lulapilgrim – We both know what materialism is but I think you would sway more if you wore a brown robe and sat on your ass (hehehe) and preach the evils of materialism down the hills and vales of DC.

I presume you have some guide telling you how practical, practical can be and when excessive material developments, are developed enough …? I would agree that there is no use for materialism in your mythological theological utopia … last I checked we both live and breathe in the physical material world. The only problem I see is materialistic advancement to a degree where biblical anomalies (among many other things we thought we understood) can actually be properly investigated … not my problem.

I didn’t know about any mass religious conversions so I will have to pass here. I guess I could just say that it is amazing what fear can make people do … it is how the USG controls its restless populace, to sway direction. But, people eventually crawl out from under their fear and start thinking rationally again.

A-Political … A-Theist … I get it … so why is it so easy (believe me it isn’t, really) to accept that one has no interest in or association with politics … then find it so difficult (believe me it is, really) to accept that one has no interest in or association with religion? It just seems so straight forward to me is all? By your definition, I guess that makes me a practical atheist as “living as if the One God were not.” Is correct … so what?

I am empathic with your frustrations, but you are your own worst enemy. I do not think many even have a fundamental grasp of the all-encompassing restrictions “FAITH” places on the human spirit.

Egads! We have gone over this numerous times but it bears repeating, I guess. There is no proof to be found in a closed circle of all-knowledge that forbids outside sources of information and is enforced with the threat of eternal damnation. Now me being outside that circle of yours … compels me to justify anything you believe or don't … how?  It is as nonsensical as asking me to justify Islam or Buddhism or whatever … because you want me to? Besides that, I don’t want to and couldn’t anyway … specifically because of their closed circles of all-knowledge, go figure.

• “by the natural light of reason”- Reason is the power of being able to think in a logical and rational manner. No faith required here.
• “but they are not necessarily the result of scientific proof”- You think …
• “you reject them out of hand” I do not normally reject anything reasonable out of hand having spent years making some of my decisions.
• God can be known from created things”- I know I am missing something here??? I love fauna and flora too!
• ”The Universe points clearly to a One God”- I really don’t think you want to go this route …
• “The belief in the existence of God comes from universal reasoning”- Reason is the power of being able to think in a logical and rational manner and is not universally different from normal reason. No faith required here.
• “that is the general consent of all peoples from the beginning of the world”-You know we are not going to agree on the “beginning of the world” let alone a “general consent of all peoples”, come now …
• “Believing in God seems to be the natural condition or intuition”- Believing in Nature satisfies all my conditional needs. Stuff like “seems to be”  are no-no’s to me.
• “People do not have to persuade themselves that there is a One God”- They need someone like you persuade them … else all those missionaries were on fruitless endeavors for the church for the last couple mellennia.
• “Then there is proof from conscience”- conscience (I like this def.) - the part of the superego that passes judgment on thought and behavior to the ego for further consideration and action.
• “There exists within us a strange, mysterious power” – I don’t do “strange mysterious powers” and that is final, hehehe.

I don't have a clue as this never occured to me. You substituted conscience for genealogy, not me so you are on your own here?

For sure. In one way or another, I have been politically active almost all my adult life.  I know who my congressmen are and they know who I am. 

Since I'm Catholic my main guide is the Church. I like to read the works of Catholic thinkers. One such is Fr. Dudley whom I mentioned on your Farenheit blog after you made this comment:

#130

I replied: This is true however, it's not only politics that bespeaks of strife, criminality, lies, deceit. etc.

Fr. Owen Francis Dudley's (1882-1952) book, "YOU and thousands like you" is a very good and profitable read. He looks at life in the atomic era and sees the world bent on destruction. The following are his ideas and I have to agree.

The present ordering of the world is materialistic and the supreme acheivement of materialsim is the nuclear bomb. We are sliding toward a suicidal end and no government, no policy or military power, in fact there is nothing in the present materialistic ordering to avert final catastrophe.

People aren't made just to exist but to live, truly live to what the US Constitution calls pursuit of happiness.  To me, this happiness is in the end eternal happiness. 

 

 

Exactly. We do both live in the physical, materialistic world.......a world that Fr. Dudley sees as bent on destruction and I quite agree.

And why? Because we are passing into a stage where atheistic humanism is dangerously close to becoming our de facto state religion. More and more people are essentially conducting themselves as if God doesn't exist. And history shows us that when God is forgotten, the dignity of the human person and the common good is forgotten too. 

This atheism manifests itself in practical conduct. In the 60s, prayer was taken out of government schools. Michale Newdow wants "Under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and our coins, crosses are taken out of public view, and then the war against Christmas.

Through abortion on demand, we are "choosing" ourselves to death and through acceptance of homosexuality as normal sexual behavior, we are tolerating ourselves to death.

You didn't answer the question of how much materialism and knowledge is enough? Are we just supposed to turn off? You make things difficult when you pick them apart and defend things piecemeal.We both know there are no restrictions nor is there any reason to want them … except as they pertain to biblical investigations? That is pretty much what you are claiming, right?I know you are completely enveloped in your religion and I commend you for it! I have not met many heart felt Christians especially here on JU. As I see it, most of your (church) problems are self-inflicted. The problem is that you are want to approach things from an impossible (for man) utopian point only God can be and then you try to impress others of the glory (whatever) you feel . Most people deal with life on a much more practical plane and need practical solutions. You know you will have no influence on my religious views and you know I do not like to talk about religion, but I persist, hum … As it is, I do not mind talking with people about anything as long as there is civility some degree of intelligence. I have found our conversations interesting even though I do not understand their purpose …

You see a homosexual and you place them into that circle then pretend they are attacking the church, even though you know that homosexuality persist in the ranks of the church leaders. I do not think many see homosexuality as anything beyond some perversion or another … they are not a threat to you except you want everyone on one side of the fence or the other and this is not in your best interests. Everyone is not attacking the church … they mostly want to go their own way. But you perceive this as some dastardly scheme or other.  It is no different than politics, the neocons control the right and the neolibs control the left … but most Americans fall in the middle and have little control over the extremists. Same with religion I’m sad to say. You move the middle from the middle else you are one of the extremists with zero tolerance for anything else …

 

 

I can see by the wording of your question that I must restate what I mean by materialism. I should have said materialism is the philosophy of atheistic humanism that denies the existence of God and is the philosophical position that regards matter as the only reality. 

Since I think the world is in turmoil in every arena because of materialism and irreligion and since materialism is principally opposed to Christ's religion which admits the reality of spirit, what do you think my answer is?

As presidential candidate Herman Cain would ask, "How's materialism been working out for us?".

 

Yes. Exactly. We do not need faith to believe that God exists. The person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know Him. These are called proofs for the existence of God, but not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences but rather in the sense of convincing arguments which allow us to attain certainity about the truth. One of the arguments is we can know God by the natural light of reason. 

The desire for God is written on the human heart because mankind is created by God and for God and God never ceases to draw man to Himself so as to find life and happiness.

Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But this search for God demands an effort of intellect and a sound will.

So, in different ways man can come to know that there exists a Reality Who is the first Cause and final End of all things, a Reality according to Saint Thomas Aquinas "that everyone calls "God'".

The proofs of God's existence however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

 

so continuing ...by natural reason man can know God with certainity on the basis of His works. What are His works? Created things.

God can be known from created things....that would be the physical world and the human person. The world starting from movement, it's order and beauty (of which you've already mentioned the flora and the fauna).

St.Paul says,

For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. 

Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

 

In one of his sermons, Saint Augustine issued this challenge.

Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beeauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky....question all these realities. All respond: they are beautiful. Their beauty is a profession (confessio).  These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One Who is not subject to change?

 

 

Lula, you know what you now call atheism was in existence well before Jesus was a spec in God's eye. So after you find your faith in the impossible IMO, you classify those who came first as atheists and in competition with you somehow when you are the usurpers new kids on the block (relatively speaking). And just because you insist, the world at large is somehow beholding to you and your beliefs … tell me why? Personally, I cannot take much you claim to be true to be, if for no other reason than you refuse to allow empirical contemporary science to enter into the discussion. And when you try to use the sciences to somehow prove your supernatural beliefs (not sure that is even possible?), you always get back to “all one has to have is faith and all will be revealed” poppycock. I do not have to have your faith or believe as you and I think all your silly classifications for various segments of society (circles) are ridiculous and counterproductive in dealing with people, especially individually.

Lula, that last one was pretty much all right out the textbooks; you don't really want my response. Nature is a wondrous thing, I just do not think there is an overseer ... and you do. And you know, it doesn’t really mean a thing, what you or I think we know because we don’t and I am want to prove something first … and you are not, what matter that? It doesn't change a thing.

Exactly ...no faith required here. Universal reasoning or universal belief is a proof for the existence of God.

The basic idea behind the argument for universal belief  is given the fact that people in all times have believed in some kind of supreme being and it is reasonable to conclude that there is a justification for that belief ..that there is in fact a supreme being who is God. 

Throughout history, every civilization, down to the present day, man has quested for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. 

Okay...you believe in nature and I'm telling you that God created nature and nature as part of the created world is a proof of God's existence.

 

 

Not true BT.

You have given your explanation, Robert Gilman's explanation for the evolution of man.

Given this explanation I asked:

How does contemporary technology or Atheism explain man's conscience?  To which you said you haven't a clue.

Okay. Now is the time....what is the empirical contemporary science that answers the question?

What is the empirical contemporary science that supports Gilman's Human story?

 

I don't even know what universal reasoning or belief are? I do not think you know much about the universe so I would have to question your reasoning and beliefs which of course I do.

Are you sure you want to go this route through pagan history? I do not think it will offer you much help, just a thought.

I don't believe you, sorry.

You seem to be confusing the adjective "universal" with the noun "universe".

Universal reasoning or belief is a judgment based on pure reason. Over all times it's not like only one man in a million believed in God's existence, rather it was the common rational judgment evident to a majority of people.

....................

Yes, even through so called "pagan history" there was always religion and belief in God.  God is not so impatient as man is. God gave true religion to mankind gradually. Turns out the human race learned its need of God and His religion from sad experience.

Let's go back to Adam and Eve. They were instructed immediately by God and this is called the first stage of religion. 

After Adam's fall, Adam handed on to his children the truth about God and the duty of worshipping Him. Thus Abel offered sacrifice. The traditions were transmitted by Adam's posterity and this was the period called the Natural law. God gave occasional revelations to the various individuals such as the Patriarchs, over and above the natural law and this stage is called the period of Patriarchal law or the period of pre-Mosaic unwritten law.

The third stage came with Moses. After the re-multiplication of the human race from Noah, mankind began to forget God, and God gave Moses a clearer exposition of His Law and religious duties to be put in writing. This is known as the stage of the written law or that of the Mosaic or Hebraic religion.

Finally, God sent His own Son to give the more perfect law which the Catholic Church teaches in its fullness and will teach until the end of the world.  

 

Got it, yep I am guilty. It gets confusing at times ... I think I am involvrd in a discussion about the universe somewhere and ... sorry.

Lets not, unless you can prove they ever existwed and of course you cannot ... without an inter-office memo from the theological department.

I like the words of Noam Chomsky ... I am a child of enlightenment. I think irrational belief is dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that it’s a major phenomenon for people in general, and you can understand why it would be. It does, apparently provide personal and solidarity and a means for expressing elements of one’s personality that are often very valuable elements. To many people it does that. In my view, there is nothing wrong with that. My view could be wrong, of course, but my position is that we should not succumb to irrational belief. While I think in principle people should not have irrational beliefs. I should say that it is a matter of fact; it is people who hold what I regard as completely irrational beliefs who are among the most effective moral actors in the world, in many respects. They are among the worst but also among the best, even though the moral beliefs are ostensibly the same.
  
Take say the solidarity movement in Central America… To a large extent, it comes out of mainstream Christianity, based on beliefs that have had outrageous human consequences in the past, and that I think are totally indefensible. In this case, they happened to lead to some of the most courageous, heroic and honorable human action that’s taken place anywhere in the world. Well, that is how life is, I guess. It doesn’t come in neat little packages. The US is a very fundamental society. It is like Iran in the degree of fanatic religious commitment. You get extremely strange results.
 
Who wrote the current Bible? Current scholarship to my knowledge assumes that the material that constitutes the Old Testament was put together from various oral and folk traditions, many going far back into the Hellenistic period. That was one of several currents, of which the collection that formed the New Testament was another. Biblical archaeology was developed in the last hundred years in an effort to substantiate the authenticity of the Biblical account. It is now generally recognized in Biblical scholarship that it has done just the opposite. The Bible is not a historical text and has only vague resemblances to what took place as far as can be reconstructed.