Simple question?

so what did you mean when you said

Quote: FrGamble

Some on the forum seem to make science and by connection ourselves into a type of god that just needs time till we figure out all the mysteries of the universe.

How do you reconcile your statement that god is too big for the catholic box with the position of the church that God is the one and only true god?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

for example, section III subsection 2110

Quote:

The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

my question about the couple billion people who are wrong is about all of the people who do not believe in the catholic God. So yes, the question is, why are so many people wrong?

Quote: Dalex64

How do you reconcile your statement that god is too big for the catholic box with the position of the church that God is the one and only true god?

That's the remnants of the Jewish roots of Christianity. At least in part.

Ancient peoples were very tolerant of different religions, or rather different types of worship. Rome sort of had a civic religion, centered on sacrifices to the deified emperors (the cult of the Caesars), and they did force all their subjects to take part (within reason, actually, as the point was to forge loyalty to the empire).

The Israelites were the exception. They regarded their god as the only and true one. Whether they copied or inherited this from Akhenaton is not really relevant. But the Christians took it up as well.

Of course, it's one thing when a relatively poor, weak state has an aggressively exclusivist religion, than when a rich, powerful state follows. After Constantine adopted Christianity, it was only a matter of time before it would become the one and only religion allowed within the empire, even if Constantine also issued an edict of explicit toleration (and as late as the time of Theodosius I it was taken seriously by the emperor).

It's ironic that the idea which was used to oppress the Jews in Europe for almost 1650+ years has its origins in Judaism, isn't it?

But, of course, this has nothing to do with the nature of a made-up god.

How do you reconcile one with the other?

Now, that's an easy question to answer.

Quote: Nareed

Yes.

Can you see it? Can you measure everything that goes into a thought, a personality, an interest, an act of creation?

Yep, I agree pretty cool stuff in recognizing the power, mystery, and reality of the spiritual and your at least conditional acceptance of its immortality.

Quote:

I'm saying you're an atheist as regards Demeter, Athena, Ist, Thoth, Venus, Marduk, Amun, Nut (pronounced Noot), Fortuna, Hathor and all the other cool gods.

And I'm saying I am much closer to those who believed in any type of god than you are who don't believe in any supreme being though, as noted above, you do believe in immeasurable spiritual realities.

Maybe it would be helpful to look at it like an evolution. I am in the same line as those who have gone before me that believed in god(s) and the supernatural. As someone who doesn't believe in God you are not connected even in the least. You are an anomaly in the development of humanity and our thought, an abandonment and break from that which is naturally part of who we are as religious beings.

Quote: Dalex64

so what did you mean when you said

I meant that we cannot hope to ever completely solve the mystery of life around us. We are called to every deeper explore the universe, our Earth, and ourselves but every time we figure something out we cannot rest there but are called to go even deeper and explore and learn new things. It is quite amazing and prideful for any of us to think one day even in the far distant future we will have figured it all out and become all knowing about everything from the origins of the universe, our consciousness, etc. We are not going to figure it all out because we are not God, we are limited, but at the same time it is only our belief in God that spurs us on to understand more of this amazing, orderly, and beautiful universe God has created.

Quote:

How do you reconcile your statement that god is too big for the catholic box with the position of the church that God is the one and only true god?

There is only one true God, the Most Holy Trinity as revealed to us through the Hebrew Scriptures and perfectly through the Incarnate Word of God Jesus Christ who lived among us, died for us, and was raised from the dead. From Him and only Him we ALL have our salvation.

However, if through no fault of their own someone does not come to the Good News of Jesus Christ because they never heard it, they lived in places it was not taught, they were poorly taught or mislead about the truth of the Church, or they were the victims or witnesses of scandal perpetrated by Christians, etc. then God is not restricted to our human understanding of how someone is saved.

Basically, we know of one sure way in which humanity can be saved, through Jesus Christ. However, God who is not restricted to our human understanding or our restrictions or laws. God can lead people to the truth in a myriad of ways that all eventually lead to the redemption of Jesus Christ and the joys of Heaven.

Quote:

my question about the couple billion people who are wrong is about all of the people who do not believe in the catholic God. So yes, the question is, why are so many people wrong?

Again you need to ask are they really wrong in the fundamental point we are discussing - the existence of God? They are correct there and once that is in place God can work with them in their individual freedom to slowly and surely move them towards the fullness of truth. So they are not wrong about the existence of God, which begins the exciting adventure of faith. It is only the small sliver of atheists who are wrong about that fundamental point.

Quote: FrGamble

Yep, I agree pretty cool stuff in recognizing the power, mystery, and reality of the spiritual and your at least conditional acceptance of its immortality.

The soul is 100% mortal.

The remains, or if you will the material products, of a soul, may last much longer. But eventually they, too, will come to an end.

Quote:

as noted above, you do believe in immeasurable spiritual realities.

"Stop these calumnies."

Quote:

You are an anomaly in the development of humanity and our thought, an abandonment and break from that which is naturally part of who we are as religious beings.

As Sheldon would say "a more advanced species, a gynia Novus if you will."

But that's for latter biologists to decide. :)

Seriously, I don't believe in biological explanations for ideas. But look up my thread on authority. That could explain much, indirectly.

This thread brings to mind Mel Brooks' character in the Roman Empire segment of "History of the World Part I," Comicus, the stand-up philosopher.

It's always risky to have someone play a comedian in a comedy, as the jokes they make won't be as funny as the jokes in the movie itself, and that's the case in this movie, too (case in point, his agent at one point says "You're nuts! N-V-T-S nuts!"). But I rather liked the idea of humor as a part of philosophy, though that was clearly not the intent of the made-up title for his character.

Comicus makes a joke about Christianity, which isn't that funny. I forget what other jokes he makes, and only recall they get him in trouble with the emperor (ably played by Dom de Louise). But this brings up a good point. Comicus mocks the Christians for only having one god. This is rather tame and not very funny. Practical realities of movies aside, what Comicus should have asked, philosophically, is why did Christians picked that god rather than a cool one like Ist or Minerva, just to name two? I'm sure the joke is self-evident. Simply contrast the depictions of Jesus with those of Minerva, Venus, Vesta, or even Mars or Jupiter.

I think the Romans would have found the question and comparison hilarious indeed.

I think we CAN learn about the origins of the universe and consciousness, and the science of consciousness.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-science

Why is it wrong to try to understand these things? Why is it wrong to ACTUALLY understand these things? There is always a chance that this understanding will lead EVERYONE to God.

Look at this page again

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

There is a lot there.

It goes back to something I said a long time ago, about questions you are not allowed to ask.

You are not allowed to question god's existence. You are not allowed to question god's purpose, his decisions, his reasoning.

The wrong sorts of questions are labeled as questioning god or god's motives, and are forbidden.

You are not allowed to seek answers from any other supernatural force, be it another god, or something supposedly occult such as a horoscope.

In short, there are questions that you are forbidden to ask.

Quote: FrGamble

It is quite amazing and prideful for any of us to think one day even in the far distant future we will have figured it all out and become all knowing about everything from the origins of the universe, our consciousness, etc.

It remains to be seen.

Will any person ever know everything? Almost certainly not. Will humanity as a whole ever know everything? Very likely so.

Consider the numbers. There are more scientists alive and doing research now than at any other time in the past, and this has been so for the past two generations. The numbers will keep increasing, along with the funding, advances in instruments, computers, etc. Given an indefinite length of time for human research of the universe, and indefinite funds, there may be only so much to learn.

Quote:

We are not going to figure it all out because we are not God, we are limited,

What's the use of having the wrong answers at the back of the book??

Quote:

There is only one true God, the Most Holy Trinity as revealed to us through the Hebrew Scriptures

If I had any positive feelings left for it, I'd roll my eyes on behalf of Judaism.

Quote:

It is only the small sliver of atheists who are wrong about that fundamental point.

It's funny how you keep spelling "right" "w-r-o-n-g" :)

Quote: Dalex64

I think we CAN learn about the origins of the universe and consciousness, and the science of consciousness.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-science

Why is it wrong to try to understand these things? Why is it wrong to ACTUALLY understand these things? There is always a chance that this understanding will lead EVERYONE to God.

OMG! It is absolutely NOT wrong to understand these things better but I think any self-respecting scientist would tell you that the death of science is to think you have it all figured out and there is nothing more to learn or discover. By the way there is not a chance, there is a certainty that if you are pursuing truth you will be led to God.