Meditation is an ideal way to pray. Using God's word (Lectio Divina) allows me to hear, listen and reflect on what the Lord wants to say to me - to one of his disciples - just like He did two thousand years ago.
The best time to reflect is at the beginning of the day and for at least 15 to 30 minutes.
Prior to going to sleep, read the Mass readings for the next day and then, in the morning, reflect on the Meditation offered on this website.
I hope these daily meditations allow you to know, love and imitate the Lord in a more meaningful way.
God bless you!


Friday, July 5, 2013

Mt 9:9-13 What He Desires Most


Friday of the Thirteenth Week In Ordinary Time
(Click here for readings)
The Pharisees saw this and said to his [Christ’s] disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.  Go and learn the meaning of the words, I desire mercy, not sacrifice.  I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”
There are two types of people in the world and they are not the rich and the poor.  Honestly!  I truly believe this.  I know this to be true.  No one is thoroughly rich.  No one is thoroughly poor.  We can be both rich and poor, and poor and rich.
I personally know that wealth and poverty can create the same miseries, for they both tend to distract us from what we have to what we don’t have.    So what two types of people are there in the world?  They are repentant sinners and non-repentant sinners. 
Repentant sinners differ from non-repentant sinners for they tend to focus not on what they have or do not have but rather on who they are.
I did not come to call the righteous.  Kids learn a lot when they go on mission trips.  I learned a lot when I went on my first mission trips.  First and foremost we learn to appreciate who people are rather than what they have. 
Recently, a group of young high school girls from Ursuline went to Belize to do some missionary work.  They were surprised by the faith, joy, love and sacrifices of the people from this poor Central American country.  I spent a few hours one morning listening to a couple of them recount how these simple people from a small village changed their views and their lives. 
One young lady was amazed at how mature the children were and how strong their faith was, especially given the fact they had so little.  They were not ignorant little kids.   On the contrary, they knew what they were missing.  But they also were not ignorant in thinking that the missionaries had it all.  
One day, one of the missionaries was teaching about Scripture and Tradition.  She asked a young girl what traditions her family had.  She asked them if they drove to Church every Sunday. The little girl looked up and said, “We don’t have a car.”  The missionary felt horrible for having asked such a question, so she began to tell this little girl how, in America, they had everything but were not necessarily happy.  The little girl listened but was not very impressed by her teacher’s reasoning.  She looked up at her and said, “I know America is very big and rich, and Belize is very small and poor, but don’t be sad.  I’m very happy to live here.  This is my home.  This is where my family is.  I love my country.”
This young lady couldn’t believe what she was hearing.  She gave the little girl a big hug.  Little did this little girl know what she had done for her!
In many ways, I sense the Lord felt perfectly at home with sinners.  This is a mystery.  How can it be?  How can God, the God of all righteousness, be at home in the house of sinners?
I desire mercy, not sacrifice.  That’s the answer!   He desires mercy.  Isn’t that what we all desire?  When I think of mercy, I think of understanding.  To be understood as to understand?   
The God of the Gap.  Now this is a clever little saying said by atheists.  It means what science has yet to explain, believers explain with God.  But the rationale behind this saying has nothing to do with science but everything to do with being an atheist.  After all, who came up with the Big Bang?  A priest.  Who is considered the Father of genetics?  A priest.  Just Google “The Father of the Big Bang theory” or “The Father of genetics.”  See what you get.  Hint:  Two Catholic priests. 
Faith and Reason. Atheists, who insist on science and reasoning alone are similar to Protestants who insist on faith alone.  They are as fundamentalist as fundamentalists get.  They are more related to each other than they think, for they are both taking the guts out of reality, out of human life, and creating an enormous gap within us!  As one is attempting to take our humanity and reduce it to mechanics, the other is taking our salvation and turning it into a formula that must be said.  Hence all that is true is only that which is measurable or audible. 
So on one end, there is the "God of The Gap."  On the other, the “Science of the Gap!”  Each are trying to replace the other.  Each are trying to reduce the other, and the result will be the elimination of man.
Catholics believe that both faith and reason are necessary to explain the dynamics of human life!  What both groups do not understand is that by emphasizing one and eliminating the other, they minimize so much of human reality, such as philosophy, religion, human experiences, subjectivity, morality, politics, customs and traditions, dances and parties, friends and neighbors, humor and lightheartedness, poetry and music, art and fashion; that is, everything that is not quantifiable or measureable, but yet very human. 
It will take much more than just the scientific method (or faith and Scripture alone) to understand human life and destiny. 
Imagine for a moment if someone said “Bill = his genetics + food” or “Bill = Faith alone.” Oh my goodness!  Is that it?  Is it that simple?  Of course not.  Can you see a big gap here?  Of course.  There’s a gaping hole in his life!  Now, it isn’t that he needs to fill it with God or with science.  No, that’s not his problem.  The problem is that in order to make his life appear simpler, we have gutted him of everything!  Bill already has God and science in his make-up.
Bill = his genetics + “environment” (which includes not only planet Earth, but also neighbors + friends + enemies + education + experiences + upbringing + travels + girlfriends + more and more) + decisions + faith + so many other things that are not even measureable or predictable, for we cannot even say that bad neighbors necessarily produce a bad kid, or that a great education will undoubtedly produce a moral person.
Life is not fair; it is unpredictable and not easily measureable (except in the days of our lives).  Human life is weird, for we don’t get much satisfaction of having more and giving less, or from thinking ourselves always right.  The Pharisees and Scribes thought they were always right and look at how miserable they were!   
Life is complicated.  Most people don’t like the most likely to succeed.  Instead, they prefer the underdog!  Why is that?  Equation please???  I know that who I am is made up of a million variables, with faith being a big part of me. 
God is in the gap, but only because we won’t let him back into the equation! 
However, we know the Lord loves to play the underdog.  We know the Lord got more pleasure out of one person who converted than a hundred who were “perfect.”  Why is that?  Why are we so much like Him???  Time to read Genesis and understand the depth of his poetry!
Well, we all know we get more satisfaction out of life when we help others; that is, when we sacrifice for others.  God is love.  He sacrificed himself for us.  Love fills the void in our lives.  God fills the void in our lives.  He satisfies the hungry heart.
We also know that rich young missionaries feel happy and at home when they spend two weeks among the poor.  It’s simple:  We love opportunities to love.  No wonder why the Lord spent so much time with those in need.   

 

10 comments:

  1. Oh yeas, one more thing.

    Science is not inherently good nor evil.

    Science is a tool for understanding and discovering the world around us. Everything science studies to be accepted by the scientific community must have supporting evidence, which can be reproduced by someone else and achieve the same results. If God is an ethereal being then the Scientific community is never going to admit its existence, because they cannot detect it though replicative scientific means.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Science is not inherently good or evil. I agree with you, but some scientists think not. In fact, they will tell you that the only thing that science cannot do is what they cannot do. And what they cannot do is simply a matter of time, not morals.

    Hence, what I find interesting is that scientists need boundaries and borders. What I find even more interesting is that their discipline offers none. They need to look beyond science. They need ethics. And we know that ethics requires the study of philosophy and philosophy requires an honest search for wisdom.

    So John, as you can see, Science alone will not do, it requires much more than just beakers and chemicals and laboratories. It requires things outside its field to keep it in check, and those things are not necessarily scientific, but philosophic, moral, etc...

    Hence, Science alone spells disaster because it leaves out the scientist part, the human part, the biggest part.

    We know scientists will do anything for money and for glory. We know politicians will do anything for money and for votes. The hope of mankind is that the Church will continue to be disinterested in votes, popularity and money and continue to focus on God and man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “After all, who came up with the Big Bang? A priest. Who is considered the Father of genetics? A priest”

    So what? Who came up with the theory of relativity? An agnostic/deist/jew. Who came up with the model of the atom? An atheist. Who discovered the structure of DNA? An atheist. It does not matter what their faith is. Did Lemaitre or Mendel make their discoveries explicitly because of their faith or did they make their discoveries and also happen to be priests? Is there anything special about their discoveries that only a catholic priest could have made? Did their discoveries come about because of prayer and bible study or through experimentation and the scientific method?

    “So on one end, there is the "God of The Gap." On the other, the “Science of the Gap!””

    What exactly is science of the gap? If you mean that there are gaps in our knowledge which science is trying to fill in, then yes, absolutely, that is what science does. Do you agree that the bible (erroneously) says the world was created in six days with man and the animals perfectly formed as they are? Or that the entire world was destroyed except for a small group of people and animals on a boat? People used to (and unfortunately too many people still do) believe that these were unquestionable scientific facts. Now we know better. Science has filled in answers where religion was wrong. Does that mean science will ever be able to explain everything? No, but it certainly won’t be for lack of trying. There may be many things that we are never able to explain, but that does not automatically mean that god is the cause. Even if it did, how would it indicate your particular god?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Welcome back Banana_slug. It's nice to hear from you. But I have to be honest, it's not as nice now, during the summer, as during the school year. That's when I use your comments in my classroom discussions. We get a kick out of them. Of course, I only use them to lighten their minds.

    I will save this one in particular. It's a classic.

    I have to ask you: Did you actually read my meditation in its entirety? If so, then please read it again. It appears, from your comment, that you didn't read it.

    I wrote: “After all, who came up with the Big Bang? A priest. Who is considered the Father of genetics? A priest”

    You wrote: "So what?" And then you began to list the accomplishments of other scientists who were either believers in something or non-believers at all.

    So, why did I mention this at all? Well, if you had read my meditation then you would be able to put this quote in its proper context, namely: the Catholic Church believes in FAITH AND REASON. Not FAITH ALONE. NOT REASON (or SCIENCE) ALONE. Read it. Read it again.

    Why did I mention this? Because so often you hear those silly atheists who claim that Christians are Christians because they are SOOOO ignorant of science...well, then, please look up who is the Father of the Big Bang and the Father of genetics and so many more...

    If you read my meditation again, then you will see it spelled out very clearly how many atheists are "SCIENCE ALONE" in their quest for truth and some Christians are "FAITH ALONE" in their quest for truth.

    In the Catholic Church, it is FAITH AND REASON, and both go hand in hand.

    Is that so complicated?

    So, I don't know what to think of what you wrote. Really. Except, please read my meditation again.

    Now this is only speculation, but maybe what you did was read something that an atheist wrote somewhere, and then read a little bit of what I wrote here, and then decided to share with us your "discovery" and cut and paste it in your comments.

    Well, Banana_slug. It doesn't fit well, especially in the context of this meditation. Sorry :( Nice try.

    I will give you a second chance to correct your mistake and then to try to figure out what I am saying with regards to the "Science of the Gap" [or the "Hoax of the GAP" or the "Mistake of the GAP" that I have used in recent meditations.]

    Good luck. Let me know. And then I will read your other comments, and comment on them appropriately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “We get a kick out of them. Of course, I only use them to lighten their minds.”

      I showed my wife (devout catholic and a math/stats double major) your 50:50 argument. After she stopped laughing, she asked if you were serious.

      “the Catholic Church believes in FAITH AND REASON. Not FAITH ALONE. NOT REASON (or SCIENCE) ALONE.”

      So how long did it take the church to apologize to Galileo? (sorry, had to get that in)

      Father, There will be some repetition here, mostly to re-emphasize my point, which I guess I will have to state explicitly. I thought it was reasonably clear, but then I was the one writing it.

      You can have reason, you can have faith. Just because you have one does not automatically make the other correct.

      Just like with atheists, if someone calls themselves a christian or more specifically in your case a catholic, you will only know what their beliefs are or should be (here ignoring the fact that there are multitudes of christian sects with widely varying beliefs). Atheist: doesn’t believe in god, nothing further can be inferred without additional knowledge. Catholic: believes in a triune god, believes in the statements of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed, believes in the catechism (or at least some of these items), nothing further can be inferred without additional knowledge. So what does that mean? Yes, you can believe in both reason and faith. But does one necessarily imply the other or that either their reasoning or faith is correct? My point was that simply believing in science does nothing to validate ones faith. There is still exactly zero evidence for your supernatural claim of a deity. Of course, it works the other way too; faith, or lack of, does not automatically mean your reasoning is correct.

      Take a hypothetical group of scientists, a hindu, a christian, an atheist, a shinto, maybe some others. They all make individual great discoveries. Do any of their discoveries, which were made using reason, validate their faiths explicitly because of their discovery? Did their faiths lead directly to their discoveries? Are some people’s discoveries any greater because they either have more faith or their god actually exists? Father, can you name me one single scientific discovery that specifically points to your god and only your god as being the only possible explanation?

      Or look at it from the other side. I suspect that when you came up with your claim that there is a greater than 50:50 probability that god exists, you would say you used reason. Take a group of holy people. They each use reason to make the exact same claim about their god(s). Would you agree with any of them? Is there something about their faiths that make their reasoning invalid? Or their reasoning that makes their faiths invalid?

      Delete
  5. YOU SAID: I showed my wife (devout catholic and a math/stats double major) your 50:50 argument. After she stopped laughing, she asked if you were serious.

    I SAY: Well, if your wife is a devout [C]atholic and has heard you over the years, then my dear friend, it's obvious you haven't done a good job in convincing her of your arguments either, right? Maybe you should listen more to your wife. Right? Maybe this is a sign for you that I'm not the only one that is unconvinced.

    So, are you sure she was laughing at me or laughing with me?

    But I am curious to know how your wife, the double major, would show me, mathematically or even statistically, how I was wrong. I am very curious to know. Please, ask her to provide the data and share with everyone what the probability of God's existence is. Of course we start of with only two possibilities: God exists or God does not exist. Then we must look at the probabilities of one and the other.

    Now if you would for a moment read my meditation, then you would understand, as so many other people have, that there is no atheistic argument that cannot be either refuted or rejected or counterbalanced by a man of faith and reason.

    Look at the picture associated with this meditation. What do you see? You see a priest (George Lemaitre) teaching physics.

    As an atheist, aren't you a bit confused? How in the world can a physicist (Who happened to know and work with Einstein), be a priest??? How? Is he stupid? Is he unaware of scientific research? Isn't this the silly arguments of atheists???

    Now, since you don't understand logic, you will come back to me and say "But there are scientists who are atheists as well." YES. CORRECT. So, if you have a believer who is a scientist and a non-believer who is a scientist, then it must mean that science is not the answer to religious belief! Right??? Do you finally understand?

    Atheism has nothing to do with science. NOTHING. So Science and Faith do not conflict as some atheists would love to make people think.

    And yet, atheists, like you, will claim that they stopped believing because of evolution and even (can you believe this one) because of the BIG BANG THEORY!!! How ironic!

    Wow! Talk about inconsistent and incoherent arguments that can be easily refuted by history and human experience.

    As for me, my faith only grew stronger the more I learned my faith and science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My dear friend, you are inconsistent in your arguments, incoherent in your arguments and, may I add, ignorant of Scripture. Every time you tell me that Jews and Catholics believed that the world was literally created in six days, it shows your lack of knowledge of ancient Scripture, of ancient Jewish rabbinical teachings and of ancient Catholic interpretation of Genesis.

      You mention Galileo and there is good reason to do so, for it is the most famous case. Do you know why? Because it is one of very few cases in which the Church (in 2000 years) was in conflict with Science. That's not bad. But go ahead and mention it again. It is your only case...unless you, like a good research scientist, Google to find other examples ;)

      If you wish to bring up Galileo, then can I bring up all the scientists who have manipulated the facts and twisted the data in order to convince others of their conclusions?

      Well, if anything is ridiculous or scandalous, then it must be the tendency of some scientists today to make religious statements. They are out of their discipline and as foolish as fundamentalists who try to deduce scientific arguments from Genesis.

      Your devout Catholic wife should have taught you what six days (seven days) of Creation meant. If she doesn't know, then let me know and I will illuminate you AGAIN. :)

      Again, don't write so much Banana_slug. Let's go step by step, one argument at a time, and if you haven't noticed, YOU are actually proving to me my argument of 50:50. Actually, based on your arguments, it is pretty clear that the odds are against you. But again, I was trying to be diplomatic. So much for diplomacy!!!

      I look forward to your responses.

      Delete
  6. “Well, if your wife is a devout [C]atholic and has heard you over the years, then my dear friend, it's obvious you haven't done a good job in convincing her of your arguments either, right?”

    After two long discussions, we have decided to agree to disagree. She has admitted she can offer me no proof and I have admitted I cannot show to her what she does not want to believe. We add this to other non-discussion topics such as music, animation, and pizza toppings.

    “So, are you sure she was laughing at me or laughing with me?”

    Neither of us saw any attempt at humor on your part, so I’m absolutely sure it was at you, or at least your argument. If I recall correctly, she said something along the lines of “he obviously has no idea how statistics works.” And even if she was not my wife, I would agree with someone who spent 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, 3 years of residency and a 1 year fellowship, all dedicated to statistics over any argument you could provide.

    “But I am curious to know how your wife, the double major, would show me, mathematically or even statistically, how I was wrong. I am very curious to know. Please, ask her to provide the data and share with everyone what the probability of God's existence is.”

    Considering we have agreed not to discuss this further, I don’t know, but I would imagine she would start off by asking you to show your arguments first. After all you are the one making the positive claim; you can’t show what is wrong without seeing something first. I would also add myself that you can not calculate the possibility of something which nobody can agree on the definition of (how many thousands of catholic sects all proclaiming their version of god is correct?) and for which the vast majority of evidence comes from writings over several hundred years that have been known to be translated, edited, and manipulated.

    “Of course we start of with only two possibilities:”

    I am assuming you are familiar with Pascal’s Wager and why it fails so miserably. I’m also sure you are aware that statistics does not deal with possibilities, but probabilities.

    “God exists or God does not exist.”

    How conveniently you neglect or simply dismiss any other argument. How about the possibility that Baal exists? Or both god and Baal? Or neither? There’s four possibilities right there. But wait, what about Zeus? Or others? To simplify, let’s imagine 4 gods; A, B, C, and D. We could have A, B, C, D, AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, ABCD, or none; that’s 16 possibilities. What happens when you start to get into tens, hundred, or even thousands of possible gods? The numbers are staggering! Oh, right, but you have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that your god is the only possible one that could exist.

    “Then we must look at the probabilities of one and the other.”

    And yet another place where your understanding fails. How do you even begin to assign probabilities? You could, for example, say that a fair six sided die will come up on any given side 1/6 of the time. Or perhaps it’s weighted, but you know or could measure the effect of the weight, i.e. one side 5/10 of the time, the other 5 sides 1/10 of the time each. Or you could study historical data, as we previously discussed with insurance. Historically, you know a certain type of accident will occur X% of the time, so chances are good that it will occur in the near future with similar frequency, unless something has drastically changed.

    So which is it with god? Are there equal chances for existence and non existence? Is it weighted? Perhaps, but how do you determine the weighting coefficients for a god? Do you have historical data on gods to compare?

    ReplyDelete
  7. “As an atheist, aren't you a bit confused?”

    Not in the least. I have known many brilliant people of many different faiths.

    “How in the world can a physicist (Who happened to know and work with Einstein), be a priest??? How? Is he stupid?”

    Have I ever claimed anybody to be stupid because of their faith?

    “then it must mean that science is not the answer to religious belief!”

    Then why are you arguing that catholicisim is somehow more valid because it believes in science or reason? Or if you are not, then everything you have said is meaningless. If you have nothing to offer other than something that can not be independently verified by any other person, then I see no reason why I should believe in any supernatural entity that you could come up with.

    “Atheism has nothing to do with science. NOTHING.”

    Are you finally admitting atheism only has to do with a lack of belief in god?

    “So Science and Faith do not conflict as some atheists would love to make people think.”

    I have asked you several times, yet you have never answered. Does being catholic automatically mean your reasoning is any greater than anyone else’s because of your faith? Does being catholic automatically mean your faith is correct because you believe in reason? If the answer to these is no, then why should this argument be any indication of whether or not your faith is any more valid than any other faith that also happens to believe in reason, or even if they don’t? If the answer is yes, then you have to demonstrate explicitly why these statements are true for your faith and yours alone.

    “Every time you tell me that Jews and Catholics believed that the world was literally created in six days, it shows your lack of knowledge of ancient Scripture, of ancient Jewish rabbinical teachings and of ancient Catholic interpretation of Genesis.

    So the church has never taught that the world was created in 6 literal days? Noah’s flood literally happened? The earth was the center of the universe?

    “You mention Galileo and there is good reason to do so… it is one of very few cases in which the Church (in 2000 years) was in conflict with Science.”

    Oh, right, but from above “Science and Faith do not conflict.” And what was it that changed; science or faith?

    “If you wish to bring up Galileo, then can I bring up all the scientists who have manipulated the facts and twisted the data in order to convince others of their conclusions?”

    Given the proportions of christians in the world, I would say it is safe to say that some of those scientists that were lying were christian. Oh, but they weren’t True Christians, right? And in the end, what exposed these manipulations? Religion or science? Is there anything in religion that has ever changed as new religious facts have been discovered? Anything in science that has changed as new religious facts have been discovered? Anything in religion that has changed as new scientific facts have been discovered?

    “YOU are actually proving to me my argument of 50:50.”

    To you maybe, but not to anyone else. What statements have I made that prove your god exists? What statements have you made that prove your god exists? You have said for every argument that can be made against god, a similar one can be made for god (or something like that). Can you please give me one of those statements that argue in favor of your god and only for your god? Again, not for the religion that we know exists, but for god himself? Or can you tell me why another person arguing the exact same thing for their god is wrong, while you are right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Banana_slug:

    You know what. I wish you would learn from your wife. Maybe the reason why she gave up on you is because you don't know how to argue with her.

    I am content with my responses, even my previous response is sufficient to answer your last response. I invite anyone who wants to read this discussion to do so. I am very content with what I have written. I hope you are as well.

    But here are some things you wrote that need to be addressed:

    YOU SAY: "LETS IMMAGINE FOUR GODS."

    I SAY: How convenient of you to completely dismiss the argument. We are not arguing for or against any god. We are arguing God's existence. Do you see how you cannot accept a simple challenge.

    We already went over this so many times before. Before we can argue what god, we must argue whether it is logical or illogical to believe in a God, a superior being.

    Then, and only then, can we move on to the next step and discuss what God.

    So, you have not only proven to me that you cannot argue with me, but you have also shown to everyone that you cannot easily dismiss my argument.

    There was an atheist, a Brian Westley, who wrote a comment regarding the 50:50 argument, by saying something to the effect, "So, if there are 8,000,000 gods in the Hindu faith, then which one is true..." or something like that...

    I commented back by saying that he just demonstrated that the probability of God's existence just increased.

    Now, of course, he did not understand what I meant by that. And instead of asking, he simply assumed.

    But what I was trying to tell him was that he just added human experience to the equation. That is, the FACT that there are so many people around the world, and independent of education, culture, geography, etc... that have had an experience with God.

    To you, this is not independent verification, and for good reason: you cannot fathom for a moment that you are wrong.

    An atheist always assumes way too much.

    2. You wrote that my argument is science OR faith. No, it's not science OR faith. It's science AND faith. You are the one who insists it being Science alone. Fundamentalists insist that it is faith alone.

    You have the HOAX of the gap, the MISTAKE of the gap and the SCIENCE of the gap. In other words, what science has not demonstrated, one day it will. That is filling a gap. When a miracle occurs, atheists either call it a hoax or a mistake (a misdiagnosis) without offering any proof of either. This is what I mean by the Hoax of the gap and the Mistake of the gap.

    Now, you may say, "well, you call it God's intervention." You're correct. And unlike you, I am being coherent and consistent for I say that in order to understand the Universe it requires faith and science. Whereas you, say that faith is not necessary. But, when an atheist calls something a HOAX or a MISTAKE then they should be able to prove it scientifically, correct?

    For this reason, I repeat, you are, along with so many of your peers, are inconsistent and incoherent in your argumentations.

    Not only that, but you, who pride yourself on being scientific, argue philosophically...even after you said that philosophy proves nothing.

    The rest of your long discourse, I leave, for your questions were answered in my previous comments.

    Again, I am perfectly content with my responses. You should be as well. Let's leave it for now and I invite you to do what you have agreed to do with your wife.

    ReplyDelete

Updated: Comments that are judged to be defamatory, abusive or in bad taste are not acceptable and contributors who consistently fall below certain criteria will be permanently blacklisted. Comments must be concise and to the point.Comments are no longer accepted for posts older than 7 days.