GENIUS FORUMS

I would like to begin a discussion about the similarities and dissimilarities of these two works, limiting the Catechism to Paragraphs II and III, which I will quote below.

I realize there are those who have very little affection for church and even less affection for the Catholic Church, however, I would like to ask you to put that aside for the moment and argue the proofs as they stand.

I grew up in the Catholic Church and this philosophy was taught to me as a child and throughout the years. I would like to read your arguments...

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD
31 Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.[7]

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?[8]

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",[9] can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".[10]

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH
36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[11] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".[12]

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.[13]

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". [14]

~www.christusrex.org

Religion is a crutch for the lazy, cowardly, and ignorant masses. It is as simple as that. How could people pursue and sacrifice themselves to things such as wealth, women, and all other forms of happiness and still afford to sacrafice themselves to the Truth? It's not possible. Religion is a way of getting around it by letting other people do the thinking and decision making. This way people can continue to satisfy their egos without having to trouble themselves with the true nature of things. Problem is religion is always created for the purpose of harnessing these masses in some form or another. Then religion uses its power to exploit and profit from these masses causing all kinds of problems. A good example of this is when the Catholic Church dominated Europe during a time called the the dark ages

Nick, I understand completely. I left the Church when the whole pedophile incident arose. It was handled intolerably. It wasn't the sole reason I left, but it was the icing on the cake.

However, I wish you could put that aside, read this, and let me know what you think of the proofs. Hitler was a murderer, but people still study his philosophy. Please?

There don't seem to be any proofs in the material you have quoted, only vague wishful speculations. They are far too vague and unintelligent to deal with rationally.

What, for you, is the most compelling proof for the existence of the Christian God?

--

What, for you, is the most compelling proof for the existence of the Christian God?

You had mentioned God being the Totality in another thread...I am really bad with these, what I call "enlightenisms", so in order for us to be clear...I meant the same thing.

Your argument about what is God is very compelling. It is understood in the brain. You will balk when I say that my whole being rebels against the notion.

If there is a hidden void and consciousness that makes up the Totality of what is and the hidden void is something that cannot be grasped, then why can some of that hidden void be within us? You say appearance and form must be so that a thing can exist, but if we cannot grasp the hidden void, how could it be you can be so sure that we are not just like that lake Scott talked about.

If we are part and parcel with God, why can't we be an appearance of the Totality, including the hidden void? This hidden void would then be the most unexplainable part of us - the soul.

passthrough wrote:

What, for you, is the most compelling proof for the existence of the Christian God?

You had mentioned God being the Totality in another thread...I am really bad with these, what I call "enlightenisms", so in order for us to be clear...I meant the same thing.

Your argument about what is God is very compelling. It is understood in the brain. You will balk when I say that my whole being rebels against the notion.

If there is a hidden void and consciousness that makes up the Totality of what is and the hidden void is something that cannot be grasped, then why can some of that hidden void be within us? You say appearance and form must be so that a thing can exist, but if we cannot grasp the hidden void, how could it be you can be so sure that we are not just like that lake Scott talked about.

If we are part and parcel with God, why can't we be an appearance of the Totality, including the hidden void? This hidden void would then be the most unexplainable part of us - the soul.

We have five senses which we use to create an abstract image of the world with in our mind. Some animals on this planet have different senses, and some have more refined and less refined senses. With that said the world appears very differently from people, who use sight primarily to navigate and experience the world, and say a bat, which uses sound as its dominant sense to navigate through the world. The point is these are all just abstract images of the Universe which are limited by our senses. There are an infinite number of things one cannot sense in the universe, simply because the Universe is infinte and we are finite. These aspects of the Universe that we have no way in which to create an abstract image of in our minds is "the hidden void".

passthrough wrote:

DQ: What, for you, is the most compelling proof for the existence of the Christian God?

PT: You had mentioned God being the Totality in another thread...I am really bad with these, what I call "enlightenisms", so in order for us to be clear...I meant the same thing.

Your argument about what is God is very compelling. It is understood in the brain. You will balk when I say that my whole being rebels against the notion.

Usually, when a person rebels against his intellectual understanding, it is a sign that he is still spellbound by his social conditioning. It indicates that the strong emotional desires generated by his conditioning are clashing with the cold hard truths perceived by his brain.

You were brought up strongly as a Christian, I believe?

If there is a hidden void and consciousness that makes up the Totality of what is and the hidden void is something that cannot be grasped, then why can some of that hidden void be within us? You say appearance and form must be so that a thing can exist, but if we cannot grasp the hidden void, how could it be you can be so sure that we are not just like that lake Scott talked about.

I haven't read about Scott's lake, so I can't comment on that.

I also have no idea what you mean by the hidden void possibly being "within us". The only way it could be within us is if we were to identify with the totality of all there is.

If we are part and parcel with God, why can't we be an appearance of the Totality, including the hidden void? This hidden void would then be the most unexplainable part of us - the soul.

If we were to identity with the Totality, then we would indeed be an appearance of the Totality.

Incidently, it is wrong to think of the hidden void as "unexplainable", as opposed to the rest of the Totality. Quite the reverse, in fact. The hidden void is wholly understandable. As I mentioned in my book, there is nothing mysterious about it at all.

-

To debate with the author of one of the discussion documents, especially by me, is most likely foolhardy, however, you offered me the courtesy of replying to this discussion, therefore, I will make a go of it…

Usually, when a person rebels against his intellectual understanding, it is a sign that he is still spellbound by his social conditioning. It indicates that the strong emotional desires generated by his conditioning are clashing with the cold hard truths perceived by his brain.

You were brought up strongly as a Christian, I believe?

Yes, Catholic Christian. I also told Scott in another thread that what you have written is very clear but to live it would be difficult for me. I have had a lot of social conditioning. I thought more about what you asked - a somewhat more cohesive answer will follow.

I also have no idea what you mean by the hidden void possibly being "within us". The only way it could be within us is if we were to identify with the totality of all there is. If we were to identity with the Totality, then we would indeed be an appearance of the Totality.

Additional thoughts:

Preface: a lot of this is hypothetical and without much proof for it is based on my thought processes over the years. Further, I have studied little philosophical thought...just random research and reading. I know I needn't explain myself, but I'm going to anyhow.

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".~Catechism

Consider us part of the Totality, both Hidden Void and Consciousness, the soul being the Hidden Void. Hell, to me, is the absence of God (Totality), in effect non-existent. You have stated that there is no nothingness. Your discussion made perfect sense, but if all we are is consciousness, we would be that eddy in a swirling pool of water. If one stays grounded in the appearances and never develops a desire to have this Hidden Void revealed to him, then he is nothing more than he sees.

Augustine of Hippo is an early Catholic Church philosopher and one that I would like to study when time allows. In a summary prepared on the Stanford University web site, I found this excerpt which seems to address the issue better, although I’m not sure at what stage in Augustine’s life these views represent.

The problem that plagues our condition is not that we are trapped in the visible world; rather, it is a more subtle problem of perception and will: we are prone to view things materialistically and hence unaware that the sensible world is but a tiny portion of what is real, an error Augustine increasingly attributes to original sin. Thus, we have a tendency to focus only upon the sensible, viewing it as a self-contained arena within which all questions of moral concern are to be resolved. Because we fail to perceive the larger unity of which the sensible world is itself a part, it easily becomes for us (though not in itself) a realm of moral danger, one wherein our will attaches itself to transitory objects that cannot but lead to anxiety. … The human soul has the capacity to perceive its own liminal status as a being embodied partly in the sensible world while connected to the intelligible realm, and there is thus the possibility of reorienting one's moral relation to the sensible world, appreciating it for the goodness it manifests, but seeing it as an instrument for directing one's attention to what is above it. (Edited)

I am not a literal believer in the Adam and Eve creation story, therefore, original sin is up for debate. However, I think man is flawed by his tendency to be self-centric and, therefore, egotistical, but it would seem that the idea of causality plays a great role in fostering this tendency.

The human person: … with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. the soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material.”

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end (Totality?). Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God" (Everyone is a bit dramatic)

Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
~Catechism

Matthew 7: 7-8 Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

Could we in our caused state of being “handle” the Hidden Void unless and until we were prepared for the revelation? If you have children or have been around children, you will understand what I mean when I say that around the age of 6 or 7 after a child is more independent but not yet crippled by societal expectation, they are like, and I say like, enlightened beings. They are open, trusting and honest – almost to a fault. It is in this state of being where the Hidden Void could be revealed.

Matthew 11: 25- 26 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

And

Matthew 19: 14 “but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Of course, children shouldn’t be taken in such a literal sense…it is a state of being – as a child. To enter “Heaven” or an enlightened state, it would therefore follow that you must be as a child. There are those that say they have died without physical death and reached Heaven. Jesus spoke of dying to one’s self, so he even alludes to the experience occurring while still living. Once achieved, you would be a part of the Hidden Void – the presence of God, the un-graspable, not the appearance. Why? Because you are one with Totality. At death, you relinquish your consciousness and the Hidden Void, the soul, is freed from its’ prison – the Self.

Catechism, Section Three. I am paraphrasing this as I understand it. Reason is not condemned but is a necessity in order to obtain these revelations. This is given him because he is made in the image of God – conscious appearance? Reason sometimes can be blinded by the self and therefore, “ it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error".

I ask again that all references to the church be ignored and look at the central core of its argument. We all know the church doesn’t practice what it preaches. I have found in life that the truth doesn’t come from one source but shines forth through the ideas of many. Somewhere in all of the muddle is the answer, and one day, I hope I find that answer.

Is it real or is it Memorex? I don't know if you are too young to remember that one, but seriously, is it a mind construction or a revelation? I, for one, will keep knocking and seeking.

Oh well, you'll never succeed in your quest if you keep imprisoning God within the hidden void, or indeed within any other limited portion of reality. If God really is the totality of all there is, then we don't have to have to go off and seek him somewhere else. We only have to open our eyes and see what is already in front of us.

His disciples said to him, "When will the Kingdom come?"

Jesus said, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is', or 'There it is'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

- Thomas: 113


What do you think of Jesus? Do you try to practice his teachings?

-

Luke 17: 20-22

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

But one cannot see it if they are so caught up in the delusionary drama called their life. Your soul, the ability to "see", becomes a prisoner within this being who continues to cloud everything over with things that don't matter in the big scheme of things. Frankly, I think we are saying the same thing, but I'm just not being very clear...I have not the talent you have for eloquence.

If you have truly died to self, as Jesus asks, you will see it. Do I follow his teachings, I try very hard. Do I succeed? Some days and somes days not. I am very grounded in the drama - so, though prickly as she can be, Sue is correct (although I do not believe myself to be a lost soul-her words). I see it, so I suppose it is a start, but I think my time at this board is at an end...for now. I will be taking a lot home with me when I go, and shall continue reading and reflection.

Thank you for your time.

Nick wrote:Religion is a crutch for the lazy, cowardly, and ignorant masses. It is as simple as that. How could people pursue and sacrifice themselves to things such as wealth, women, and all other forms of happiness and still afford to sacrafice themselves to the Truth? It's not possible. Religion is a way of getting around it by letting other people do the thinking and decision making. This way people can continue to satisfy their egos without having to trouble themselves with the true nature of things. Problem is religion is always created for the purpose of harnessing these masses in some form or another. Then religion uses its power to exploit and profit from these masses causing all kinds of problems. A good example of this is when the Catholic Church dominated Europe during a time called the the dark ages

I agree that in communal practice, most churches become abusive power focused hiearchies just like any other. But the seed of a decent morality is usually somewhere within the text, if one wants to find it. Morality does matter. My experience has been that those who denigrate religion do so to usher in a "new morality" which they claim to be superior, but is really just some totalitaran power grab or eugenics justification.

millipodium wrote:

Nick wrote:Religion is a crutch for the lazy, cowardly, and ignorant masses. It is as simple as that. How could people pursue and sacrifice themselves to things such as wealth, women, and all other forms of happiness and still afford to sacrafice themselves to the Truth? It's not possible. Religion is a way of getting around it by letting other people do the thinking and decision making. This way people can continue to satisfy their egos without having to trouble themselves with the true nature of things. Problem is religion is always created for the purpose of harnessing these masses in some form or another. Then religion uses its power to exploit and profit from these masses causing all kinds of problems. A good example of this is when the Catholic Church dominated Europe during a time called the the dark ages

I agree that in communal practice, most churches become abusive power focused hiearchies just like any other. But the seed of a decent morality is usually somewhere within the text, if one wants to find it. Morality does matter. My experience has been that those who denigrate religion do so to usher in a "new morality" which they claim to be superior, but is really just some totalitaran power grab or eugenics justification.

It's even worse if the religion does contain morals because it associates them with all the ignorance the rest of the religion contains. It ends up causing people to form correlations between morals and ignorance. Therefore it is my conviction that all religions and the people who follow them are evil. Not to mention that the fundamentalists tend to be the most narcissistic people I meet on a day to day basis.

Nick wrote:

millipodium wrote:

Nick wrote:Religion is a crutch for the lazy, cowardly, and ignorant masses. It is as simple as that. How could people pursue and sacrifice themselves to things such as wealth, women, and all other forms of happiness and still afford to sacrafice themselves to the Truth? It's not possible. Religion is a way of getting around it by letting other people do the thinking and decision making. This way people can continue to satisfy their egos without having to trouble themselves with the true nature of things. Problem is religion is always created for the purpose of harnessing these masses in some form or another. Then religion uses its power to exploit and profit from these masses causing all kinds of problems. A good example of this is when the Catholic Church dominated Europe during a time called the the dark ages

I agree that in communal practice, most churches become abusive power focused hiearchies just like any other. But the seed of a decent morality is usually somewhere within the text, if one wants to find it. Morality does matter. My experience has been that those who denigrate religion do so to usher in a "new morality" which they claim to be superior, but is really just some totalitaran power grab or eugenics justification.

It's even worse if the religion does contain morals because it associates them with all the ignorance the rest of the religion contains. It ends up causing people to form correlations between morals and ignorance. Therefore it is my conviction that all religions and the people who follow them are evil. Not to mention that Christians tend to be the most narcissistic people I meet on a day to day basis.

So you agree the morality contained in the text may be different than what succeeds in practice. Yet you still insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why? Because it's cool?

No, because it corrupts. Religion is not even the least bit effective when it comes to demonstrating morality.

Nick wrote:No, because it corrupts. Religion is not even the least bit effective when it comes to demonstrating morality.

Religion corrupts what?

What in human history has been a better mechanism for transmitting moral values?

millipodium wrote:

Nick wrote:No, because it corrupts. Religion is not even the least bit effective when it comes to demonstrating morality.

Religion corrupts what?

What in human history has been a better mechanism for transmitting moral values?

These questions are very simple. I'll treat you like a student in this instance in order to make you work for the answer so you appreciate them more. HINT: The answer is the same for both questions.

Nick wrote:

millipodium wrote:

Nick wrote:No, because it corrupts. Religion is not even the least bit effective when it comes to demonstrating morality.

Religion corrupts what?

What in human history has been a better mechanism for transmitting moral values?

These questions are very simple. I'll treat you like a student in this instance in order to make you work for the answer so you appreciate them more. HINT: The answer is the same for both questions.

I'm not interested your tutorial, Mr. Miyagi. Put up or shut up.

millipodium wrote:

Nick wrote:

millipodium wrote:

Nick wrote:No, because it corrupts. Religion is not even the least bit effective when it comes to demonstrating morality.

Religion corrupts what?

What in human history has been a better mechanism for transmitting moral values?

These questions are very simple. I'll treat you like a student in this instance in order to make you work for the answer so you appreciate them more. HINT: The answer is the same for both questions.

I'm not interested your tutorial, Mr. Miyagi. Put up or shut up.

You are the one who engaged in the tutorial by asking me two simple questions rather than offer an explanation on your own for me to discuss with you. Anyways, the answer to the two questions you asked is 100% Absolute Truth.