Typhon

Gemma sez:

This is, I would claim, is a potentially dangerous belief system in action.

- - -

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand X, but we can still know, serve, and love X.

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand INSERT ANY INDIVIDUAL OR CAUSE FOR X, but we can still know, serve, and love INSERT ANY INDIVIDUAL OR CAUSE FOR X.

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand Slobodan Milosevic, but we can still know, serve, and love Slobodan Milosevic.

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand Hamas, but we can still know, serve, and love Hamas.

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand George Walker Bush, but we can still know, serve, and love George Walker Bush.

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand the Pope, but we can still know, serve, and love the Pope.

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand Fascism, but we can still know, serve, and love Fascism.

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand the Morrigan, but we can still know, serve, and love the Morrigan.

And perhaps most disturbing of all…

We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand Barney, but we can still know, serve, and love Barney.

- - -

OK, humor and purple dinosaurs aside, I still hold that to love, obey, and serve an entity whose true goals and mind cannot be ever known by humans, is potentially fraught with grave danger. Even if god existed, which in the case of the RC god, I feel justified saying such an entity most definitely does not exist, any argument that we can not "fully understand" said entity opens up a whole can of problematic worms.

If human nature and specifically human understanding and interpretation is flawed, as Gemma states, then any conception and interpretation of god is potentially flawed as well.

In this state, who could ever truly say what god wanted or desired? The Bible may be completely or subtly different from what god really wants/and or demands from his followers.

If human understanding is thus suspect, who can possibly be considered an authoritative source of a "clean" signal? The bum on the street corner wearing the metal colander on his head? The dead, dubious authors of the various and contradictory scriptures? The pope?

Unless one of these are demonstratively, not human, they would appear to be in the same leaky boat as the rest of us.

.T.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Gemma Therese

Typhon,

You said,

"This is, I would claim, a potentially dangerous belief system in action."

I could claim eating broccoli in moderation is a potentially dangerous eating habit, but my belief makes nothing objectively true or false.

Samhain

Is there a reason that you ignore my honest and reasonable questions, Gemma? My whole point all along has been proving the point that it is objectively meaningless if you cannot define "God", "God's" attributes, "God's" character, "God's" actions, etc. What can even you say that you truly know about "God"? What can you say that is true regarding "God"? If one cannot know even the slightest detail about "God", which is what you've been implying when addressing our questions, the "God" is a meaningless phrase and means nothing more than "Quosh" (*nods at HRG*) or "Wabbajack". If we cannot possibly know what "God" is because of limited consciousness, knowledge or whatever in regards to "God" then what is the point of loving, worshipping, or anything else in the name of this "God"? If you admit that we can understand "God" by the world around us, by the Bible, or by anything, then you must admit that the questions and ideas which we propose about either the benevolence, logical consistency, existence, or omni-characteristics of that "God" are just as valid, if not, more, valid than the claims that you make in regards to knowing "God". Do you perhaps have a third position to propose? Do my questions frighten you? Is that the reason that you will not answer my completely valid points? You have accused us of being close-minded, saying that "nothing" could possibly prove the existence of "God" to us, I believe it is just that you have failed to bring up any valid points as of yet, as have your predecessors (which include d'Aquinas, Merton, et. al.). Why is the realm of "God" not subject to scrutiny as other areas of life are, in your opinion? Can you answer any of the questions I have thus far posed, Gemma? I gave you numerous proofs previously as to the reasons why an undefined "God" is meaningless objectively, now, perhaps you have an argument that will prove me wrong? Or perhaps you will concede to one of the points I have stated to you ad nauseam and then we can move on with this discussion. Or perhaps you will continue to ignore me and destroy your own credibility by failing to prove anything thus far. Until you start engaging in debate on this subject all things you have said and will say regarding "God" are meaningless as you have failed to propose a valid position. I do not care to restate this hundreds of times, but I grow tired of this childish and absurd evasion of the valid points which I have brought up. Now, perhaps you will have enough guts to stand up for your beliefs, or will you continue to slither your way away from the valid arguments thus presented?

Gemma Therese

Samhain,

Don't think twice about how you treated me. First, I forget what you said. (The key to good friendships is not fidelity, but a friend with a poor memory!). Second, I never stay mad long.

I don't have time to address everything in your post, save the difference between the OT and NT God.

Since God is unchanging, and time is measure of change, it stands to reason God exists outside of time. However, the Isrealites' perception of God is what changed. As an analogy, if you go back to the place you grew up, many time the rooms seem smaller. They have not shrunk; you have grown.

Please, don't feel bad about anything mean you've said to me. I'll always forgive anyone.

Gemma Therese

Gemma Therese

Samhain,

There is no argument I can give you, nor anyone else, that could change your view of the existence of God. Many atheists-turned-theists have a defining moment when they gained faith. (Edith Stein read The Autobiography of St. Teresa of Avli in one night. She literally went from being atheist to Catholic in a night). Other people come to a gradual understanding. Faith is a gift. That is why I pray for the atheists here.

Gemma Therese

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Samhain

Gemma, you realize that you've just stated that which disproves the purpose of god-worship, do you not? No amount of belief will cause something to be true or false. One must examine and scrutinize and then come up with an accurate decision based upon the objective evidence. Now, in regards to "God", what objective evidence do we have of "His" existence? Now, the Bible is proven to be a faulty authority and an innaccurate (at best) account of history, at worst it is basically considered a book of parables and fairy tales (sort of like Dr. Seuss, Mother Goose, etc.), a book of fiction. Do we have any other evidence, any that supports the existence of the JC god and the JC god alone? The fact of the existence earth is not an accurate proof of course, since this could easily be an act of science or by a different god, and as such cannot be offered as proof of the JC god alone. Where does this leave us as far as anything that could even be considered as proof of "God's" existence let alone objective proof?

Typhon

Gemma spoke thus:

And I, unlike you in my experience, gave some reasons WHY I thought so and in SUPPORT of my claim, or did you conveniently pass over the rest of the post?

I know, I know. Presenting a claim and following it with support, is not your cup of tea, Gemma, but really, you should try it sometime. It works much better than Bible quotes.

So, I must assume then you agree with me that your take on an unknowable god is a potentially dangerous belief system in action, as you haven't bothered to refute any of my reasons or examples supporting this.

Here's some information about your claim regarding broccoli. I would say, like your belief in the validity of Roman Catholicism, it is objectively false.

<a href="http://www.saigon.com/~hoasen/broccoli.htm" target="_blank">http://www.saigon.com/~hoasen/broccoli.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/04/13/broccoli.benefits.wmd/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/04/13/broccoli.benefits.wmd/</a>

<a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/9_20_97/fob3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/9_20_97/fob3.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/1197web/health.html#broccoli" target="_blank">http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/1197web/health.html#broccoli</a>

See, that wasn't hard Gemma. Keep trying, and perhaps someday you too will learn how to tell truth from fiction.

.T.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Samhain

Gemma:

Very mature of you. I wouldn't want anyone to hold a grudge against me for things I said in haste.

Curious, though, don't you think? I see what you're saying in regards to this, but let's have a look at the proposed evidence in the Bible, shall we? We see "God" in the OT with vengeful wrath. He floods the world, he destroys Sodom & Gemorrah, he slaughters the firstborn, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Now, we look at the NT. "God" would seemed to have changed his methods or character, yes? He sends his "son" to earth, who, in turn, preaches about peace and good-will, a concept which seems all but forgotten by the "God" of the OT. He sends this son to die for the sins of the world, portraying his benevolence and love. His son preaches of "turn the other cheek" while the concept of "an eye for an eye" is still fresh in our minds. Now this is just to name a few. Is this just a slip up of the imperfect authors? What are the implications of that? Can we trust a book or authors which contradict itself? Or did "God" change his mind? Is there a third option?

Is there a logical argument for the existence of "God", regardless of our personal feelings, I'd like to hear it if you have one. Don't judge us with such haste. Or is it that you just do not have one? What are the implications of that?

I don't know if I really wish to argue this point, but I don't agree with that statement. I feel that faith is a crutch. Now, can we say that objectively that faith is a gift, or is faith subjective? This may seem nit-picky, but I resent such an idea.

Gemma Therese

Typhon,

Try these websites:

<a href="http://www.catholic.org" target="_blank">http://www.catholic.org</a>

<a href="http://forum.catholic.org/discussion/" target="_blank">http://forum.catholic.org/discussion/</a>

<a href="http://www.stgemma.com" target="_blank">http://www.stgemma.com</a>

<a href="http://www.littleflower.org" target="_blank">http://www.littleflower.org</a>

Gemma Therese


[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Thor Q. Mada

Gemma,

When I looked at your websites, I didn't know whether to feel sick or sad. This is unbelievable. What a load of nonsense. But I guess some people need this kind of delusion to go through their lives.
Did you know that the present pope (a truly pathetic old man) took a piece of the body of John the 23rd with him to Bulgaria to be dispayed as a relic in a new cathedral. And we are talking 2002 and not 1602.
Do you understand that on her own, the catholic church (to whom I believe you belong), is responsible for at least 500 years delay in scientific development.
Who knows, cancer might have been cured long time ago. Talking about a huge debt to mankind!!!!
2002 years of continued profiteering, lies, cruelty, greed.
The only success story of the church is how they managed to survive so long. Wake-up, before it is too late.