Science has it’s place as the understanding of the physical universe. With as thorough an understanding as possible of the universe we can deal, as effectively as possible, with those things you point to (famines and epidemics, et al).

The Catholic Church supports the ethical exploration of science, as the useful human tool that it is.

But without a society that is right living, with as few problems, created by wrong living, as possible to hinder the development of ethical science,… we’re not maximizing out potential to live as best we can in this world.

Check Catechism Secs: 159, 1831, 2293-4

Be relevant. Then you’ll have something of value to discuss.

The subject is “Will we survive religion?”.

Showing that we not only can’t NOT HAVE religion, but that TRUE religion is a major promoter of survival is what we’re talking about, and quite germane to the discussion.

So is the subject of the effects of untrue religion, such as you propose, germane.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
He’s always in class.

The fact that you say He isn’t tells me you have a basic belief that God can not (not might not) exist.

I have no firm belief either way.

Agnostics are merely atheists who are too cowardly to state their actual decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
…Though, curiously, you come into THIS forum to talk about such matters!

Hmm,… rather sounds like you have SOME interest in the subject after all.

Interesting.

Just trying to gain an insight.

No your not. You’re trying to bash “religion”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Then you don’t understand the meaning of “teaching”.

I understand it perfectly.

If you understand anything “perfectly” then you are either a liar or you consider yourself God.

My opinion,… you’re the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
God does not INFLICT suffering or evil. He allows it.

The mind boggles!!!

It doesn’t take much at all to boggle your mind.

Having a “boggled mind” is not a bad thing, necessarily, but when you react to any “boggling” as meaning that since you can’t understand the “boggler” the “boggler” is insane, then you have a problem.

Once again,… YOU are the measure of all truths. Lovely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
I think you would agree that if mankind (as a whole) REALLY wanted to stop the “major” suffering in the world, they could do so. That in fact is your basic premise that “religion is useless and all we can rely on is the effort of man”.

So why doesn’t mankind simply do that?

Because MAN commits evils (sin) that prohibit that goal.

GOD doesn’t commit the evils that make the world worse off.

He allows them to show us the results of those sins.

That is His teaching.

So the fact that Africa is largely infertile and gets little annual rainfall, is mankinds’ fault?

The cop-outs get worse.

Why are humans occupying a land that is “utterly inhospitable”?

If they followed God’s way, they might come to realize that they either need to implement some technology to make the place habitable, or leave the place entirely.

Oh,… they can’t leave because their neighbors won’t let them leave?!

Perhaps if their neighbors were following God’s way, they’d let them pass, or give them the means by which to make their land habitable again (as it must have been in the past).

Your arguments aren’t arguments. They’re statements of a child.

How the heck old are you?