needimprovement

I'm not a priest. I am a simple believer in God. Seems that you don't like my posts. Don't worry I'm going to absent myself from SFN for a bit.

This is a false comparison which ignores contextual consideration. There is not a singularity at the centre of the earth. There is a central point, which is the smallest possible ontological point before you cease to speak about something quantitative. The central point of the earth, is not zero in ontological terms. It is the smallest possible quantity before zero=nothing. To speak of a physical centre is not to speak of a physical nothing. The centre necessarily takes up space. The big-bang event includes space/time/energy, and extends from an infinitely dense point. That point is not physical. You are no-longer speaking about a spatial physical dimension, since no quantitative thing can exist without a quantitative measurable dimension. There is no physical definable quantity in an infinite point. That's why physics breaks down at that point, simply because the object of empirical science fails to exist. Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias. This is not acceptable to those who want to understand reality in purely physical terms; and thus they conclude that physical reality cannot have proceeded from an infinitely dense point in actual reality, as that would imply a reality larger than what a physical explanation can provide. You cannot explain, in physical terms, how or why a physical universe extends from an infinitely dense point unless you can prove that the universe does not in fact extend from an infinitely dense point. The evidence appears to suggest otherwise.

Your really reaching for straws now. Why would a hostile witness lie if their tesimony would be what is needed to get to their version of the story. Again , no reason for hostile witnesses in the new testament and the pharases to do so. Debunked As far as luke testimony not meaning anything your flat out wrong as Luke has been proven to be far more reliable source then even secular historians. 10) Luke's use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a "district" of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district. 11) Luke's mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch. 12) Luke's usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica. 13) Luke's usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies. As I said before Luke is a top notch historian.

This is an old one, so if you've seen it before, let the others think for a while before replying... You have nine dots on a paper, as seen below. Your task is to connect them with four straight lines without lifting the pencil: o o o o o o o o o .... and when you're done with that: Tell me how to do it with *one* straight line...

A guy buys a chocolate (from a shop) worth 80 YEN and hands over 100 YEN to the shopkeeper. The Shopkeeper doesn't have 20 YEN to give back the guy. Hence, he goes to the adjacent shop, asks for an exchange to a lady at the cash counter and fortunately he is able to convert 100 YEN into 10 numbers of 10 YEN. He comes back and returns the 2 numbers of 10 YEN to the guy. The guy leaves happily with the chocolate. After an hour or so, the lady from the adjacent shop finds the particular 100 YEN to be a fake one and promptly returns it and takes back a good 100 YEN from the Shopkeeper. (Hope I somehow managed to put it across) What is the loss for the poor Shopkeeper?

You are right. It's unintelligible.

Any takers?

Thank you for your input. But I think you need to be careful to distinguish between "free will" and "free choice". Free choice means that we can decide on apple pie or cherry pie.... I could be waaaaaaaay off track here. The preference for cherry pie over apple pie is a matter of taste, and not something that involves a moral choice. The tastes that we have are in part due to cultural conditioning, and partly because God has created us to prefer certain things over other things. Differences in taste allow us to be unique individuals, and we would have differences in taste with or without the Fall. Free will always involves a moral choice - taste never does.

I think one reads a text more literally the more he understands and appreciates the particular literary genre of the text, how it functions to convey the author's message. The answer to the discrepancies about the number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt is found in understanding how primitive cultures told their own history. Stories of an event, person, or situation were passed down orally from generation to generation. As the stories are told they get embellished and modified in various ways common to the phenomenon of story telling. The Hebrews like any other ancient culture have their tribal stories which were traditions. Oftentimes, there is more than one account or tradition about the same thing. Eventually, these oral traditions were committed to writing. The writer oftentimes combined the different traditions. The oral traditions were sacred traditions, so the redactor worked to preserve each one. We look at the written account of Hebrews rescued from slavery by Moses. The account has been embellished over the generations of oral story telling. Hence, Moses is described as rescuing a great number of Hebrews from slavery. Most likely, it was a small band of runaway slaves. And there are other embellishments that make for a great story. But we must ask ourselves what is the message the author is conveying in this account of Moses. The message is that God is being faithful to the promise He made to Abraham, and that He is truly the God of the Hebrew people. The scientific accuracy of the details is inconsequential to the primary message of the story, a message that is absolutely true. Scripture is both human and Divine. As human it has all the characteristics of the literature of the cultural milieu in which it arose, except that its religious message is inerrant or necessarily true. This is a good example of my previous statements that the ancient Hebrews did not write history in a scientific manner. We can wish that they would have written their stories differently, but that would be an unrealistic expectation for the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East. Plato can convey philosophical truths using myths. Aesop can teach moral lessons using fables. And the writers of Genesis can convey religious truths by using a "religious" history of the Hebrews that relies on the customary methods of story telling and oral traditions.

In a sense, freedom is related to law in the same way a lake is related to the shore that contains it. Just as the shore gives the lake shape, holds it in its boundaries, so law gives shape to our freedom and marks off its boundaries. Law is then a binding rule of conduct which serves to give shape and direction to our freedom. Another preliminary observation about law would be that in the last analysis, our conscience is the final lawgiver. Our conscience, however, must be properly formed and work in conjunction with reality outside ourselves, especially with regard to the obligations that arise in our relationships with God and others. However, "the law" (e.g. Natural Law, Civil Law, Divine Law, Church Law, etc) is a whole new thread.

(Isaac Balshevis Singer) There are several experimental and theoretical results from science that demonstrate the above quote (although there is debate about their interpretation): 1) The Libet delayed choice experiment: electrodes are attached to a subject's head and the impulses and time measured when a.) the subject decides he/she is going to punch a button, b.) when the button is punched. The interesting thing is that there is a pre-decision rise of the brain potential (starting as much as 2 seconds before the subject is consciously aware of his/her decision), so something is stirring in that mass of jelly we call the brain to compel? or recognize? a decision. Lots of online references, but here's a Youtube video that describes the experiment concisely and accurately: In this connection I recall an anecdote from Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" in which a Canadian neurosurgeon does brain surgery (to correct seizures) on a conscious patient, gives an electrical impulse to the motor area of the brain, the patient lifts his arm as a result, but says "it feels like someone else was moving the arm". And this signifies? 2) The quantum mechanical "delayed choice experiment proposed by John Wheeler and realized experimentally most rigorously by Aspect in 2007 (?). If a particle goes through a two-slit arrangement (properly arranged) then a Young interference diffraction pattern will occur, i.e. wavelike behavior; if one of the slits is closed, then classical behavior, i.e. no diffraction. Now if a slit is closed AFTER the particle has gone through, then it will behave as if the slit had been closed before it had passed, through, i.e. the experimenter's free choice (if indeed, he/she had free choice) reached backwards in time. Wheeler's original gedanken experiment was to use a galaxy as an optical lens, and so create a two beam path from a star behind the galaxy; the delayed choice experiment would then reach back in time millions of years. Here are some web sites to flesh out the above short description: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3615 http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm Responses from psychologist/neurologists, philosophers, physicists sought and welcomed.

There are two possible sources of morality. 1. Friends as a possible source of morality. It is good and necessary part of friendship that we let our friends affect us by seriously considering their attitudes and opinions. This is especially true in adolescence, when peer relationships play such an important role in growth and development. In order to make an important point, however, we will examine a situation in which a person uses friends as a source of morality in a bad sense. That is, friends are used as the only source of morality. In other words, the person purposely avoids referring to his or her parents, to a priest or counselor as people who could help them make moral decision. For example, your only two accepted sources of morality are your two friends. (let say that all other possible sources of morality are rejected). Take note of the fact that: Friend A = gives you a "no" reply to your question because of the sources of morality he or she accepted. Friend B = it is for the same reason that gives you a "yes" reply. The above example brings out the point that, although you can and should be open to the judgment of your friends, you at the same time, must know your own convictions. Perhaps your friend has rejected a source of morality which you yourself strongly believe in. For a person to blindly follow the will of another in this way is not that person's friend but rather a mindless puppet. True friendship always respect differences, and helps each partner to feel more secure with his or her own convictions. Jesus' warning that if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch is easily applied in turning solely to friends as your source of morality. 2. Emotions as a possible source of morality. Young people also frequently depend on their emotions or feelings in trying to make a moral decision. With regard to the emotions, two extremes are to be avoided: First, we must avoid a stoic denial of the emotions as though cold, hard logic was the only worthwhile measuring stick of life's decision. We are not computers, nor are moral decisions made in an abstract vacuum. Feelings of love, sympathy or concern are often powerful forces to move us to good actions. The second extreme is to conclude an action is morally right simply because it feels right. The first extreme is wrong because it isn't human enough. This second extreme is wrong because it isn't realistic. It fails to take into account the mysterious and often irrational force with which our emotions can express themselves. Our feelings can be compared to clouds overhead: They may be bright and cherry, or dark and foreboding. They are real part of our world, yet you would not want to try to ride home on one. Ignoring our feelings can make us inhuman, yet letting ourselves be led by our feelings alone is like trying to walk on smoke. In short, we must both master and respect our feelings at the same time. They may often indicate what is the right thing to do, but they must never be our only guide in the face of serious moral questions. If you should happen to wake up tomorrow morning feeling sad and depressed, that doesn't mean that life itself is sad and depressing. Your course of action would hopefully not be to go out and shoot yourself, but rather to do something positive to get back in a good mood. The same with moral problems: Simply because you feel a certain act is right does not mean it is actually right. You will hopefully try to find out if your feelings are valid or not. We can begin by pointing out that the totally uncommitted person in a pluralistic society appears to have a certain kind of freedom in being able to choose any set of moral values he or she wishes. Many people today choose so as to be able to do as they please. Speaking in terms of "Law and Freedom", we would say that the uncommitted person possesses an external freedom but can never have inner freedom as long as he or she refuses to commit himself or herself to another. Inner freedom, to be all we can possibly be, comes only in the commitment of a love relationship. In love we become set free from sterile isolation and self-centeredness. At the same time, however, we are bound and committed to the loved one who has set us free. This commitment to the will of a loved one makes the loved one an important source of morality in our lives. Hurting or in any way offending the loved one is immediately seen to be wrong and in some sense, immoral. A Catholic certainly should be someone who has found some degree of inner freedom in his or her love relationship with Jesus Christ in the community that is the Church. Furthermore, a Catholic Christian's relationship to Jesus is not simply a relationship among others. Rather, it is unique, and for this reason fidelity to the will of Christ is also unique. It transcends the fidelity of a disciple to a great moral teacher, or the fidelity proper to deep friendship. The uniqeuness of a Christian's relationship to Jesus consists in the following truths of our faith: 1. God created us from nothing in an act of infinite love. All that we are and have we owe to him. We are related to God as children to a Father. 2. The mystery of sin is that we have fallen away from a true relationship with God. We have become, in a sense, wounded and unable to heal ourselves. 3. God sent his only Son who healed us in his death on the cross. We are related to Jesus as the sick are to the physician who heals the. 4. Through belief in Jesus we gain access to the power of his resurrection, so that we too can share in his victory over death and Sin. 5. It is not enough simply to believe in Jesus. We must then live out that faith in our daily actions. This daily fidelity to Jesus in a day-to-day life is the root reality of Christian morality. Jesus once said that, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Being moral is, for the Christian, being true to God's love which comes to us in Christ. I was saying that we shouldn’t focus on material, Earthly riches but on what really matters. Our time on this Earth is a very tiny speck when compared to all of eternity which we want to spend in the glory of God's presence in Heaven. This is our chance to show God the best that we can do with what we have here. For all of us there are different lessons to learn depending on which Earthly family we got and which country we are in, whether we were blessed with talented hands or intelligence or physical beauty, etc. Money is not how God measures our value and money is not how he shows His love for us. To a certain extent, Christianity does that man has progressed and grown considerably since he emerged from caves. Man is a great builder; he contributes much to the development of the world. Note some of this achievements of man over the past few centuries which would lead a person to conclude that man is indeed incapable of failure. Science. Our grandparents in their youth, had no televisions or stereos. But who would have belived that in the 1960's man would be walking on the moon? And in our lifetimes there will undoubtedly be colonies of "earthlings" populating space stations and maybe even other planets. Science has also brought about a communications revolution. Today, we can easily communicate with many people almost anywhere via Internet, or mobile phone. Never in man's history has there been the potential for world unity due in no small measure to our ability to exchange ideas almost instantaneously. Along with the communications revolution there has been a revolution in transportation. Goods and people are closer to each other than ever in man's history. A third revolution brought about by scince is a "leisure" revolution. machines, tools, computers, and the like have lessened our work load such thaqt it will not be uncommon for he next generation to work for a maximum of 20 hours a week. With so much free time, people will have opportunity to develop really human live pursuing -if they wish -studies, cuktural and artistic acheivements, and play. Medicine. Our average life span has doubled in the past 75 years or so due to man's achivements in medicine. He has found a cure for polio, diptheria, and many other killer diseases. He is capable of transplanting body parts to extend his life. We are living better and longer lives due to the painstaking work of our doctors and researchers in the field of medicine. Social science. We have made strides in this field, too. Man has developed some sophisticated forms of self-rule where individuals have a say in the choice of their leaders and in the development of programs that effect their welfare. Some governments have programs of universal education, health benifits for lll their citizens, social security benifits such as old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. While admitting these tremendous advances in the above and other fields, Christianity recognizes - on the other hand -certain destructive tendencies in man. We are both builders and destroyers; we are living paradoxes. Evidences of evil and sin in the world are present all around us. Note the following examples: War. World War 1 was labeled the 'war that would end all wars." Yet 20 years after the completion of that war, the nations of the world were using tremendous scientific know-how for destructive purposes. The United States will not forget the Vietnam War that resulted in internal strife in their country, loss of respect abroad, and widespread economic recession. Prejudice. We discriminate against people because of color, speech, and Regional differences. Prejudice reached its natural conclusion with Hitler's attempted genocide of the Jewish people in the Second Wold War. Corruption. Young people are almost cynical about the greed and corruption and lying in top government offices. Daily we read about proce-fixing in big business or bribe-taking by our police forces. Widespread thievery takes the form of income-tax cheating and shoplifting. Cosmic evil. If the above is not enpugh to convince that "utopian" of man's evil tendencies, he still has no contend with so-called "cosmic evil". Typhoons kill innocent people. Earthquakes destroy men, property and fortunes. Daily, people -through no fault of their own -are born lame, retarded, impoverished, and the like. Much evil affot in the world results from man's inhumanity to man, his failure to live a constructive kind of life. To the degree that a person is responsible for his/her won evil attitudes and actions, to that degree he/she is sinning. Of course there is much evil in the world for which mankind does not seem directly responsible. For example, natural disasters bring about much human suffering which is not apparent responsibility of human evil. Cosmic calamities are part of the great mystery of evil.

It was Marat who uses Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, Tooth Fairy, the Sandman, Santa Claus, etc. as line of reasoning. I simply responded to Marat’s post. Not sure if this is helpful or not, but I think there's a qualitative difference. Nobody builds a whole belief system around fairies. They are stories or legends that don't have a whole lot of depth to them. True religious belief is something much deeper, which often leads to, and benefits from, deep reflection and reasoned understanding. Nobody orients their life around fairies, unless they're trying to get on "Wife Swap". I've heard this line of reasoning before... draw an analogy between God and clearly mythical or legendary things like fairies. Or make up something patently absurd ("flying spaghetti monster") and invent some ridiculous beliefs and practices and say "see, I invented an absurd religion. Thus all religions are absurd." Nowadays we don't talk so much about fairies, that's just old quaint nonsense, but those old-timey folks were pretty gullible and didn't have modern science to explain how the world worked, nor TV to fill their imaginations with high quality dramas and lifelike characters, so of course they just made all kinds of stuff up and really believed it, whether it's fairies, God, angels, it's all the same. I'm not a student of folklore, but things like fairies and what not - I'm not sure the extent to which people really ever believe in those things, or just like to talk about them and tell stories because that's what people do, we like a good story to tell our kids with a wink-wink, like we still do today about Santa Claus, or Ninja Turtles. Those of us who teach our kids about both God and Santa Claus know that there's a difference between the two, and the kids figure out the difference pretty quickly too, but they still like making believe about Santa Claus. Of course there is a grey area in between, what I call "superstition", which as I see it are beliefs in legendary things that people never quite move beyond that four-year-old acceptance of. You see the adults who really believe in the Evil Eye and so forth. But I think that's a bit of an anomaly... there is stuff that doesn't stand up to critical analysis. Religions that have stood the test of time do. That of course doesn't mean they're true... I happen to believe Christianity is... but that's another matter.

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

Can you give some reference for this suggestion?

Emotion is certainly a component of many things. However the emotion is not necessarily the thing itself. You say that, "Love is an emotion by all accounts I have ever heard". This is incorrect on two points. First "by all accounts I have ever heard" is now incorrect since you have heard from me and from St Paul that Love is not "emotion". Secondly it would be more correct to say that Love has an emotional component, but that emotional component is not "Love" in itself. you yourself make this clear when you say that you "Love" your mother even if you feel "anger" toward her. One moment you "feel" (emotion) love and the next moment you "feel" (emotion) anger toward her. Yet regardless of how these feelings change, the underlying core of Love does not Change. You still want the highest good for the object of your love (your mother). As to the other matters surrounding God's existance, I can do little to help you in this matter. A wise man once said, "For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe no proof is possible." My abilities of argumentation, of reason, of persuasion are insufficient to sway another from outright rejection to belief. The only one who can convince you of God's existance is the Holy Spirit and the only way He can do that is if you open you heart and mind to the possibility.

All of these experiment were done on people that weren't hostile eyewitnesses and weren't looking for anything spectacular to happen. This is why in the event of Jesus resurrection and Fatima alot of the eyewitnesses were reliable. for example the head of the secular newspaper O Seculo who was rediculing the kids a week ago and now reported a Miracle. As far as Pauls conversion, it wasn't only written about in pauls own letters but I believe that Luke attested to it also. As far as historicity and historically accurate reporting, Luke was a top notch historian, even more accurate then secular accounts of that time. I'll say it again, hostile eyewitnesses reporting in your favor even though they are against you make the best eyewitnesses possible. No comparison between the resurrection accounts, fatima and other supernatural events. You will be in my prayers my friend.

You do not deny that there are truths in the Bible, but you question the reality of it. That sounds to me like a contradictory statement. Explain yourself further. I am not sure we speak the same language, yet. Sorry, but I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "reality" in the Bible, and that which is not "reality"? You will need to elaborate.

Love, as we speak of it is not an emotion although it can generate emotional responses. Emotions change with the wind and avail us nothing. If you wish to place love as an emotion, then how can anyone "love" their spouse for a lifetime. One moment you will "feel" love, another moment you might "feel" anger, even hate, and most of the time you will likely "feel" apathy. Love, real lasting love, is a decision. It is to desire the greatest good for the object of our Love. It is love that lasts through all the emotional ups and downs of life. It is the clinging to each other in faith. This then is Love. St Paul teaches us about Love: Christ taught us about Love too. By his selfless healing of others; by his teachings of gentleness and acceptance and giving; by his death on the cross. He tells us that, no greater Love has a man than he lay down his life for his fellow. This then is "Agape" Love. Love that gives and does not take. Love that desires the highest good for another even though it require sacrifice from me. It is not "Eros" love that one might associate with aphrodite. Love that is emotive and fickle. That assumes the existance of aphrodite then doesn't it.....

Thank you sir. If physical reality breaks down at the singularity, then the cause of the universe cannot be physical. Unless of course you agree with hawking's version of the big bang.

So then, what specifically is your beef with the catechism's description of conscience? You said, "When I reach a conclusion which guides my conscience it is always based on objective facts or logical inferences which I believe I could explain or justify to other people, since I believe that moral values necessarily make claims to objective validity". Isn't this what the Church is saying? Aren't objective facts those facts which need to be explained to others in order for them to have the same moral values that will result in objective reality? You seem to be claiming the very thing that you initially resisted............ In this statement you just claim that a subjective idea can lead to an objective conclusion. This seems to contradict itself unless your values were derived from an objectively truthful source. I believe that this is what the catechism is alluding to ....

I have the same "proof" as you do. The fact that you are making the arguments above demonstrates that you have no Idea of how Christian Love works. It isn't "That" I Love, it's "How" I Love. By Placing Love of God and obeying his commands first, and Loving others "as myself" second am able to properly love others with the same infinite capacity with which God Loves us. All rightly ordered Love stems from God. Love God - then show that Love to others.

Prompted by posts in a somewhat interesting thread ("Do you trust IQ tests?"), I'd like to pose the following: Can you put "Psychometric testing" that in the same boat as IQ tests? It is probably more important to know what you are good at than it is to know your IQ. The earlier in life a person learns their strengths and weaknesses the happier they can be. I think for those of us who want to understand a person's aptitude so we can play to that person's strengths the good ship "Psychometric testing" is still afloat. What are your thoughts?

Sorry to say, but your argument is a text-book example of a straw-man fallacy. Nowhere did I say that the Bible is not literal-historical truth. What I said is that the literary genre of the Deluge story is not necessarily literal-historical. It is a theological polemic worked into the salavation history of the Jews. I also said the ancient Hebrews did not think of or write history the way we do. I noted that the manner in which Thucydides wrote history was more scientific. This is just a fact about ancient Hebrew culture that is above dispute. Consult any reputable bible scholar. I will be glad to recommend resources. Next, it does not follow that if a text is not literal-historical then it is fiction. Your statement is not logically or literarily sound. For example, a parable is not necessarily historical. Do you think then if it is said that a biblical parable is not historical then one is implying that it is not true and a mere fiction? On the other hand, if you think a parable must be literal-historical then you have involved yourself in a blatant contradiction about the literary nature of a parable. Many people, especially in modern times, have an unwarranted bias for the literal and historical as if that is the only way, or even the best way, to convey fact or truth. This is just a modern prejudice of those who do not understand how literature works, how diverse literary genres work. The Bible contains many types of literary genres. Understanding the literary genre of a text, and how it works, is the key to unlocking the message being conveyed. In addition, the most profound truths cannot be expressed in literal terms. Plato understood well this fact, a truth which moderns uncultivated in literature have yet to learn. Plato called philosophizing tragic because whoever philosophizes is always forced back upon myths, because no 'purely' philosophical interpretation of the world could ever be complete and pursued to the point at which it formed a perfectly closed circle. Hence, Plato taught very profound truths using myths. "Myth" in this sense does not mean something that is not true, as we often use the word today when we might say "That is just a myth". The Bible in many places uses allegories and other figurative language. Oftentimes figurative (non-literal) language better conveys a truth than does the literal, scientific, or historical. Some truths, especially regarding spiritual realities, can only be expressed in figurative language. The "Apocalypse" or "Revelations" is replete with symbolism and other figurative expressions. Figurative language cannot necesarily be re-stated in literal terms without losing something of its meaning. We often ask "what" a text means. This can be the wrong question to ask. The proper question for some literary genres is "how" does this mean. The meaning is not independent of the particular way the author used his words to convey his message. You cannot take the dancer out of the dance. In sum, I suggest you re-think and re-state your argument, if you still have one, because nowhere did I claim that the Bible is not literal-historical. Literal-historical texts are found in the Bible, but so are many are literary genres. This is an undeniable fact. It's all about identifying the genus litterarium, and fully appreciating how it functions to convey the author's message.