Wednesday of the Sixth Week of Easter
(Click here for readings)
Jesus said to his disciples: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot
bear it now. But when he comes, the
Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.”
We are constantly sharing things with friends and strangers. There’s so much to share. There’s music. There’s art.
There’s poetry. We are constantly
bombarded by those who wish to share with us a new product, a new discovery and
a new experience. So why are we not
sharing our faith with others and with the same enthusiasm as others? Why have we come to believe in the nonsense
that faith is something that should remain private, very private, and never
made public?
St. Paul was not only a holy man. He was a brave man. I think he had two goals in his short life: to conquer Rome and Athens for the Lord. Today’s first reading (Acts 17:15,22-18:1) recounts how Paul walked around Athens looking for a small crack in this stain glass city. He found one in a temple that had an altar with the inscription that read: “To an Unknown God.”
I find the timing of this reading enlightening and a bit amusing, for not too long ago, someone was commenting to me that God is an unseen and unknown entity. They're right. They're absolutely right, if one does not know Jesus Christ. You see, my dear friends, there are people even today who believe that God remains unknown and unseen.
When Paul saw their inscription, he immediately jumped on it. He told them “You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.” He was correct. They were seeking to know the unknown God. They were seeking answers to their questions: Who am I? Why am I here? What is the goal of life?
There is a limit to human understanding. There’s a limit to how far I can reach. Most of the greatest discoveries ever made were made sitting on top of the shoulders of others. Yes, there’s a limit as to how far I can reach. I can always use a helping hand. I can always hope to reach out to an extended hand. Leonardo da Vinci understood this.
Now there are a lot of things that we can measure. But some things, some of the most important things, remain outside the realm of measurements.
What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. This is how St. Paul began his discourse to the wise and well versed men of Athens. Starting from the very beginning he worked his way towards Jesus Christ, the known and seen God of the Universe.
Again, I find it somewhat annoying yet always amusing how some people, especially atheists, continue to argue against Jesus Christ by bringing into their argument other gods; and typically exotic, archaic or even mythological gods. They fail to see any differences between Jesus Christ and these gods, something that many converts throughout history actually succeeded in doing.
They fail in this because they fail to study any of this.
What these people attempt to do (in their attempt to ridicule religion in general), is comparable to someone trying to ridicule science by bringing to the surface every far-fetched scientific theory. If you are my age, then most likely you remember studying the theory of Panspermia in science class. Do you remember it? Well, you’d be hard pressed to find Panspermia mentioned in your child’s text book. Now no scientist has been able to disprove Panspermia. But it just doesn’t sit well with most, and most scientists (I believe) would prefer not to discuss it at all. And although it remains one of many theories as to how life originated on earth, it remains a dormant theory. One day it may be resurrected, but today, it just doesn’t sit well with most scientists.
There are many myths and religions today that appear only on Google. They are, for the most part, studied only in school and ritualized only in class projects. Most of them remain dormant. There have been attempts to resurrect them, but most have failed to rise from the dead. Most countries allow freedom of religion. But far too many, especially in the Middle East, remain closed to the possibility of religious freedom and even conversion.
St. Paul spoke. The Athenians listened. They had their ideas. Paul had Christ’s ideas. They had their theories. Paul had his personal experience. He told them what they already knew and what they didn’t knew. In the end, he convinced them. They didn’t convince him.
God is not “everywhere and nowhere.” God is very present and transcendent. God is not a force. God is very personable. He speaks. He listens. He converts. He convinces. He endures the test of time. He welcomes human reason. He welcomes critics. He even embraces them.
Jesus Christ is not Quetzalcoatl. He is not a unicorn. And when someone begins to argue with you in that manner, politely ask them to explain these gods to you, and what they stood for and what they represented. Ask them to explain them to you personally. No Googling allowed. Let’s see what happens next. Hopefully, they will ask you to share your belief with them. And there’s so much to share.
St. Paul was not only a holy man. He was a brave man. I think he had two goals in his short life: to conquer Rome and Athens for the Lord. Today’s first reading (Acts 17:15,22-18:1) recounts how Paul walked around Athens looking for a small crack in this stain glass city. He found one in a temple that had an altar with the inscription that read: “To an Unknown God.”
I find the timing of this reading enlightening and a bit amusing, for not too long ago, someone was commenting to me that God is an unseen and unknown entity. They're right. They're absolutely right, if one does not know Jesus Christ. You see, my dear friends, there are people even today who believe that God remains unknown and unseen.
When Paul saw their inscription, he immediately jumped on it. He told them “You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.” He was correct. They were seeking to know the unknown God. They were seeking answers to their questions: Who am I? Why am I here? What is the goal of life?
There is a limit to human understanding. There’s a limit to how far I can reach. Most of the greatest discoveries ever made were made sitting on top of the shoulders of others. Yes, there’s a limit as to how far I can reach. I can always use a helping hand. I can always hope to reach out to an extended hand. Leonardo da Vinci understood this.
Now there are a lot of things that we can measure. But some things, some of the most important things, remain outside the realm of measurements.
What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. This is how St. Paul began his discourse to the wise and well versed men of Athens. Starting from the very beginning he worked his way towards Jesus Christ, the known and seen God of the Universe.
Again, I find it somewhat annoying yet always amusing how some people, especially atheists, continue to argue against Jesus Christ by bringing into their argument other gods; and typically exotic, archaic or even mythological gods. They fail to see any differences between Jesus Christ and these gods, something that many converts throughout history actually succeeded in doing.
They fail in this because they fail to study any of this.
What these people attempt to do (in their attempt to ridicule religion in general), is comparable to someone trying to ridicule science by bringing to the surface every far-fetched scientific theory. If you are my age, then most likely you remember studying the theory of Panspermia in science class. Do you remember it? Well, you’d be hard pressed to find Panspermia mentioned in your child’s text book. Now no scientist has been able to disprove Panspermia. But it just doesn’t sit well with most, and most scientists (I believe) would prefer not to discuss it at all. And although it remains one of many theories as to how life originated on earth, it remains a dormant theory. One day it may be resurrected, but today, it just doesn’t sit well with most scientists.
There are many myths and religions today that appear only on Google. They are, for the most part, studied only in school and ritualized only in class projects. Most of them remain dormant. There have been attempts to resurrect them, but most have failed to rise from the dead. Most countries allow freedom of religion. But far too many, especially in the Middle East, remain closed to the possibility of religious freedom and even conversion.
St. Paul spoke. The Athenians listened. They had their ideas. Paul had Christ’s ideas. They had their theories. Paul had his personal experience. He told them what they already knew and what they didn’t knew. In the end, he convinced them. They didn’t convince him.
God is not “everywhere and nowhere.” God is very present and transcendent. God is not a force. God is very personable. He speaks. He listens. He converts. He convinces. He endures the test of time. He welcomes human reason. He welcomes critics. He even embraces them.
Jesus Christ is not Quetzalcoatl. He is not a unicorn. And when someone begins to argue with you in that manner, politely ask them to explain these gods to you, and what they stood for and what they represented. Ask them to explain them to you personally. No Googling allowed. Let’s see what happens next. Hopefully, they will ask you to share your belief with them. And there’s so much to share.
what a lovely picture you post on your blog :) Is it the Aztec Indians or the Incas ?
ReplyDelete“Again, I find it somewhat annoying yet always amusing how some people, especially atheists, continue to argue against Jesus Christ by bringing into their argument other gods; and typically exotic, archaic or even mythological gods. They fail to see any differences between Jesus Christ and these gods”
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, your god is different. What exactly does that, in and of itself, prove?
You also contend that your god has a 50/50 chance of existence. Does that extend to the other exotic, archaic or even mythological gods as well? Why or why not?
“What these people attempt to do (in their attempt to ridicule religion in general), is comparable to someone trying to ridicule science by bringing to the surface every far-fetched scientific theory.”
Not really. The thing about scientific theories is that they are testable and can be used to explain things. What is inherently different about the claim that your god created the universe and the claim that any other god did?
“If you are my age, then most likely you remember studying the theory of Panspermiain science class. Do you remember it? Well, you’d be hard pressed to find Panspermia mentioned in your child’s text book. Now no scientist has been able to disprove Panspermia”
If you recall, you brought up the fact that nothing can be DISproven in one of your posts a while back. And just because it isn’t “disproven” doesn’t really mean anything; what does matter is the evidence of competing theories. A perfect example is intelligent design. Setting aside for a moment the fact that there is absolutely zero science behind intelligent design, it is technically possible that it could be correct. Of course, the theory of evolution has mountains of evidence in its favor, has been thoroughly tested and has been able to make predictions, so that would seem to suggest it is the more likely theory.
Panspermia certainly is a viable theory, there is nothing to say it couldn’t have happened. The problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to test or disprove, at least with our current technology. Organic materials such as amino acids have been found in space and on extraterrestrial material, does that mean there is life out there as well? However, the theory simply pushes back how that life started. A theory on how life started on earth would be much more easily tested and verifiable and would possibly have more predictive power than simply stating “we came from space.” As such, there really isn’t a point into teaching panspermia as a theory.
When it comes to religion, do you have any compelling reason why judaism or islam or even the other exotic, archaic or even mythological religions should not be taught?
"Congratulations, your god is different. What exactly does that, in and of itself, prove?"
DeleteThat He is different. And you just said it. Thank you!
That's a great first step, Banana_slug. A step that some have a hard time making. But you made it.
YOU SAID: "The thing about scientific theories is that they are testable and can be used to explain things." AND THEN YOU SAID..."Panspermia certainly is a viable theory, there is nothing to say it couldn’t have happened. The problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to test or disprove, at least with our current technology."
I SAY: Wow. I can't believe you said that. Now just remove the word Panspermia with God and you have "God certainly is a viable theory, there is nothing to say it couldn't have happened. The problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to test or disprove, at least with our current technology." Exactly. Okay... So are all scientific theories testable? Definitive? Conclusive? Not at all, it appears, at least not yet...THE SCIENCE OF THE GAP! I love it.
YOU SAY: "As such, there really isn’t a point into teaching panspermia as a theory."
I SAY: So why was it taught, Banana_slug? A few pages needed to be filled in? And not only that theory, but also other theories from the past, and evenfailed theories as well. So is it possible that we are teaching our kids right now flawed theories???
The problem with most atheists is that they insist on using science to "prove" or "disprove" God's existence. What science can do is point, but where exactly it points depends on the mindset of someone. Hence...
YOU SAY: "50:50" chance of God's existence is ridiculous.
I SAY: You don't get it. First step in believing in God is not believing in any particular god but that God is possible. Is it possible that there is a living being that is more intelligent than the human person? Yes or No? Well, there are arguments in favor and there are arguments against. These arguments do not simply come from the field of science but from the vast field of life, human life and experiences.
That's where I get the 50:50. I wrote about it in the FOLLOW ME meditation. You, as an athiest will definitely say that it is not 50:50. Why? Because you are biased. But those who are scientists AND believers would say that the arguments against God are not as strong as the arguments in favor of God. Hence, I personally believe that it is greater than 50:50, but I was trying to be diplomatic.
YOU SAY: "You also contend that your god has a 50/50 chance of existence. Does that extend to the other exotic, archaic or even mythological gods as well? Why or why not?"
I SAY: "your God"? Really? No. I said, "God". The chance of God existing is 50:50. Again, the first step before believing in any particular god is that there is the possibility of God; an intelligent and superior being. That's it. You should know that by now.
If you move to the next step (Which god?), then it is a totally different scenario. One must begin to do research. Look at the evidence. Look at the testimonies. How? Well, the same brain that invents objects for scientific discovery is the same brain that helps us to think clearly.
YOU SAY (Banana Slug): "When it comes to religion, do you have any compelling reason why judaism or islam or even the other exotic, archaic or even mythological religions should not be taught?"
ReplyDeleteI SAY: They should be all taught. Just like I learned in seminary. And from the believers themselves. However, not all religions are as open to that as Christianity. I man told me recently that when a priest died in Palestine, the Muslims threw a huge celebration for him. Why? Because he allowed Islam to be taught to the Muslim students at the Catholic School while Catholic students received Christian instruction. That has never happened in the reverse, unfortunately.
This is one reason why I am a Christian. I do not fear the religions of others. Not at all. I don't even fear them being taught. They should be all taught. Every single one of them!
Now, I don't know your background, but it sure sounds as if it was lacking in religious instruction, especially if you are trying to convince people that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship a different God. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is the God of all three religions. We, as Christians, believe that God is three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That's a difference.
Like scientists, we are still working out the differences. And people are listening, accepting, rejecting, and embracing.
“That He is different. And you just said it. Thank you! “
ReplyDeleteYes, I did say it and I’ll say it again. Your god is different. Every god is different; no two are exactly alike (with possible exceptions being Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, etc). But does that prove anything about existence or legitimacy? No. Of course on the other hand, many of them share some similar traits. Know any other gods that were born of virgins, rose from the dead, turned water into wine and performed other miracles, etc? A fair number.
“Now just remove the word Panspermia with God and you have "God certainly is a viable theory, there is nothing to say it couldn't have happened. The problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to test or disprove, at least with our current technology." Exactly. Okay... So are all scientific theories testable? Definitive? Conclusive? Not at all, it appears, at least not yet...”
Let’s not forget that we have a better theory to replace it with. Now just replace the word God and put in Krishna. Or Izanami. Or any other god you wish to name. How do you propose to test any of those theories?
“THE SCIENCE OF THE GAP! I love it.”
At least science is trying to fill in those gaps rather than just plug in “god did it” and look no further.
“So why was it taught, Banana_slug? A few pages needed to be filled in? And not only that theory, but also other theories from the past, and evenfailed theories as well. So is it possible that we are teaching our kids right now flawed theories??? “
I do not know why it was taught. Perhaps at that time it was perceived as a leading theory, but since then new evidence was discovered. It is also definite that we are teaching flawed theories right now, depending on how you want to use the word “flawed.” Is the theory of gravity flawed? Absolutely. We still don’t know for certain why things have mass, but scientists are working on that. I believe you mentioned the “god particle” a while back, although that has nothing to do with god. But for all of its flaws, should we just throw away the theory of gravity? Then there are some more speculative theories, like M-theory, string theory, brane theory, infinite universes theory, etc. These are flawed too because we currently have no way of looking outside of our universe, although each of these have some components which, if true, would leave some kind of measurable effect on our universe. Should we just throw these theories away because we can’t test any of them even though they may be good starting points and do accurately explain some observable phenomena? Just because we don’t know absolutely everything about something should we not teach anything about it?
One of the nice things about science is that it can adapt. Have a theory like panspermia? Great. Maybe it works for awhile, but then something better comes along. It’s more accurate, explains things better, makes better predictions, so let’s use it instead.
Now in the case of religion, something like heliocentric theory comes along and people get burned at the stake. Evolution? Pass laws to prevent its teaching in schools. Have there ever been any religious findings that have caused a religion to change their teachings?
“The problem with most atheists is that they insist on using science to "prove" or "disprove" God's existence. What science can do is point, but where exactly it points depends on the mindset of someone. Hence...”
ReplyDeleteIf it is science, all it can do is point to the natural world. The supernatural, by definition, lies outside that which we can test or measure. Ever seen the cartoon with a big mathematical expression and the words “then a miracle occurs” in the middle? Science does not and cannot work like that. No scientist could ever disprove god, I think we agree on that. But if we keep finding more and more natural explanations for things that used to be explained by gods makes me think that perhaps there isn’t one. That’s not to say that I think one is impossible, but I do think those that have been proposed by humanity do not exist.
“I SAY: "your God"? Really? No. I said, "God". The chance of God existing is 50:50.”
Yes, your god. The god you believe in is not one of the same gods a hindu believes in. It does get a bit confusing when your god’s name is God.
“First step in believing in God is not believing in any particular god but that God is possible. Is it possible that there is a living being that is more intelligent than the human person? Yes or No?”
Possible, yes, but likely? Is it possible that there is a teapot floating out in the asteroid belt? Possible, yes, but likely?
“Well, there are arguments in favor and there are arguments against. These arguments do not simply come from the field of science but from the vast field of life, human life and experiences. That's where I get the 50:50. “
The problem with assigning odds in this case is that we have no other comparison to make. What are the odds that I will be in an auto accident? The entire auto insurance industry is built on collecting this data and calculating odds. What are the odds I will be dealt a royal flush playing poker? We have precise mathematical formulas to describe this. What are the odds any god even exists? What data do you collect? What formulas do you use? Arguments can tell you nothing about odds unless you have some way of quantifying what you are arguing.
Say someone else claims they believe the arguments in favor of Makeatutara are such that he believes there is a greater than 50:50 chance he exists. How do you feel about this? Can he be right? How do his calculations impact your calculations?
“I wrote about it in the FOLLOW ME meditation.”
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to THEY FOLLOWED JESUS where you were trying to tell me that lightsabers actually do exist in our reality (and were arguing 50:50) or FOLLOWING THE LORD where you talked about your change in belief? I haven’t found a FOLLOW ME yet.
“You, as an athiest will definitely say that it is not 50:50. Why? Because you are biased. “
And you are not?
“Hence, I personally believe that it is greater than 50:50, but I was trying to be diplomatic. “
So what you are saying is that your determination of 50:50 is simply your opinion and as such carries no weight?
“YOU SAY (Banana Slug): "When it comes to religion, do you have any compelling reason why judaism or islam or even the other exotic, archaic or even mythological religions should not be taught?"
I SAY: They should be all taught.”
This was a poorly worded statement on my part. What I was trying to say is do you think any of the other religions are legitimate? Do you have any compelling evidence that says they are not true?
“especially if you are trying to convince people that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship a different God. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is the God of all three religions. We, as Christians, believe that God is three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That's a difference.”
I was trying to contrast judaism and islam with “exotic, archaic or even mythological religions,” not trying to say they had different gods, but I can see how it could be interpreted as such. Even if they are worshipping the same god, they are going about it in completely different ways. Can any or all of them go to heaven for worshipping the same god even if “no one goes to the father except through me?”
Banana_Slug you say: "No scientist could ever disprove god, I think we agree on that. But if we keep finding more and more natural explanations for things that used to be explained by gods makes me think that perhaps there isn’t one. That’s not to say that I think one is impossible, but I do think those that have been proposed by humanity do not exist."
ReplyDeleteI say: Wow! I think we can agree on all of the above!!! YES!!! You said, "If we keep finding more and more natural explanation for things that used to be explained by gods makes me think that perhaps there isn't one."
Absolutely. At least not the mythical gods that used to control the elements. Now, we can, like so many others have, eliminate some gods from consideration. The God of Jesus Christ rose from the dead...Hmmm....how will science explain that one. And he touched people and healed them. Again,...how will science explain that one. And that he forgave sinners. Hmmm... Again, how will science explain that one. You get what I'm saying? This is a God that loves and forgives and does not condemn and does not seek the death of anyone.
You say: "but I do think those that have been proposed by humanity do not exist." I agree. Christianity is not proposed by humans. It was revealed to humans. That's another startling difference between our faith and so many other faiths. God revealed himself to us.
YOU SAID: "[God is]Possible, yes, but likely? Is it possible that there is a teapot floating out in the asteroid belt? Possible, yes, but likely?
ReplyDeleteI SAY: My kids really enjoyed this one today. Oh...did I tell you that I share your comments with my students? The only problem is that they think I make up these comments! They can't believe there is someone else on the other end.
Anyways...again, you're belittling. But then again, I thought to myself, well...if an astronaut from one of the Apollo missions admitted to throwing a teapot out along with some space junk, well...then it is possible. I don't know if it could have traveled that far that soon...
What I really found amusing were the examples that atheists used to debunk my 50:50 argument. They said silly things like, "Well, is there a 50:50 chance that the sun will rise?" "Is there a 50:50 chance that I will win the lottery?" Or yours, "What's the chance of getting in an automobile accident." By the way, insurance companies can figure that out based on your age and experience driving and your gender. (Just to let you know.)
If you notice, all these examples are of physical entities. All of them are observable, measureable, and most importantly, physical... Not a single one is spiritual. Hence, each example falls very short of relevant. The teapot should be detectable. The sun can be predicted based on scientific calculations, the winning ticket based on the number of possible combinations (with all things being equal), the car crash based on historical data.
But God is love, something we can all experience and yet is not provable (until death). The Judeo-Christian God defines himself as love: GOD IS LOVE). So how do you prove Love? How do you prove that your spouse loves you? "Well, Father, they tell me everyday." That doesn't prove anything. I can tell someone I love them and that doesn't necessarily prove anything. "Well, they give me a ton of gifts." Again, so what? Maybe they want something from you. "Well, they're very intimate with me." Again, so what? I know a lot of people who are intimate and are not in love. For the skeptic, there is no proof.
ReplyDeleteWell, there is circumstantial evidence and logical arguments. What you say is "natural" I say is far from "natural". Nothing has to be here. Life doesn't have to exist. Elements don't have to be. The Universe doesn't have to be. You seem to take things for granted. I take nothing for granted.
Most religions have failed to impress man because they were human explanations of the gods. But they were on to something. They knew there was something far superior to them.
Today, we consider drones to be superior to airplanes with pilots. It seems like remote control is better than hands on. I think that's a great way to look at the Christian God. God is intelligent enough to not have to deal with the day-to-day business of running a planet. Jesus makes no reference to His Father spinning the earth. What is striking about the God of Jesus is that He prefers to dedicate himself to the human heart, an intimate relationship with each one of us. To be a Father, a brother, a lover.
YOU SAY: "Someone else claims they believe the arguments in favor of Makeatutara"
I SAY: You neglect history. You neglect the difference between mythology and religion. You ignore history and the fact that this myth was surpassed because its origins were known to be human. You ignore current history and the evidence that clearly shows that the vast majority of people on the planet do not believe in this. Why do you argue like this? By doing so, you are telling me you know the names of gods, but you do not know anything else about these gods. Anyone can spew out a name of a god. You need to start studying these gods and ask youself why have they been rejected. Otherwise your arguments are non-arguments, for no one argues Makeatutara. And by doing so, you ignore important facts on purpose: such as, (1) that people convert. (2) that not all the gods are the same (3) that not all gods are worthy of consideration (4) that not arguments are of equal footing (5) that not all religions are the same (4) the difference between mythology and religion (Do you know the difference?) You should look it up.
I find it amazing how you can completely ignore history and the fact that people convert, and continue to convert; which means arguments are won and lost; which means some gods fail to impress while others do not fail.
Again, Banana_slug, your problem isn't that you know so many religions, your problem is that you don't even know your own religion let alone other religions. I will adress that issue in the following comment.
YOU SAY: "At least science is trying to fill in those gaps rather than just plug in “god did it” and look no further."
ReplyDeleteI SAY: So any theory is good enough in the meantime, correct? Even the wrong one, correct? What makes you think that plugging in some erroneous theory is any better than plugging in a god?
Well, you answered it when you said, "One of the nice things about science is that it can adapt. Have a theory like panspermia? Great. Maybe it works for awhile, but then something better comes along. It’s more accurate, explains things better, makes better predictions, so let’s use it instead."
I SAY: I loved it: falsification for justification!
YOU SAY: "Know any other gods that were born of virgins, rose from the dead, turned water into wine and performed other miracles, etc? A fair number."
I SAY: Bravo! Comparitive religion 101, like comparative science 101. See here...we have the skeletal frame of a bird's wing, of a human arm, and of a... I can't remember what else...SO CONCLUSION: We all evolved from one common animal.
Or the now famous Ernst Haeckel embryonic drawings of six different animals (including human) that depicted the early stage of development and how they were strikingly similiar: CONCLUSION - we all evolved from one common specie.
GREAT! Except for the fact that it was later discovered that they were manipulated.
But did it ever occur to these comparative scientists that maybe a good design was beneficial for all? Two eyes work better than one or three? Or why not three (especially one in the back of the head - that would be very practical, especially for survival!)
Funny!!! Isn't it?
Anyways, the kids in my class had a field day on this one.
Comparative religion...so that means that since there are similarities between religions then they stole from each other? Or could it be that there was some premonition of another?
Do similarities mean anything? Again, your knowledge of religions is appalling, and yet you insist on talking about various religions. Well, the old saying goes "the devil is in the details."
One student of mine echoed something I had said a while back: "So, let me get this straight, this person is saying that because there are similarities, it means they are the same, correct?" I said, "I guess so." "So, that would mean that the Nazi army is the same as the American Army because both armies were uniforms, carry guns, have tanks and airplanes and fight."
"This person clearly has not thought through well what they are saying." I agree.
Again, another one of those failed theories.
FINALLY YOU SAY: Even if they are worshipping the same god, they are going about it in completely different ways. Can any or all of them go to heaven for worshipping the same god even if “no one goes to the father except through me?”
ReplyDeleteI SAY: YES!!! Did you get that, Banana_slug? The answer is: YES! At least for Catholic Christians. And by not knowing this, I fear you didn't learn this in 30ish years of Catholicism.
It's horrible to reject something for all the wrong reasons.
But it gives me a lot of comfort knowing that what you think is Catholicism isn't. Heck, if I thought Catholicism was what you think it is, I would be an atheist as well!!!
All seriousness: This is not in any way a contradiction of what Jesus said: "No one goes to the Father except through me."
Hmmmm...how can people of other faiths (and even non-Christian faiths) get to heaven if Jesus said "He is the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "that no one comes to the Father except through me." Hmmmmmm.....
I will give you a chance to think about this (maybe you can even reasd about it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church), and to get to the Catholic Christian answer.
Hint: The answer is very obvious.
“So any theory is good enough in the meantime, correct? Even the wrong one, correct? What makes you think that plugging in some erroneous theory is any better than plugging in a god?
ReplyDeleteAnd
“I loved it: falsification for justification!”
This makes absolutely no sense. What is being falsified or justified? You speak as if you think that scientists just throw out any old idea, call it a theory, and hope nobody looks at it too closely. Any theory is going to have some flaws or unknowns to it, but does that completely invalidate them? No. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has been corroborated in experiments that have been calculated out to many significant digits, but there are still parts that scientists are working on. When he proposed his theory, he had ideas for experiments to test it, but these were technologically impossible for a couple of decades. When they were tested, his predictions were shown to be correct to an extremely high degree of precision. What if the theory had simply been abandoned right away? What if he had just decided to simply plug in god? What would that get us?
“Or the now famous Ernst Haeckel embryonic drawings … we all evolved from one common specie. GREAT! Except for the fact that it was later discovered that they were manipulated…maybe a good design was beneficial for all”
Are you arguing against the theory of evolution? For intelligent design?
First of all, even if Haeckel were arguing for the theory of evolution as we understand it, his manipulations would have done nothing to invalidate it. Do you know of any religious relics that are fakes? How many pieces of the true cross are there? Do you think any of these invalidate your faith?
Second, Haeckel was arguing a Lamarkian version of evolution, where characteristics of an organism are determined by the actions of its ancestors. He believed that if a species had previously been species a, b, c and d, then its embryonic stages would reflect that. His work has been thoroughly discredited for some time.
“maybe a good design was beneficial for all”
Good designs like eyes on cave fish that will never see any light? The laryngeal nerve on a giraffe that can span over 15 feet to connect something mere inches away? Vestigial pelvises in whales? Hollow bones in flightless birds and solid bones in flying bats? Breathing and eating/drinking through the same passageway?
“So, let me get this straight, this person is saying that because there are similarities, it means they are the same, correct?" I said, "I guess so." "So, that would mean that the Nazi army is the same as the American Army because both armies were uniforms, carry guns, have tanks and airplanes and fight."
Also have your students look up strawman arguments. That is a real stretch to even think that is a similar claim. Nobody in their right mind would claim that two armies are the same simply because they both have uniforms. I hope you don’t have a moustache Father, because both Hitler and Stalin did, and you know what that means.
“similarities between religions then they stole from each other?”
Quite possibly, yes. Anthropologists know that many aspects of culture and religion are shared among and passed down to different peoples. The biblical creation stories have similarities with the Enuma Elish. The story of Noah is based on the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates Genesis by several hundred years. I don’t remember the book, but I read of an anthropologist trying to record the religious stories of a native American tribe. In order to hear a story, she would have to tell the elders a story and would often make them up. She was surprised years later to find a colleague had recorded a version of one of her stories from another tribe member, who had been taught it as an old legend.
“Or could it be that there was some premonition of another? “
If I understand this, are you arguing that people were predicting the coming of Jesus by inventing a religion?
YOU SAY: This makes absolutely no sense. What is being falsified or justified?
DeleteI SAY: Panspermia was a theory that was taught while I was growing up. It is no longer talked about much these days. You love to bring up archaic, remote, ancient myths and/or tribal religions that are no longer believed anymore. You can't seem to grasp the the concept that some religions no longer seem reliable, plausible, or even logical. You can't seem to grasp the reality that people convert from one religion to another. Why would that be the case if all religions are similiar, mythical, erroneous, irrelevant to man? You ignore any data outside of the test tube or lab.
Science cannot measure anything that is not physical. Human relations, love (I love your brain wave analysis...do you really believe that relates to love? Should we ask people, before they get married, if they will submit to a test?) I LOVE IT!!!! Even if science could determine WHY my wife loves me, should I no longer believe that she loves me? You're funny...and silly.
YOU SAY: "First of all, even if Haeckel were arguing for the theory of evolution as we understand it, his manipulations would have done nothing to invalidate it."
I SAY: BRAVO!!! So, let me get this straight. Even though God has been manipulated by myths and legends and greek gods and tribal gods, does that invalidate Him? Does that somehow invalidate Jesus Christ?
Prove to me that Jesus Christ did not perform miracles? Prove to me that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God? Prove to me that his disciples lied? And do it without resorting to another religion. You can't.
Do you think that an ancient account of Noah's Ark would negate the story of Noah's Ark? If I recall correctly, colloborative testimony, rather than disproving something actually proves it. Do you think that you came up with a silver bullet? Hardly. All these ancient accounts are studied in seminary. All of them!
What you see is a thread, a commonality. Read the book of Genesis. What you will find are two accounts of the creation of man. How puzzling? Which one is it? Why would they put two accounts? Were they unsure? No. That's not why. Both accounts are ancient myths.
Now, I guess that when you read a myth you assume it is all lies. That's because you don't know the meaning of the word myth.
There are three types of myths: (1) myths that are lies, simple lies. (2) myths that are not literally true but symbolically true (like AESOP's fairy tales and Cinderella...remember that one? I found it commical how you asked me if I thought it was true!!! How childish) Well, in this sense of the word it is. (3) Real historical events told in mythic, symbolic, nonliteral language. Genesis is a myth in the 3rd sense of the word. George Washington being the "Father" of our nation is a myth in the 3rd sense of the word also. After all, he wasn't the literal, physical, biological father of our country, right? But he was the Father of our nation. hee hee hee.
Ahhhh.....so much to learn Banana_slug. I wish I had all the time in the world for you. There's so much for you to learn when it comes to Catholicism, Christianity, religion, science, philosophy and even myths.
Oh and by the way...The Big Bang theory was first theorized by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. George Lemaitre. The Father of genetics was also a priest, Fr. Gregor Mendel. The Jesuits are known as the fathers of seismology.
DeleteTo be an atheist doesn't mean to be a scientist. It means to be something else.
And I've asked many times: What is your definition of an atheist?
Delete"For when we cease to worship god, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything." G.K. Chesterton (an ex-atheist).
DeleteThis sums it up very well. For to say that atheism is simply the belief that there is no God is a pitiful excuse (and diversionary tactic) that allows atheists(and atheism) to run wild and not be blamed for it.
“YES! At least for Catholic Christians. And by not knowing this, I fear you didn't learn this in 30ish years of Catholicism. “
ReplyDeleteSo…Catholic Christians can go to heaven? Or are you saying that is what they teach? Here are a few things I was taught by various Catholic priests during religion classes.
Anyone can go to heaven, but only if they recognize Jesus as the son of god, hell for everyone else.
Only certain christians can go to heaven, but who those certain ones were was never discussed, hell for everyone else
Christians could go to heaven, all other “good” people would go somewhere nice, but not as nice as heaven, hell for everyone else.
And one I was not taught (or don’t explicitly remember being taught) but saw during an interview was anyone can go to heaven as long as they live a good life and do the best they can.
Which one of these do you teach? Or is it something different?
“how can people of other faiths (and even non-Christian faiths) get to heaven”
Enlighten me. How can a member of some tiny Amazonian tribe get to heaven if he has never even heard of god or Jesus? If he can do it, can I if I don’t believe in god but live my life the best I can? If either of us can get to heaven just by being good, what do we need god for again?
Banana_slug: Here are a few things I was taught by various Catholic priests during religion classes: "Anyone can go to heaven, but only if they recognize Jesus as the son of god, hell for everyone else."
ReplyDeleteI SAY: Well, prove to me that that is what the priest said, please? Because this is not Catholic dogma or doctrine. It is incorrect. And this is not what I say. This is what the Church says.
Now what is even more disturbing Banana_slug isn't the answer he may have given you, but the lack of research on your part. Look it up. Find out for yourself. Don't take my word for it. You don't need to ask me. You can find out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's not difficult at all.
YOU SAY: "Only certain christians can go to heaven, but who those certain ones were was never discussed, hell for everyone else"
I SAY: "Really?" I can give you a list of people who are canonized saints. Every year we celebrate "All Saints" day; that is those who are in heaven that only God knows. But interesting enough, I cannot even give you one name of one person that is in hell. Now isn't that interesting...and the opposite of what you supposedly learned.
Whew! Again, what makes me feel so comfortable in answering your questions, is that they show a lack of knowledge of the Catholic faith on your part. This can easily be corrected, if one chooses to learn.
YOU SAY: Christians could go to heaven, all other “good” people would go somewhere nice, but not as nice as heaven, hell for everyone else.
I SAY: I only know of two final places: heaven and hell: Eternal life with God or Eternal life without God. Now Purgatory is not a place. It is a process of purification. Christians as well as Non-Christians can go through Purgatory for purification, but they all end up in Heaven.
YOU SAY: And one I was not taught (or don’t explicitly remember being taught) but saw during an interview was anyone can go to heaven as long as they live a good life and do the best they can.
I SAY: That's correct, but always through the merit of Jesus Christ.
YOU SAY: “how can people of other faiths (and even non-Christian faiths) get to heaven”
Enlighten me. How can a member of some tiny Amazonian tribe get to heaven if he has never even heard of god or Jesus?
I SAY: More than happy to. If someone from a tiny Amazonian tribe never heard of Jesus Christ then chances are they will probably get to heaven faster and easier than someone like me who did. A lot is expected of a Christian. A lot more is expected of a priest. There is a certain way of life that is expected of a Christian. It's not an easy way of life. There's a standard. It's a mission.
Christ saves because He is the only Savior. Hence, Christians and non-Christians can get to heaven. If they do, it is always because of Jesus Christ. It's that simple.
"No one comes to the Father except through me."
YOU SAY: If he can do it, can I if I don’t believe in god but live my life the best I can? If either of us can get to heaven just by being good, what do we need god for again?
I SAY: Yes, even you can get to Heaven. And most likely you will, for it appears as though you were taught poorly as a child and therefore, you didn't know any better. Now the Pope just recently reiterated that atheists can be good people. But now we have come full circle again Banana_slug. What exactly does "good" mean? Is it relative? Is it something personal? Is it something that moves like the wind, ever changing, never steady. Or is there a standard? A rock?
Being good alone can't get you to heaven, just like hanging on a ledge can't get you to safety. You still need a hand to save you. You still need a Savior you will take you by the hand and lift you up.
Dear Banana_slug: I’ve been following for some time now your comments with Fr. A. I can assure you that they are not helpful to anyone who has doubts. What I’ve noticed over and over again is that Fr. A’s arguments (and examples) are thoughtful, realistic, believable and down-to-earth. Your arguments are laughable and infantile at most. They’re arguments that no one can relate to. I don’t know if you’re trying to be funny, but you’re not. I don’t know if you’re trying to be clever, you’re not. You sound like a baby seeking attention. You argue with arguments that no one believes in and no one can relate to: tea pots in an asteroid? Now who believes that? No one. Really, no one. And if there was someone, it would be a tiny few, hardly something I would use to argue my point. Light sabers and unicorns? Who believes that? No one. If anything, I think Fr A is toying with you (forgive me Father if I am wrong).
DeleteYou argue that Westboro Baptist Church is a “recognized” Church? Really? A Church in which most of its members are family members? A Church that represents .0000000000000000000001% of all Christians? Really? Is that the best you can do? When you bring up other religions, do you realize that you bring up religions that are not even relatable and that are negligible?
During your debates, you finally admitted (if only for a brief moment) that not all religions are the same. But then you went right back to believing it when you stated that there are other religions that believe in a virgin birth, crucifixion, etc… Only to be shut down by a simple and concrete example of men in uniform.
Every time you’ve tried to show some sort of proficiency in Christianity, you’ve been soundly defeated with a more comprehensive explanation of Scripture. Do you think people haven’t noticed?
What you apparently haven’t noticed is that you’re not arguing scientifically but philosophically. You’re constantly attempting to disprove Christ by arguing in “favor” of some other religion; again, typically some archaic, lost or non-relatable religion.
"Light sabers and unicorns? Who believes that?"
DeleteFather does. If you go back and read his posts, he is the one arguing that they both truly exist.
Fr. Alfonse said...
ReplyDeleteWell, it's late and clearly you're trying to get the last line in before midnight.
Yes. I believe in light sabers and I found it hilarious how you, banana_slug, were forced to redefine your "light saber" and "unicorn" over and over again in order to finally make it fit your definition of a "light saber" and "unicorn". Remember?
I said unicorns exist in our minds. You said something like 'no I mean real unicorns.' I said "unicorns exist in the movies...on the big screen." You said, No, I mean physical unicorns. I said they physically exist in toy stores." Then you had to say, "No, I mean flesh and blood unicorns." Ah, yes.... you see, they must exist according to your standard.
Then the light saber...how delightful. I said, "They to exist in toy stores." Then you protested, "No, I mean light sabers that really exist." And so I said they really exist in movie theatres and really work in the movies. Then you protested, "no, light sabers that exist and really work." Oh, you mean the US Army light sabers. You said, "No, the one's invented by George Lucas. Ah, yes...the "light saber" according to your standard and definition.
So let's take the Enterprise. Does it really exist? You would say, "Of course not." I would say, "Of course it does. In the movies." Then you say, "No, I mean the real thing." I would say the real thing is the Enterprise created not by Gene but by NASA. But then you would protest by saying that isn't the real Enterprise. So I take it that the real Enterprise is the one that you think it should be?
No wonder why you're an atheist. God has to exist according to your idea, not according to His own.
That's the point that I made. That's the point that you don't get.
You are interchanging two worlds: Where man is god of unicorns and where God is God of narwhals. Where man is god of light sabers and God is God of light. Where man is god of the Enterprise and God is God of the Universe.
We can take credit for all that we have created. God takes credit for all that He (not us) created. And what He has done is infinitely more complicated that what we so far have done.
From yesterday:
ReplyDeletehttp://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/
On Thursday, the Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning to ‘salvation.’”
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”
Although it is past the 15 days. I had to respond to your ridiculous comment.
ReplyDeleteThe Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who aware of the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”
At the same time, Rosica writes, “every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin.”
How nice it is for you, Banana_slug, to cut and paste what you want to read (and send) and what you don't want to read (and admit).
Next time I would go to a Catholic website rather than to "friendly" (that's funny) atheist websites or so-called generic "religion" blogs to get the full picture of Catholicism.
Do you see a contradiction in his statement? Probably, but that's only due to a lack of knowledge of redemption and salvation, sin and grace, "catholic" church and "Catholic" Church.
For further enlightenment, refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on salvation.