|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 18, 2009 3:59:35 GMT -5
Without getting into a theological debate with you over the definition of Fluffy's soul my point was that Catholics are not the stick-in-the-muds you make them out to be. In fact, they routinely have masses just for pets, and I have yet to read any reports of mass lightning strikes during any of them. Heck, sometimes they do it right on top of Mount Royal, which you would think would just be inviting a good-old-fashioned-spiritual bar-b-q... Actually, that was funny. Not rolling on the floor funny, but funny enough to crack another crease...  Just for the record, I'm an atheist and cursed so many gods that I should be walking around with a tin foil hat and a grounding chain hanging from my butt. I have yet to be hit by anything celestial although my circuit tester died with a blazing spark....and scared the last picoliter of joy out of me.... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 18, 2009 4:31:56 GMT -5
dumbass, turkeys, stupid, silly, Say that again and I'll kill you. freekin' whackjobs. eh?! Bring it on you pussy! Say THAT again and you are on your way to a ban. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 18, 2009 6:58:00 GMT -5
Without getting into a theological debate with you over the definition of Fluffy's soul my point was that Catholics are not the stick-in-the-muds you make them out to be. In fact, they routinely have masses just for pets, and I have yet to read any reports of mass lightning strikes during any of them. Heck, sometimes they do it right on top of Mount Royal, which you would think would just be inviting a good-old-fashioned-spiritual bar-b-q... Actually, that was funny. Not rolling on the floor funny, but funny enough to crack another crease... Just for the record, I'm an atheist and cursed so many gods that I should be walking around with a tin foil hat and a grounding chain hanging from my butt. I have yet to be hit by anything celestial although my circuit tester died with a blazing spark....and scared the last picoliter of joy out of me.... You see this is it, HA. You're a self-admitted atheist who doesn't feel the need to shove it in anyone's face. You aren't denouncing or attacking others for their faith or beliefs either ... to each their own, no? Chapeau!! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 18, 2009 7:59:45 GMT -5
Actually, that was funny. Not rolling on the floor funny, but funny enough to crack another crease... Just for the record, I'm an atheist and cursed so many gods that I should be walking around with a tin foil hat and a grounding chain hanging from my butt. I have yet to be hit by anything celestial although my circuit tester died with a blazing spark....and scared the last picoliter of joy out of me.... You see this is it, HA. You're a self-admitted atheist who doesn't feel the need to shove it in anyone's face. You aren't denouncing or attacking others for their faith or beliefs either ... to each their own, no? Chapeau!! Which is why most of my friends and I get along ... a good many of my friends are devoutly religious. But we get along because we respect each other, and any debates on religion is just point/counter-point and never personal. I truly respect and admire people who are religious, however I am more pseudo-agnostic/anti-group prayer .... ... like you, I believe in God (not the Bible/Jesus), but feel that God will hear me just as much in the comfort of my own home. Some people need the comfort of the church, and I respect that, alot go for the social aspect , which isnt for me ..... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 18, 2009 8:46:06 GMT -5
Yup, me here . . .  I’ll see what I can do . . . Ok ... I'll play devil's advocate. The driver made a choice: to drink and drive. What choice did the victim make? To be there? I think what HFLA is trying to say is that his god would ensure that any accident resulted in one death - the driver. It was his choice afterall .... And that, my friend, is the problem with living in a free-will world. You can’t have it both ways – you either protect all or you allow all to freely move. And the fact is that sometimes the actions of one will affect another. Problematic at times, yes, but it is the ripple/butterfly effect. But I do understand what he is trying to say. Far more inhabitants of the earth believe in god than are athiests. Depending on your definition of God - more people on earth DO NOT believe in Him. But I'm sure someone will say that isnt right ... 6 billion people on Earth. And about 4-5 billion of those people believe in a being NOT named God. And the problem is . . . institutional religion. Many people are searching for meaning though spirituality . . . unfortunately, oftentimes it is the organization that gets in the way [see: Dis’ comments]. Of course, being part of an institutionalized religion myself I can see that at times I can be part of the problem . . . I do believe in the Jesus of the Bible . . . but ultimately my hope is that people will find peace with God. Some disagree with my interpretation of things [and Skilly, you put 10 ministers of the same denomination in a room beside the scientists, and they’ll come up with 11 different understandings of a particular passage of the Bible or theological tenet. Which is why most of my friends and I get along ... a good many of my friends are devoutly religious. But we get along because we respect each other, and any debates on religion is just point/counter-point and never personal. I truly respect and admire people who are religious, however I am more pseudo-agnostic/anti-group prayer .... Respect – something sadly lacking at times between people in discussion. I admit to being dogmatic: I believe, and I am strong in what I believe in. But I can also listen, and am open to learning. And I’ll try to see things from your way, even if I disagree/think you’re wrong [you should be part of the discussion I’m in with one guy who decries the whole “CBC is being torn apart, I want my classical music station back” thing. He says that, I say “let it die if it isn’t fulfilling its mandate”. But that’s another religious discussion]. Yes indeed. It’s more than that, but part of it for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 18, 2009 10:16:14 GMT -5
I have to say that when I moved to Australia I began going to church again. At the time I was still curious about God and it was an easy and unassuming way of meeting people. I admit I felt a bit like a fraud as I certainly wasn't a believer (nor am I really today) but the social aspects of the Church in an unfamiliar country when you know nobody was very helpful. I developed many long and great friendships which last to this day and gained an understanding of the religion at the same time.
I should say that my "belief" aside I am very skeptical of the Bible in its current state. Secret gospels and omitted texts and all that. I find it hard to trust a book that its creators/caretakers use for power and control over people.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 18, 2009 10:51:02 GMT -5
I find it hard to trust a book that its creators/caretakers use for power and control over people. I agree. Can we leave it at that? I've typed and erased too many times now to try to answer properly. Ultimately, our search for God takes us where it takes us. for some it is alive with possibility and potential and lives become filled with meaning [OK, me}, and for others it is a dead end waste [Christopher Hitchens -- I'm not giving up on HA ;D ] When does the Council of Ottawa take place so we can properly dogmatize -- I'll book the convention centre  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 18, 2009 16:51:02 GMT -5
You see this is it, HA. You're a self-admitted atheist who doesn't feel the need to shove it in anyone's face. You aren't denouncing or attacking others for their faith or beliefs either ... to each their own, no? Chapeau!! My parents are as devout as they come and it gives them great comfort. How can I possibly "discuss" their faith if by doing so, I hurt them? I respect their beliefs simply because the comfort it gives them regardless of what I think about religion itself. On the other hand, I give no quarters to "faith warriors" who find the need convert people to their beliefs or worse yet, demand that society conform to their belief system. See Sharia "Law".....  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 18, 2009 16:59:21 GMT -5
Ultimately, our search for God takes us where it takes us. for some it is alive with possibility and potential and lives become filled with meaning [OK, me}, and for others it is a dead end waste [Christopher Hitchens -- I'm not giving up on HA ;D ] As soon as you can arrange a good old fashion sit down with your God, I'll convert. Over a few beers and pizza, he can tell me how he created the world, I can point out to his/her mistakes.....and it's white robe and sandals time..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 18, 2009 17:05:57 GMT -5
It's not just about religeon!
I am amazed at the otherwise apparently normal people who believe in UFO's, government conspirathies (JFK, flag waving on the moon), superstition (wearing the same undershirt or growing a playoff beard) and O.J. Simpson's innocence. I see Jay Leno walking around talking to functioning literates who don't know the name of the president or the capital of the country.
We are all very different.
Finding common ground with the Taliban, North Koreans and Castro is difficult when the subset of humanity, "fans of the Canadiens" have difficulty coming to agreement on minor differences of understanding.
I think George "W" Bush was a better president than O'bama. Many disagree with me. Disagreement is good and communication is better.
I don't believe in a supreme being. Can't prove those who do are wrong.
We all like the Hab's. We may disagree about Kovalev's effort or Carbo's methods or Ryders past contributions. Disagreement is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 18, 2009 17:14:07 GMT -5
Ultimately, our search for God takes us where it takes us. for some it is alive with possibility and potential and lives become filled with meaning [OK, me}, and for others it is a dead end waste [Christopher Hitchens -- I'm not giving up on HA ;D ] As soon as you can arrange a good old fashion sit down with your God, I'll convert. Over a few beers and pizza, he can tell me how he created the world, I can point out to his/her mistakes.....and it's white robe and sandals time..... I think your chance will come at white robe and sandals time ;D |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 18, 2009 17:18:36 GMT -5
We all like the Hab's. We may disagree about Kovalev's effort or Carbo's methods or Ryders past contributions. Was thinking about this earlier. Many different religions . . . many different teams. Habs [the chosen people] and Leafs [infidels] And within the Habs fans, many different "sects", Komi lovers and haters. Price wonderers and supporters. Some even leave the main churvh because of their differences. Life is life. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 18, 2009 18:19:48 GMT -5
As soon as you can arrange a good old fashion sit down with your God, I'll convert. Over a few beers and pizza, he can tell me how he created the world, I can point out to his/her mistakes.....and it's white robe and sandals time..... I think your chance will come at white robe and sandals time ;D That's what they wear at the Jordan River. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 18, 2009 18:37:12 GMT -5
You see this is it, HA. You're a self-admitted atheist who doesn't feel the need to shove it in anyone's face. You aren't denouncing or attacking others for their faith or beliefs either ... to each their own, no? Chapeau!! My parents are as devout as they come and it gives them great comfort. How can I possibly "discuss" their faith if by doing so, I hurt them? I respect their beliefs simply because the comfort it gives them regardless of what I think about religion itself. On the other hand, I give no quarters to "faith warriors" who find the need convert people to their beliefs or worse yet, demand that society conform to their belief system. See Sharia "Law"..... My parents started out going to church with we kids then eventually sent us on our way by ourselves every Sunday. I don't think it was a lack of faith as much asit was they not having any time to themselves. I realized that as I got older. However, while we used to do rosary every night for Lent, we stopped it after only a couple of years. We never said grace for evening meals unless it was for Easter or Christmas. As we got older my parents decided that it would be contradictory for us to do it on special occasions because we didn't do it regularly. So, we stopped that as well. Our son asked who Jesus Christ was when he was about 5 years old. I immediately thought that we had forgotten that part of his development, but explained to him who he was the best I could. He's asked here and there since, and I think he believes in a superior being. Nowadays, Dis Jr has the information and what he decides to do with it is his business. He knows our convictions; we don't go to church and we don't subscribe to any one religion. He also knows what religious extremism has done in recent years. Knowing him the way I do, I know for a fact he will not support any religion that includes a wrathful god who punishes his believers for this and that, or a god that supports the killing of others in his name. I guess we did a good job after all. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 20:29:27 GMT -5
Hi guys
I have been so limited in my posts on anything other than the hockey that I pretty much thought I would be corresponding virtually exclusively with HFLA, who is one of my favorite guys, and whose beard I was tugging at in my post.
So first of all, I don't want anybody thinking that I think that big pussy is a big pussy. What sense could that make.....er... but more than half seriously, I while I certainly so subscribe to the responses I made, I did not mean the phrasing to apply to other than the afore-mentionned whackjob in LA!
So, I'll do a little read of the posts here and try to respond with due circumspection (except to the whackjob in LA, of course :-))
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 20:36:42 GMT -5
You do realize that those signs are fake - there's a website out there that generates church signs with a message of your choice. Very entertaining though. Funny that the Catholics are the ones saying dogs go to heaven though - they're the strict ones who tend to be fussy about such pedantic stuff. I've been to a services in another Christian faiths (Salvation Army I believe it was, although it was a long time ago) where you were welcome to bring your dog to the service with you so long as it didn't befoul the church. Being my dog to a Catholic Mass though, and I'm sure I'd be struck down in an instant. Hey New Guy No ship, but the best dog in the world, my good friend's incredible mutt just died. This dog was so wonderful that I just cannot imagine such a pooch not being a part of heaven. What kind of a creep would keep out a love puppy like Corky. For sure this great mutt is part of the new heaven and new earth. Jacques Maritain, a pretty brilliant Thomistic philosopher who wrote the UN charter of human rights or some such stuff, thought as there is nothing in dogs that seems to show free will, which would indicate something more than the merely biological, that they might still make heaven or that happiness that motivates us in life realized, as part of the happiness of persons who love them. P.S At mass today, I didn't see either a dog or anyone struck down. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 20:39:31 GMT -5
dumbass, turkeys, stupid, silly, Say that again and I'll kill you. freekin' whackjobs. eh?! Bring it on you pussy! Say THAT again and you are on your way to a ban. Howdy HA Funny, but numbnutted as I am I thought I was essentially just responding to my whackjpb buddy HFLA who I love like a new tennis racquet. Just funnin'. I'd never call that big pussy a big pussy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 20:44:19 GMT -5
You see this is it, HA. You're a self-admitted atheist who doesn't feel the need to shove it in anyone's face. You aren't denouncing or attacking others for their faith or beliefs either ... to each their own, no? Chapeau!! Which is why most of my friends and I get along ... a good many of my friends are devoutly religious. But we get along because we respect each other, and any debates on religion is just point/counter-point and never personal. I truly respect and admire people who are religious, however I am more pseudo-agnostic/anti-group prayer .... ... like you, I believe in God (not the Bible/Jesus), but feel that God will hear me just as much in the comfort of my own home. Some people need the comfort of the church, and I respect that, alot go for the social aspect , which isnt for me ..... I don't think the church thing is a matter of comfort. It sure isn't for most people I know! It's a matter of integrity. Sometimes, for no good reason, I miss mass, precisely because I overvalue some comfort or interest, despite the fact that I know better and am acting in contradiction to this. It aint for comfort and it ain't because anybody but me is on my case. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 21:04:35 GMT -5
Funny that the Catholics are the ones saying dogs go to heaven though - they're the strict ones who tend to be fussy about such pedantic stuff. I've been to a services in another Christian faiths (Salvation Army I believe it was, although it was a long time ago) where you were welcome to bring your dog to the service with you so long as it didn't befoul the church. Being my dog to a Catholic Mass though, and I'm sure I'd be struck down in an instant. Umm... no. www.goveg.com/f-popebenedictxvi.aspIn fact, Pope John Paul II said that “the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.” He went on to say that all animals are “fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect” and that they are “as near to God as men are.” Hi BC I never caught that PETA piece. Cool! The classic cosmological proof for the existence of God which I accept incidenally as logically valid and sound in premises, in showing the impossibility of an infinite regress of dependent causes , right this instant, here and now, not back to the Big Bang, thereby shows that the root of all being must be in an independent and therefore non-physical being, or necessary being. So, I do suppose God must indeed be equally close to animals. My friend's dog Corky jsut died, and he saw past all my faults to the wonderful guy I am (that nobody else can see) and so I'm glad to have a rooter in heaven! |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 21:14:47 GMT -5
Without getting into a theological debate with you over the definition of Fluffy's soul my point was that Catholics are not the stick-in-the-muds you make them out to be. In fact, they routinely have masses just for pets, and I have yet to read any reports of mass lightning strikes during any of them. Heck, sometimes they do it right on top of Mount Royal, which you would think would just be inviting a good-old-fashioned-spiritual bar-b-q... Not my definition - the Pope's. And I didn't say the Catholic faith is full of stick-in-the-muds. More that they're a stickler for details. They have rules, and they follow them to the letter. For example, I got married in Disney World (yes - I got married at Disney, no - Mickey Mouse didn't attend, yes - we did get a card from Cinderella, no - it wasn't terribly corny as the Disney theming was kept to a minimum). Both my wife and I were raised Catholic and although a Catholic mass was not an option we were really looking at (my wife has shifted to somewhere in the land between agnostic and atheist) we didn't really have an option anyways because it's a big no-no. If you get married, it has to be in a church. Done and done. And it's not just the Catholic priests in Florida - one of my wife's high school friends wanted to get married at the Wilds in Salmonier (a golf course country club about forty five minutes outside of St. John's, Newfoundland). No way, no how. And so they got married in a church. My sister-in-law wanted to have a particular song played at her wedding as an instrumental for the entrance of the bride's maids (or somesuch, I don't recall exactly what). Nope. The priest provided her with a list of acceptable music. If it aint on the list. I'm not saying Catholics are horrible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school. I still cringe when I see a nun with a ruler. They have their rules and their ways and I respect that. If you don't have rules than what do you have really? But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world. >> But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world<< Since you are describing me accidentally, in this post, I am curious. I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. Funny, eh? But don't worry about my sensibilities , waht outdated ideas do you think don't mean much in today's world. My take would be that today's world, and especially the amusing guys called the 'new atheists' are amongst the most incoherent people on the planet. Again, don't worry about my reaction to your frank opinions, for I do believe I'ver heard every last one and I won't bite your head off!  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 19, 2009 21:56:52 GMT -5
Which is why most of my friends and I get along ... a good many of my friends are devoutly religious. But we get along because we respect each other, and any debates on religion is just point/counter-point and never personal. I truly respect and admire people who are religious, however I am more pseudo-agnostic/anti-group prayer .... ... like you, I believe in God (not the Bible/Jesus), but feel that God will hear me just as much in the comfort of my own home. Some people need the comfort of the church, and I respect that, alot go for the social aspect , which isnt for me ..... I don't think the church thing is a matter of comfort. It sure isn't for most people I know! It's a matter of integrity. Sometimes, for no good reason, I miss mass, precisely because I overvalue some comfort or interest, despite the fact that I know better and am acting in contradiction to this. It aint for comfort and it ain't because anybody but me is on my case. So if you don't go to church, you lack integrity? Only the church can give you high morals and integrity? That's exhibit A why I stay away from church ... the church should not be judging anyone. There is only one who shall judge ... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 19, 2009 22:01:52 GMT -5
The classic cosmological proof for the existence of God which I accept incidenally as logically valid and sound in premises, in showing the impossibility of an infinite regress of dependent causes , right this instant, here and now, not back to the Big Bang, thereby shows that the root of all being must be in an independent and therefore non-physical being, or necessary being. That's a fancy way of saying "The existence of God shows that the root of all being must be in a non-physical being" It says nothing of the proof of God, makes no sense IMO, and because you "incidentally accept it as logically valid" does not mean it is right/correct or give weight to the point. This sounds like it is a quote .... |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 22:06:03 GMT -5
If you don't have rules than what do you have really? Very good question. Here's another [at least I think it's good ]: what good are rules if the masses don't follow them nor believe in them? Take . . . contraception. Many who consider themselves good Catholics by condoms, are on the pill, or just play good old Vatican roulette, which is a form of contraception in itself. I admit I'll going outside my realm of deep knowledge [other than the three years I spent at Catholic high school and the girls I dated their who preferred the doctrine of Billy Joel to the doctrine of the church]. [fwiw: when Revelation 22:15 talks about dogs being outside the kingdom it refers to (as the term was then) sodomites -- which could refer to homosexuals in general or just to temple prostitutes] [another interesting tidbit: my daughter married a Catholic guy (who had been to mass probably once in the previous dozen years, but still considered himself a practicing Catholic). From various reasons the marriage did not work out (one of the reasons being he didn't believe in God and she did) so they split up. The divorce was finalized; when she asked him for some info Revenue Canada asked for he told her he wasn't going to give it to her and didn't need to -- he had never been married -- the marriage had been annulled because a priest had not performed the ceremony -- even though there was a provincial marriage license. I found that interesting]. Not trying to inflame or be anti-Catholic . . . just that rules are often applied when they are convenient -- religious or not. Hi Franko The Catholic position on natrual family planning is incidenally not at all contraception, in intent or practice is that such an act is a direct interference with the fundamental nature of human sexuality and the life bringing convenant that marriage is supposed to be. It's not all about 'me' or 'us'. The universe and life is understood to be more than just about me or us. The chuch understands and agrees that sometimes one does not want to conceive a new child for serious reasons, and natural means are effective and quite permissible. They have been successfully taught to illiterate peoples. All protestant churches used to hold the same standard until quite recently by the way. One might also consider the Catholic church's most reasonable position on divorce which is again predicated upon the reality of human nature and the ongoing needs of children. I again find this clear teaching to be only reasonable, just and clearly towards the good of mankind. Given the astounding worldwide epidemics like AIDS and devolvemnt of sexual acts towards meaningless events, it's but another confirmation of both the authenticity and integrity of the church. Neither of these teachings incidentally, given the theological, philosohical and natural bases for their being, will ever change. If Christ is divine , this cannot happen. And of course it should not ever happen. It is of course common for people, myself included to find Christ's teachings difficult or in opposition to one's desires, and so , people do indeed turn away, 'for he had many riches". When I screw up, I choose a lesser good and ignore the higher one which is the very definition of moral evil. Lots of people find lots inconvenient about moal laws, especially in this culture and most especially if it has to do with sex. Not many of us find the warning "Woe to you rich for your consolations are now." very comfortable either, even though many of us can see how fundametally true the principle is. We have become used to the empiricist world view, one unfortunately rooted in Hume's errors on causation. We forget that we have free wills even though it is the primary datum of our constant exeprience, and we sometimes fail to see what free wills, or the apprehension of necessary truths indicates about our natures, which has this non-material aspect about it. If we were just physical things, first, we could not know it and secondly, we would all be unintelligible objects, not subjects; things, not persons. It atheistic materialism were true, there would be no ground for reason as reason. It was this truth incidentally that gave rise to the first universities in the world and the flourishing of the natural sciences. As to the unfortuante situation with your daughter, the young man is right and wrong. Catholicism has always acknowledged the legitimate, natural communitarian nature of man. Indeed, sex for instance is not as we know, a human need, but a need of the human community, and its moral dimensions should reflect this. What the young man somewhat confusedly it seems is saying is that if a person enters into a so called 'marriage' with the prior belief that it can be terminated by divorce at any time, then, there is in fact no marriage as far as the Catholic church is concerned. Without the irrevocable gift of spouses to one another in God, it is not validly undertaken. This is not to say that the Catholic church does not recognize the marriages of other ecclesial communities, but that Christian marriage in its full expression is an irrevocable act that 'let no man put asunder". The young man is no doubt confusing the legitimate secular dimensions with the religious and theological. Sorry to hear that it didn't work out. Incidentally, the annulment was not because the ceremony was not performed by a priest. I would close with the observation that it is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but rather that it has been found difficult and abandonned. Much of the new atheism of our culure, which I frankly find stunningly dumb seems to be of this derivative nature. Give me Albert Camus who was at least quite sincere any day. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 19, 2009 22:07:17 GMT -5
I don't think the church thing is a matter of comfort. It sure isn't for most people I know! It's a matter of integrity. Sometimes, for no good reason, I miss mass, precisely because I overvalue some comfort or interest, despite the fact that I know better and am acting in contradiction to this. It aint for comfort and it ain't because anybody but me is on my case. So if you don't go to church, you lack integrity? Only the church can give you high morals and integrity? That's exhibit A why I stay away from church ... the church should not be judging anyone. There is only one who shall judge ... I think [sticking up for the THab] that he was talking about his missing mass and about his integrity .
The good thing is . . . faux pas, errors, failed integrity, and [gasp] sin can all be forgiven. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 22:08:26 GMT -5
The classic cosmological proof for the existence of God which I accept incidenally as logically valid and sound in premises, in showing the impossibility of an infinite regress of dependent causes , right this instant, here and now, not back to the Big Bang, thereby shows that the root of all being must be in an independent and therefore non-physical being, or necessary being. That's a fancy way of saying "The existence of God shows that the root of all being must be in a non-physical being" It says nothing of the proof of God, makes no sense IMO, and because you "incidentally accept it as logically valid" does not mean it is right/correct or give weight to the point. This sounds like it is a quote .... I'm not getting your point here Skilly. Are you saying my statement was tautological? it wasn't in my opinion. What do you see as wrong with it? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 19, 2009 22:09:28 GMT -5
I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. I find the universe is explained in minute detail through science. This was strengthened through my engineering degree. I find human life is completely explained through interaction and respect. I had this principle strengthened by treating people like I want to be treated and going out of my way to help others..... and just being a friend. If the above doesn't get me into heaven .... then it isn't a place I want to be, and the guy ruling it has to start rewriting the rules or it is going to be a lonely place. Let ye without sin be the first ..... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 19, 2009 22:15:01 GMT -5
I would close with the observation that it is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but rather that it has been found difficult and abandonned. I think you may have been looking for GK Chesterton's The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried. Or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 19, 2009 22:16:18 GMT -5
That's a fancy way of saying "The existence of God shows that the root of all being must be in a non-physical being" It says nothing of the proof of God, makes no sense IMO, and because you "incidentally accept it as logically valid" does not mean it is right/correct or give weight to the point. This sounds like it is a quote .... I'm not getting your point here Skilly. Are you saying my statement was tautological? it wasn't in my opinion. What do you see as wrong with it? The statement says nothing. Basically boils down to "For us (all being) and God to exist, there needs to be a necessary, non physical being" ... there is no proof in the statement. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 22:25:41 GMT -5
I don't think the church thing is a matter of comfort. It sure isn't for most people I know! It's a matter of integrity. Sometimes, for no good reason, I miss mass, precisely because I overvalue some comfort or interest, despite the fact that I know better and am acting in contradiction to this. It aint for comfort and it ain't because anybody but me is on my case. So if you don't go to church, you lack integrity? Only the church can give you high morals and integrity? That's exhibit A why I stay away from church ... the church should not be judging anyone. There is only one who shall judge ... Actually Skilly, as far as I know, the church has never even judged Judas or Hitler for that matter, so if that was your reason I'll see you next week. You seem to have missed my point here for the most part. I think the only fully consistent take on the church is that it was founded by Christ and specifically commanded and empowered to tell the truth about God and existence. I am obviously not shy about saying that I believe it to be the only organization on earth whose teaching is completely consistent with everything we can know by human reason about both existence itself and our own experienced human life. Knowing this, and I do know this, it is indeed a moral wrong and hypercritical of me to not go to mass. Fortunately, God loves hypercrites. As to "only the church can give you high morals and integriy'? in a sense this is definitely true and in another sense not. You seem to have a very different idea of what the church is from that I understand her to be. So, who is the 'only one who shall judge" did you mean Christ? Then we are in agreement with the Catholic Church, for she judges no one. Qute the contrary, she is ALL about forgiveness for our failings, picking us up, dusting us off, renewing our vows to God and man, forgetting the non-existent past and moving on down the road In decades, I have never seen another church like the one you are describing. I think she's the coolest thing on earth even slightly above the Habs. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 22:27:17 GMT -5
I would close with the observation that it is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but rather that it has been found difficult and abandonned. I think you may have been looking for GK Chesterton's The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried. Or not. HAHAHAHA! And I love Chesterton, the brightest light of two hundred years. Thanks Franko..that was indeed it, but I'm just flowin' not researchin' ce soir. Thanks chum. |
|
