Is Atheism More Intelligent?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Dera Friends,
One atheist who has been disturbing us in the forum lately declares that God is invented by man, out of fear and superstition. His premise is that the ancients needed a god in their ignorance; and that the notion is kept alive by man's refusal to use his intellect.

Our resident atheist (for now) serves his own ego by advancing this opinion. A ''perk'' for himself is ''I am above average in intelligence, I don't require any God''. The idea that other intelligent men and women can have faith in God makes no impression on him.

His first premise; which is the ancients had to invent God from base ignorance and fear of nature, already begs the question: Who is God, if He in fact were present in human history???

In the first moments of man's awareness of God, it was He alone that acted; making Himself known. Man only saw for the first time Who God was, as He revealed Himself. Necessity wasn't the point, because only God could have seen the necessity of letting man know. All animals experience confusion and fear. But animals have never even once invented a god to settle their fear. Why would man do so, if --as atheists claim, man is an animal?

God wanted to reveal Himself to man, the one made in His own image. If it were left up to man to ''invent'' Him, then what man would have done is make an idol. Idols of dragon-gods and/or serpents, beasts raised to god-status even exist in the modern world! This is what the atheist claims happened to the ancient Patriarchs and Prophets. Except that it was really the One Creator they encountered at the beginning.

Still, the fallen nature (also revealed) of Mankind needed redemption. God also sent His divine Son as His ultimate revelation to us. Atheists are included in this number.

It may be that if Jesus Christ had not come to us from the Father; making the revelation of God absolute and incontrivertible, all of us would be the same as the atheist is; dependent on a supposed higher intellect. Only God has in mind to save ALL men; not only the men and women of Mensa; or the intelligentsia. Men who tend sheep. Men who work as laborers and fishermen, without claims to profundity, like this atheist seems to think he has. If God must reveal His glory to the simple people, as well as the geniuses of our race, He must reveal it in increments. This is exactly how He did it, at first. The Old Testament is replete with His works of divine power and wisdom. Even the more ignorant couldn't fail to see His glory.

Then with Jesus Christ as the greatest of all revelations, the world was redeemed and saved from that old ignorance, which would never have seen the truth. The atheist still asn't seen it. Atheists believe in ''biology'', but not in the Creator.

Anybody can see why. It's human PRIDE. As if no True Believer had been educated up to their level! An ''agnostic'' at least says he/she is not able to see. Or to know for certain. The atheist claims to see better than the rest of us. He claims we can't know God, since God can't exist. In the sad case of our resident atheist, the revelation is null and void, because as his first law of ''social science'', the Church of Jesus Christ is to be vilified and destroyed. It's as if he put out his own eyes, and then claimed to see better than we see. --I would appreciate any other thoughts on this subject, if the others in this forum wish to share them.
God bless us all!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 16, 2002

Answers

--up,|

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 16, 2002.

Gene "Anybody can see why. It's human PRIDE"

You hit directly on the nose. I could not have done better. To be prideful is to take full credit and not share with God and your fellow humans.

As a Catholic one should take Pride in a humble manner and give credit to GOD for giving him the way and the means to do what he does that is good and HOLY. It is by GRACE from GOD that we live our lives. BLESSED BE THE POOR, FOR THEY SHALL SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

You hit it directly on the nose

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 16, 2002.


It is very interesting at times to listen to the thoughts of an athiest as Freud was one until nearing the end of his life when he began to truly question.

His work " Totem and Taboo " gives great insight.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 17, 2002.


Eugene --

Although it is far from perfect, Hans Kung's work, Does God Exist? is an excellent discussion of the issue. Also, Henri de Lubac's Drama of Atheist Humanism is excellent. Paul Vitz came out with a book a couple years ago called Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism which deals with Freud. I haven't read this last book, but it looks interesting.

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.


We dealt with virtually all known arguments against the existence of God in one of my university courses last years, and we refuted all of them--without ever resorting to the Scriptures. Most atheist theories have some fundamental logical flaw, others look fine at first but do not really anwer any question.

Take, e.g., one of the wild theories: the assumption that aliens landed on earth some 10,000 years ago and genetically altered monkeys to breed the homo sapiens. Voilá, the answer to the origin of man! Err--where do the aliens come from? How did they achieve the mental abilities to obtain their knowledge, their consciousness?

You may show that the current cosmology can explain the beginning of everything that is, without God who started it all. Does this mean there is no God? Certainly not! All atheist reasonings just show that this world might have started without God.

A number of highly scientific constructs even fails the standard test for "scientificness" in modern science, following Sir Karl Popper's Logic of Research: can the construct/theory/explanation be falsified in principle? I.e., is there any way of proving it's wrong? Before this is done, we may assume it's true, btw.

I'm not sure I've made myself clear--English isn't my native language, and the course script isn't within reach at the moment. Mail me if you have any questions.

Pax et bonum,

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), March 19, 2002.


"We dealt with virtually all known arguments against the existence of God in one of my university courses last years, and we refuted all of them--without ever resorting to the Scriptures."

Yes, I'm sure you did. Did you happen to have any atheists in the class or was this some sort of "intellectual" exercise among godists?

-- Dennis Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), March 19, 2002.


I have seen both sides of the coin. I have been both a Catholic and an antheist. And when I saw the "truth" about the world I thought I was smart. I was proud. I thought Camus was a genius.

But at the same time it killed me inside to think that my life meant nothing. I can't help it! I'm only human! It's ridiculous of Camus to say that we can know the "truth" and live a non-nihilistic life at the same time.

And now I know, whoever created religion, was the most intelligent being that ever lived. This genius knew that man is only weak. This genius knew that it is better to be blind and live a happy and meaningful life, than to know the truth and suffer because of it.

Atheists thinkt that those who believe religion are naive and blind. But maybe it's better not to know the truth. There is a reason why we don't show small children the nightly news and R rated movies.

-- :..-( (hell@heaven.com), July 15, 2004.


At a very young age I witnessed a miracle without knowing it until later. When I was 6yo my father was given 2 years to live. He lived for 11 years and the doctors could not explain why. He only had half a functioning lung. If anyone has ever witnessed someone who suffers from this it is not easy. Dad sounded like he had ran a marathon just getting up to walk to the bathroom. It was hard growing up, but our faith kept us sane. God has been a miracle in my life on many occasions and I have witnessed a few "unexplainable things". I asked Dad before he died if God allowed him would he visit me and let me know he was OK and happy. He did in a dream and when I woke up I could smell him. I thanked God the moment I woke up for that gift. At times I think all of us will question, but this is our time in the forest and at times it is good to go there. We grow if we allow God to really enter our hearts. None of us our good because it comes from us, all that is good comes from Him. Just look around you and see all the gifts He gave us. Every flower, tree, weed, grass blade, all have details. God created this world with great love and He did not have to do this for us. Even our food He took great care in. All the textures, flavors, colors! Then our furbabies (animals). All of this could not come from nothing or just because. All that is around us came from love and if we take the time to see it we will feel His love for us daily.

God Bless,

Jalapeno

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), July 15, 2004.


Thanks for sharing, Jalapeno. You have a moving testimony to God's greatness!

-- Jennifer (jrabs@jrabs.com), July 16, 2004.

Jalapeno,

I'm glad our Blessed Lord gave you over thirty two hundred days more with your Dad then the Doctors thought. Thats a lot of time.

When you see him in Heaven in the future you will never have to worry about him being sick again. You will be able to be with Dad forever.

Blessed be God a million, million, million times.

-- - (David@excite.com), July 16, 2004.



I have seen both sides of the coin. I have been both a Catholic and an antheist. And when I saw the "truth" about the world I thought I was smart. I was proud. I thought Camus was a genius.

{tHE TROUBLE IS, YOU MAY BE MISTAKEN, Atheism may not be the truth, more later...}-Zarove

But at the same time it killed me inside to think that my life meant nothing. I can't help it! I'm only human! It's ridiculous of Camus to say that we can know the "truth" and live a non-nihilistic life at the same time.

{This assumes that Atheism is the truth, whihc begs the queastion, I mean, relaly, its pretty well assumptive...}-Zarove

And now I know, whoever created religion, was the most intelligent being that ever lived.

{Whatif God created rleigion? See, thats the thing, you assume Religion is not true and Atheism is, and religion merely allows us to blind orselves ot a hurtful truth, which may itsself not be true.}- Zarove

This genius knew that man is only weak. This genius knew that it is better to be blind and live a happy and meaningful life, than to know the truth and suffer because of it.

{Unless the truth IS what the rleigion teaches. Again, you assume rleigion allows you to lead a happy life whil eing ignorant or blidned to the truth, this sin so. I am cliniclaly depressed and now expeirening a severe bout of depression, my life feels neither happy nor full. Yet, I still beeive, even when it offers me no comfort, because I beleive it true. Truth doesnt change for moods, nor is truth proven to be atheistic, and I have seen too much o be an atheist, and this is why I dot beelive it is true. }-Zarove

Atheists thinkt that those who believe religion are naive and blind. But maybe it's better not to know the truth. There is a reason why we don't show small children the nightly news and R rated movies.

{Again, this asusmes Athm is the truth. I looke dinto Atheism, and saw nothign thir. No truth, just shallow argument. I cannot beleiv ein Athesm becaue the Universe speaks of a creator, and a forc ein controle. I mean, relaly, how do we know Atheism is the truth lad? Because you think so? I donthink rleigion blinds me to the truth, but rather revelas it, and this based on science and observation, not feeling.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 17, 2004.


And there have been many intellegent people both recent and past, that have created good arguements vs atheistism. CS Lewis converted from athestism to Christianity. He was so smart that he won almost every arguement, but that one he lost. Aquinus is not my favorite (limited counter arguements) but he was trying to set up a rational for the existance of God. And I'm sure that there have been more.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 17, 2004.

My experience shows that among the very dumbest folks I ever met, a number of them were adamant that there is no God. Nothing will ever persuade them otherwise.

One who is convinced all faith in the afterlife is ridiculous, was so dumb he lashed out at me as if I were slurring him personally when I quoted the well-known proverb, The fool has said in his heart ''There is no God.''

He figured I was calling HIM a fool. You will find it hard to reason with many atheists who lack intelligence altogether.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 17, 2004.


Since atheism is defined as "ignorance of the existence of God", it's pretty difficult to associate it with intelligence. Wghich is not to say that people who are ignorant in this area are necessarily of low intelligence. But at the very least their approach to this particular area of knowledge cannot be considered an intelligent approach, since a genuinely intelligent approach to a subject matter yields truth, not ignorance.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 17, 2004.

Since atheism is defined as "ignorance of the existence of God" it's pretty difficult to associate it with intelligence.

That definition of atheism is a lie. Where did you get it from, the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

The true definition of atheism is the belief that there is no God or gods.

...a genuinely intelligent approach to a subject matter yields truth, not ignorance.

If it is truth that you are seeking then why start out with a false definition of atheism?

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 18, 2004.



The existence of God is not a matter of belief, but a matter of objective reality. God would still exist even if no-one believed in Him. Therefore, "belief that there is no God or gods", just like "belief that the earth is flat", constitutes ignorance of the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 18, 2004.

How would you define a member of the flat earth society? As one who is ignorant of the existence of a round earth?

How would you define a creationist? As one who is ignorant of the existence of evolution?

How would you define a geocentricist? As one who is ignorant of the existence of heliocentricism?

These are not definitions. These are judgments. Don't confuse definitions with judgments. It's not fair and it's not honest. Even if the judgment may be true the definition is false.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 18, 2004.


How would you define a member of the flat earth society? As one who is ignorant of the existence of a round earth?

{Well we do know as a fact that the earth is round... still, I do see your point and Paul was wrong in his definition.}-Zarove

How would you define a creationist? As one who is ignorant of the existence of evolution?

{Techniclaly evolutio is not a proven fat. don't get me wrong, I tink its accurate, but it is just a theory, not a proven fact, so one canot be ignorant of the existance of Evolution.It is still open to debate, jus few legitimate comments are made agaisnt it.}-Zarove

How would you define a geocentricist? As one who is ignorant of the existence of heliocentricism?

{LOL< I woidl define a Heliocentrist as Ignorant of the fact that the sun is not the cedntre of the Universe, since it spins around the centre of a Galaxy yhat itsself is moing awat fromt he centre of the Universe,but I digress...}-Zarove

These are not definitions. These are judgments. Don't confuse definitions with judgments. It's not fair and it's not honest. Even if the judgment may be true the definition is false.

{I agree, Paul really shudlnt have defined Atheism as Ignorance of God. Its not relaly udgement thouhg, but it is still wrong.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 18, 2004.


How would you define a member of the flat earth society? As one who is ignorant of the existence of a round earth?

A: YES!

How would you define a creationist? As one who is ignorant of the existence of evolution?

A: YES!

How would you define a geocentricist? As one who is ignorant of the existence of heliocentricism?

A: YES!

One can only believe what is false as a result of ignorance of the truth. There is no judgement involved in saying that. It is a clear and obvious fact, inescapable through simple logic.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 18, 2004.


"We dealt with virtually all known arguments against the existence of God in one of my university courses last years, and we refuted all of them--without ever resorting to the Scriptures."

Of course you refuted them. Nobody can prove that God *doesn't* exist, and only an idiot would even try. Even if such a position were correct, you're still probably not going to be able to prove a negative. However -- and many of my fellow theists will no doubt want to kill me over this -- the burden of proof really rests on us. Because we claim to know of God's existence, we are the ones who have to offer proof. Similarly, one who claims to know that God *doesn't* exist should also have to offer proof (even though they can't; like I said above, it would be proving a negative).

So, our task as theists is to (a) convince atheists to at least give up trying to prove a negative, so that we can (b) lay out formal proofs of God's existence (St. Thomas Aquinas is usually a good place to start for this).

-- Inquisitor Generalis (mrwreckingball@budweiser.com), July 21, 2004.


I am sorry to you all. You have got to think with an open mind. A atheist is not a proud person thinking he is better then god. Did you ever hear the saying live and let live. Come on a significant part of the most influential people where atheists. Carl marx, Steven hawkings, Galeleo, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein were all atheists

Just because u want something to be real doesnt mean it actually is

-- simon bonavia (hotrod@hotmial.com), September 03, 2004.


Juat because you don't want something to be real doesn't mean it actually isn't. And when you discover the truth it will be tragically too late.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 03, 2004.

I am sorry to you all. You have got to think with an open mind. A atheist is not a proud person thinking he is better then god. Did you ever hear the saying live and let live. Come on a significant part of the most influential people where atheists. Carl marx, Steven hawkings, Galeleo, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein were all atheists Just because u want something to be real doesnt mean it actually is

Neither Gallilio Gallele, nor Albert einsein, where Atheists. If you are sloppy withthe facts, you will make mistakes.

Gallilio was a devout, if hotheaded, Cathoilic, who in later years lamwented his rage that had broguth him to his House arrest. ( In a Luxurious illa, b=y the way, and NOT for contradicting Chrich teacigns on the sun going abouthhe Earth... but for challengng the Oope's authority, and teacign his theiry as fact. )

Einstein beleived in God, and his veiws changed over the years. Thouhg not CHrisyain, he certainly was not an athrist either.

Darwin even wasn't an Atheist. Darwin, n fact, referenced God in both his groundbreakign works, "The Origin of Pseicies" and " The Origin of Man". In many talks and papers he proffessed beelif in God. He was mroe fo a Deist in leanings, but he was still no Atheist.

All this said, it is also true that many many of the worlds mos influential midns where devout Chrisains. Gallilio ( Whom you mislabled as an Atheiat) , Issac Newton, Bene DesCarte, Dante, Shakespere, Godel, Way, Mallory, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Wise, Aquinas, Albert Switzer ( Unitarian, before they wnet toof ar left of feild), ect...

Likewise, Carl Marcs is a bad example. I mean, relaly, do we relaly want ot respect the work that lead tot he Totolitarian horrors of Communist nations?

As ro toyur claim " Simpley wantign semthign tobe real dosnt mak it so", as Paul poined out, simpleyw antign soethgin to not be real doesnt make it go away either. Just declarign God isnt real and listign "Atheists", many of whom where either not relaly ateists or else helped to subjugate and oppress people, does nto realy advcate your poitnt hat God doesnt exist.

Even my own short list of Christaisn doesnt prove God exits. Youw ill have to do betteer than that.

As to open midnedness, I amopen minded. However, I am tired of " IOpen minded" atheists ecturign me about usign logic and intelelct rather than usign religion as a critch, then degeneratign into arguments form ourrage, distortion of facts, and emotional please abotu why I shoidl be an atheist meself.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 03, 2004.


People sought truth right from the dawn of creation. Some sought through observing, questioning, and experimenting in a rational way like the ancient Greeks (not very different from the scientists of our times). Some like in India and other Oriental countries, sought truth through meditating upon the mysteries of nature. God always revealed some aspect of his truth and sometimes much more, based on their zeal and perseverance to know the truth.

One of the greatest dangers of seeking of God through wisdom is pride. You start making a humble start to know the truth, but on the way you there comes a time when you are too much elated since you feel you know much more than anybody. Many since ancient times have stopped short of the truth on the way because of such strong temptations to self-glory and pride, and now to know there really is a God is to submit to Him unconditionally, and this would be difficult for them. Hence, now they wouldn't want to know anymore, but rather they would want to be like God. Then, blinded, they create their own theories, idols, explanations, etc., about truth, life, and God. (See Rom.1:18-23).

Since this is the folly of trying knowing God through human wisdom, God decided on a foolproof plan to make the fullness of his truth plain through the Word of God made flesh (See (Heb.1:1-3). Here there is no longer any human wisdom, but divine wisdom that comes through the Holy Spirit. Only the humble have access. No longer great elderly men of wisdom, but only the child-like avail it. No longer the proud Pharisees, theologians, scripture scholars, etc, but the repentant sinners, prostitutes, etc., enter into it. Even the most highest intelligence of human beings are of no avail to access the Truth. This is terribly insulting and shameful to the proud, whose natural expression to see child-like, the foolish, and sinners claiming to have experienced God (or Truth), is to remain resolutely blind and arrogant......, until perhaps God in his mercy breaks their pride through some difficult incidents in their life. (Read 1Cor.1:18- 31).

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), September 04, 2004.


Paul M,

And when you discover the truth it will be tragically too late.

this statement lacks christian charity or hope for one of God's creations. it would be better to say that you HOPE that when he discovers truth, that it will not be too late. who knows what God holds in store for the heart of such a deceived man, and who can judge him but God?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 04, 2004.


And when you discover the truth it will be tragically too late.

this statement lacks christian charity or hope for one of God's creations. it would be better to say that you HOPE that when he discovers truth, that it will not be too late. who knows what God holds in store for the heart of such a deceived man, and who can judge him but God?

***I think quite the opposite. If a person believes ONLY because he sees do you think that is all God wants from us? We are here on earth to serve him. There will be some on their death beds who may have a change of heart, but after they are DEAD and then see Him...it is too late. We have one chance here on earth to get it right. If we can't shame on us!! It is a NARROW road to heaven not broad.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), September 05, 2004.


There will be some on their death beds who may have a change of heart, but after they are DEAD and then see Him...it is too late. We have one chance here on earth to get it right. If we can't shame on us!! It is a NARROW road to heaven not broad.

i agree wholeheartedly, but read my statement again... i wasnt saying that all will make it to heaven. Lord knows that if i do it is only because of Jesus' sacrifice for my unworthyness. what i was getting at was that we should never presuppose that a person is condemned to hell when it is still time for us to pray for their eternal salvation. i hope that you can see enough to agree with that.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 05, 2004.


what i was getting at was that we should never presuppose that a person is condemned to hell when it is still time for us to pray for their eternal salvation. i hope that you can see enough to agree with that.

*** I now see what you were saying. Sorry for my mistake.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), September 05, 2004.


We have one chance here on earth to get it right. If we can't shame on us!! It is a NARROW road to heaven not broad.

Shame on us??? What about shame on God!!! Why is God so elusive? Why is He hiding?

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


If a person believes ONLY because he sees do you think that is all God wants from us? We are here on earth to serve him.

How can we serve God if we do not believe that He exists? And how can we believe that He exists if our 5 senses -- by which we judge whether or not something exists -- cannot detect Him?

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


The problem is, DC, I can and do detect God, and have seen his preasance. So why shoudl I doubt? Still offer to help yuo if you mail me.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 05, 2004.

Why should you doubt? It depends on whether there are other people with you at the time who can confirm what you are detecting. Because if you detect God's presence and others don't it may be that your mind is playing tricks on you.

But if you are satisfied that you have actually detected God's presence, fine. You believe because you have seen. Foolish are those who have not seen and yet believe.

The wise man knows that God is quite capable of revealing Himself to anyone and everyone. For those to whom He has not done so it must mean that He does not care whether they believe in Him or not.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


The wise man knows that God is quite capable of revealing Himself to anyone and everyone. For those to whom He has not done so it must mean that He does not care whether they believe in Him or not.

***God will reveal Himself to all. Many choose not to see Him even when given the chance.

Shame on us??? What about shame on God!!! Why is God so elusive? Why is He hiding?

***He is not elusive. God's love for us is all around if we take the time to see it. Surrender yourself and you will see how He has always been there and will continue to be there.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), September 05, 2004.


Why should you doubt? It depends on whether there are other people with you at the time who can confirm what you are detecting. Because if you detect God's presence and others don't it may be that your mind is playing tricks on you.

{The trouble is, others have detected it with me, what then can you say?}-Zarove

But if you are satisfied that you have actually detected God's presence, fine. You believe because you have seen. Foolish are those who have not seen and yet believe.

{oR, BLESSED, AS Jesus told Thomas. Nonetheless, may I ask why then to doubt?}-Zarove

The wise man knows that God is quite capable of revealing Himself to anyone and everyone.

{And so he does.}-Zarove

For those to whom He has not done so it must mean that He does not care whether they believe in Him or not.

{Or it means they have not been paying attention. we shall discuss this later. I have three queastions I wish to ask youm in three seperate threads. withhe boards ind permission, sicne it does pertain to Cahtolisism, and Christainity in genral, as it relates to Atheism, and DC has opened an excellent oportunity. However, I wll be clear when I make thrse posts, and use MS Works, to make certian the initial post lacks errors in spelling. This shall be of interest to us all.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 07, 2004.


Response to jalapeno:

God will reveal Himself to all. Many choose not to see Him even when given the chance.

Let me turn the tables on you. It is abundantly clear that the Bible is full of errors and yet many people choose not to see it, insisting that it is the infallible word of God. Wouldn't you say that a stronger case can be made that it is the theists who are blind rather than the atheists?

He is not elusive. God's love for us is all around if we take the time to see it.

Then open my eyes. Be more specific. Where is this love that you are talking about?

Surrender yourself and you will see how He has always been there and will continue to be there.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Please explain.

Response to ZAROVE:

The trouble is, others have detected it with me, what then can you say?

Mass hysteria??? :) A vision of God that is shared by several people at the same time is more persuasive than a vision by one person. But it still means that my faith in God would be based on my faith in what other men tell me about God.

I have three queastions I wish to ask youm in three seperate threads

OK. I'm ready. Let's have them.

However, I wll be clear when I make thrse posts, and use MS Works, to make certian the initial post lacks errors in spelling

Your spelling is fine. Don't worry about it. :)

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


Response to ZAROVE:

The trouble is, others have detected it with me, what then can you say?

Mass hysteria??? :) A vision of God that is shared by several people at the same time is more persuasive than a vision by one person. But it still means that my faith in God would be based on my faith in what other men tell me about God.

{But God is a nessisary in all known Philoosphy and science. The only queatsion is of the nature of God. soem beleive God is a purel unconcious, unfeelign force that binds creation, others think the Universe and God are identical, while others hold God as a seperate being. In the fututre thread ( One or teowo weks, sorry, schedualing) I will reveal the nessesity of God, and hwo you, too, can see him logiclaly, rather or not you com ot he same conclusion of his nature. Suffer to say I have never been dilusional, nor am I given to grpup thoughgs. I grew up abised and have a hard time conectin to peoole. }-Zarove

I have three queastions I wish to ask youm in three seperate threads

OK. I'm ready. Let's have them.

{OK, will get right on it, in a wek or two, you will see the firts of three threads.}-Zarove

However, I wll be clear when I make thrse posts, and use MS Works, to make certian the initial post lacks errors in spelling

Your spelling is fine. Don't worry about it. :)

{Thanks, I was doing ti as a courtesey/.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 10, 2004.


If I could put my two cents in, I don't beleive any one faith or philosophy is inherently more inteligent than another (except scientology...you have to be a nimrod to beleive that crap). It's the reasons why the person beleives in them that makes their views more or less inteligent. If some 14 year old who thinks he knows everything just starts whining about how there is no God and can't offer any reason why he beleives that, I'm going to assume he's an idiot. On the same token, I've met some pretty intelligent atheists as well. The same can be said about followers of any religion.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 10, 2004.

Hwy do don sicnetilogy... the leaders of the cruch of icnetilogy must be smart, because they either discovered aleins, the origon of mankind, and the best way to ;ive, or else foudn a way to trick peopel into becomign slave labour, and bilk them out of millions, either eay, pretty crafty... unethical, immoral, and plain wrong, but still...

-- Zarove (Zaroff3@juno.com), September 10, 2004.

Let me turn the tables on you. It is abundantly clear that the Bible is full of errors and yet many people choose not to see it, insisting that it is the infallible word of God. Wouldn't you say that a stronger case can be made that it is the theists who are blind rather than the atheists?

***Which errors are you speaking of? And no, I do not think it is the theists who are blind. There have been too many times that I questioned or wanted to doubt, but there is something far greater than all of us.

Then open my eyes. Be more specific. Where is this love that you are talking about?

****God's love is every where. The care He took in making our world shows His love. You can feel Him in the wind, when you smell the flowers or other scents of this world, when you look at the beauty that surrounds you. The colors, tectures, smells, sounds, tastes... When you open your eyes to all He has made for us, you will feel His love. You only have to look at it all differently. Every piece on this earth fits perfectly without hiring someone to do it for you. You go to the creek and you will see and hear beauty. This is God's love. You can also see it in other people. When we have the Holy Spirit growing in us we will shine the way God intended. People will see His love through others. You can also see it in children. For they are the innocent and pure.

Surrender yourself and you will see how He has always been there and will continue to be there.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Please explain.

****Just read the above and you hopefully will understand. There was a point in my life that I was very alone and extremely down. I was at the lowest point in my life and thought God had forgotten me. Looking back at this low time I can now see how He was there for me the whole time even when I thought I was alone. Had it not been for Him, I would not have pulled through. Even after having a few miracles happen in my life I still questioned. We are all human and are prone to question what we do not understand. Faith is such a powerful word because really in the end it is what it is all about. Faith. Surrender your heart and live through faith in God and then you will understand what I am talking about. I will pray more for those who question. I need buckle down on my prayers a little bit more. I will not be on the computer as much and just happened to see this. I've started home schooling again and now have an extra three kids making it eight children in all. No time to log on or chat as much, but will keep you all in my prayers.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), September 10, 2004.


DC, since you claim to be an intelligent ex-Catholic, I'm surprised you don't realize that the Catholic Church does NOT teach that the Bible is "infallible". Probably some protestant fundamentalists think so, but not Catholics.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 11, 2004.

Sorry Steve, did I read your post correctly?

Are you saying that the Catholic church believes that the bible is not necessarily totally accurate?

This is news to me.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), September 11, 2004.


There are two different issues here. First, the Bible is obviously not "totally accurate", as there are plenty of minor discrepancies between accounts of various events recorded by different authors, such as the number of angels present at the tomb after the Resurrection, etc. Those who would attempt to discredit the Bible invariably point to such inconsistencies in an attempt to demonstrate that the Bible cannot be trusted to convey the truth. However, such trivia are utterly irrelevant to the central concepts and facts the Bible is intended to teach. Therefore the Bible can be said to be totally "inerrant" or "accurate" in its presentation of God's Word to us, even though it may not be "totally" accurate in every inconsequential detail.

A completely separate issue is the matter of "infallibility". "Inerrant" means "containing no error", while "infallible" means "cannot err", that is, "cannot make a mistake". It is possible that a written work may "contain no error", whether you are talking about the Bible or a math textbook. But it is not possible for a written work to "make a mistake". Only a conscious being can "make a mistake". Therefore, the term "infallible" can be applied only to persons or the mental processes of persons. We might say that the writers of scripture were "infallible" because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and this infallibility on their part resulted in a text that is "inerrant". However, the fact that a calculus book is inerrant doesn't mean that everyone who reads it will understand it, or that they won't make mistakes regarding the meaning of the text. And the fact that the Bible is inerrant doesn't mean that everyone who reads it will understand it, because not everyone who reads it is infallible, and an inerrant text in the hands of fallible interpreters is a sure source of error. If you don't appreciate this on merely logical grounds, the solid evidence is all around us in the form of denominational religion - thousands of conflicting doctrinal systems, all taken "straight from the Bible", and therefore all considered "inerrant" by their proponents, simply because an inerrant book provided the raw material for their fallible interpretations. The extent to which one can access the truth of the Bible depends on the quality of one's interpretation; and the fullness of biblical truth can be accessed only by infallible interpretation. Which is why Christ told the leaders of His Church "whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven". Only an infallible Church can guide us infallibly through the pages of the book given to it by God, and compiled by its own bishops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 11, 2004.


Response to jalapeno---

You see the world with the eyes of someone who is a poet -- or who is very much in love. I hope you never change.

I've started home schooling again and now have an extra three kids making it eight children in all.

You homeschool eight kids??? How do you keep your sanity?

Response to Steve, Oliver, and Paul---

From Leo XIII's encyclical "PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS" given in 1893:

20....But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican....

21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance-the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the "higher criticism;" for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 11, 2004.


No problem there DC. I agree completely with Pope Leo, except for the use of the word "dictation" which is in itself an error - but that error may well have been introduced by the translator into English. We know that the scriptures were not "dictated" but only inspired, which is why the writings of Paul are so different from those of John or Matthew in literary style, vocabulary, and figures of speech. In any case, what Pope Leo said was in response to those who claimed that certain sections of the Bible, indeed certain books, may not have been inspired, and he was certainly right in condemning that movement. However, that has nothing to do with the fact I stated - that many inconsistencies are present which do not detract from the essential message of the inspired text. Obviously both of the following passages cannot be factually correct ...

"Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed".(Mark 16:5)

"but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing" (Luke 24:3-4)

Mark and Luke's impressions of some of the particulars of the event were obviously different. Yet both passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as were all passages of Scripture. They were not however "dictated" by the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit knew the particulars very well, and if He had "dictated", then certainly every detail would be exactly the same in both accounts. The Holy Spirit did however inspire both men to record the essential historical facts of the Resurrection, and both men's accounts are true - the tomb was open, the body of Jesus was gone, and heavenly messenger(s) announced that He was risen. What more do we need to know from these passages? They agree completely in every essential detail. They are the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Nothing else matters.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 11, 2004.


We know that the scriptures were not "dictated" but only inspired, which is why the writings of Paul are so different from those of John or Matthew in literary style, vocabulary, and figures of speech.

I understand the distinction you are making. But the end result is the same. It is still the Word of God. It may be expressed in different ways depending on the human writer. But God is still the Author and thus there can be no error.

The fact is that you are making the very error that pre-Vatican II popes tried but failed to stamp out. From the encyclical SPIRITUS PARACLITUS given by Pope Benedict XV in 1920:

16. St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error:

"So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error."

17. Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican, Pope Leo continues:

"Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing, and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture."[42]

18. But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point.

We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor's injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

19. Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest - things concerning "profane knowledge," the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author's greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!

20. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since - so they claim - he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external - and thus deceptive - appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things - of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks - we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture.

21. Moreover, our predecessor, sweeping aside all such distinctions between what these critics are pleased to call primary and secondary elements, says in no ambiguous fashion that "those who fancy that when it is a question of the truth of certain expressions we have not got to consider so much what God said as why He said it," are very far indeed from the truth. He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text: "It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred."[43]

...many inconsistencies are present which do not detract from the essential message of the inspired text. Obviously both of the following passages cannot be factually correct ...

"Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed" (Mark 16:5)

"but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing" (Luke 24:3-4)

Nevertheless, the Catholic teaching on the absolute inerrancy of Scripture is so strong that Pope Benedict XV in SPIRITUS PARACLITUS reaffirmed the words of St. Jerome: "when Scripture seems to be in conflict with itself both passages are true despite their diversity."

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.


And what of my take, DC, since I am not subject to the counsils?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 12, 2004.

You are your own pope, Zarove, and can believe anything you want. :)

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.

"the Catholic teaching on the absolute inerrancy of Scripture is so strong that Pope Benedict XV in SPIRITUS PARACLITUS reaffirmed the words of St. Jerome: "when Scripture seems to be in conflict with itself both passages are true despite their diversity."

A: That's exactly what I said. The two passages I quoted are both TRUE, because they are divinely inspired, despite the "diversity" - which is to say the outright contradiction - in some details that are not pertinent to either the content of the message or the truth of the message.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2004.


DC, Ima no pope, but I woidl liek to know what your take is on my comments.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 12, 2004.

What comments are you referring to? Sorry, Zarove, but I've lost track. If you copy and paste I'll do my best to respond to them.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ