Amos

Nice line Gemma, and ever so true.

MortalWombat

It's interesting that the vast majority of people stay in the same religion they were born into, and feel that their religion is the One True Religion when they are older.

Do you honestly think that if you were born into a Muslim family in Iran, or a Hindu family in India, that the Holy Spirit would somehow lead you to Catholicism?

Muad'Dib

Hi Gemma,

Just out of curiosity, how much of Aquinas do you agree with?

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything; I just wonder about some of his views that might today seem odd.

He says, for example, that hell is literally below us, and that those in heaven will see the damned in hell and rejoice at their suffering.

I remember from my reading of Summa Theologica that he spends the vast majority of his time on other things, so maybe these are not central? Just curious.

Take care,
Muad'Dib

P.S. Here's one quote that I thought was nice: I wish more people would hold to that!

Muad'Dib

All right, knock it off, you two!

The Other Michael

And after moving into and through simplicity you move into and through complexity and into and through simplicity and, and, and Whoa! I'm getting all dizzy. The cosmos is whirling around me in an endless trite metaphor, full of sound and fury, signifying ?

Is there anyone else who suspects that Aquinas would have trouble holding his own while chopping logic with the typical rabbi?

cheers,
Michael

8of9

Gemma,

My serious question: How did you come to this knowledge? If you can see the relationship of Catholicism to the Truth, why not just embrace the Truth, instead of Catholicism?

My side question: How does the verb "enjoy" function here?

meg

ProNihil

Now I don't mean to be mean here, but Gemma Therese, have you ever matched up what the Catholic church has to say with what the bible actually says. I'm not talking about whatever english version of the bible you read either, but the oldest versions you can get your hands on?

That would of course mean you would have to do what is called an "exegetical" study of the bible in the original languages; Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. You would have to study sentence structure and context in addition to many other things.

Having said what I did above, I am very curious to learn what exactly you hold "Truth" to be. I mean, is it whatever can be proven to you, or is it whatever feels good or what?

Infinity Lover

Hi Gemma,

If you're not committed to yourself, to making the most out of your life, and your contribution to the world around you, all the beliefs in the world aren't going to make a single bit of difference.

Through your beliefs you're basicly doing what you should be doing anyway, and probably getting sidetracked plenty of times because of the way in which you do things... but then again don't we all in our own little ways.

Religion can bring out both the best and the worst in people, honouring some source that inspires you to do good, can just as easily become a lame threeletter excuse for doing wrong...
...same as not believing could give someone the false idea that they really 'have their shit together'.

When push comes to shove, it will always boil down to what's inside of you, and how you let that prevail. Letting the good shine through while not allowing the bad get in the way of that. Trial and error, learning from mistakes, and growing as a person, always growing...

...why should it matter whether you believe or not? Besides some personal indulgement however benine? Why should it matter to you whether I believe or not? Besides not having to worry about my skepticism? Does it matter to God? If so, did he die for your sins or for his personal endulgement... however benine?

What matters most ultimately? What you deem important, or from which angle you look at it? Wouldn't bickering about the latter, make you lose sight of the former?

Best of luck with finding your simplicity.

-Marcel-

Muad'Dib

*bump*

Hi Gemma,

Are you still around?

Rousseau_CHN

Simple but not simpler.

I got this thoughts from a physics book back in college. I think it was conceptual physics by Hewitt. (Nice book, you should read it sometime.)

Now on chapter one, you will see that through inertia, moving objects will continue to move without anyone pushing or pulling it.

Now Aquinas, borrowing from Aristotle, believed that once the "pusher" left the object, the object will stop moving.

He was wrong about that--which makes his idea of a Prime Mover (God) in a very shaky foundation.

They, both Aristotle and Aquinas, probably saw a cart being pushed and theorized that things move because they are being pushed. How they missed the rolling stones from the hills, which moved without being pushed--I will never know.

Simple? Yes, but not simplistic.

(and you know religion is simplistic. God created the world in seven days, period.)