Wednesday, 16th September 2009
God is back
I remember seeing, quite some time ago, a two-panel cartoon. The first panel showed Nietzsche, the well known German philosopher, pointing towards a tomb. The tombstone read "God is dead" accompanied by the year when the philosopher launched his idea. The second panel showed God pointing towards another tomb. "Nietzsche is dead", read the tombstone accompanied by the year of his death.
Believers and unbelievers united against religion
The attacks on the belief in God and on religion took different forms before, and since, then. Marx called religion the opium of the people and Freud described is as a neurosis. God is our creation and not vice versa, he believed. The belief in God, for others, had a negative effect on human progress since the more time that man has for God the less time man has for other men.
Nazism persecuted Jews and Christians. The religious persecutions by Communists are too close to merit description. Dictators on the right - Franco and Pinochet to name just two - persecuted many Christians although they pretended to be the paladins of a Christian culture. Consumerism with its concomitant values of instant gratification and materialism did a sweet kind of persecution. It does not frontally attack the existence of God and the need for religion. It tries to make them irrelevant.
Moreover, believers did their best to put religion and the god they believed in into disrepute. Catholics and Protestants killed each other in Northern Ireland in the name of God. In addition, fundamentalist Moslems massacred innocent people in His name. With the passage of time, the "holiest" of believers committed in the name and for the glory of God the most horrible atrocities.
Little by little, it became fashionable to celebrate the burial of God and to consign religion to the rubbish heap of history. More and more scholars were saying that as societies become more rational and modernised, the social significance of religion would decline. The Economist edition of the millennium went so far as to publish an obituary of the Almighty!
He who laughs last
However, it seems the He is going to have the final laugh.
John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist; and Adrian Wooldridge, The Economist's Washington correspondent have just published a book titled: God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World. This is an interesting duo since one is a Catholic and the other one is an atheist. I have not read the book but I read quite a lot about it. The following comments are based on reading abut this book which affirms that from Christians in Shanghai to Muslim televangelists in Cairo, we are in the middle of a global faith revival.
The following snippets and comments based on the book give an indication:
- China will be the world's biggest Christian country by 2050 - at the latest - and already the country has more churchgoers than members of the Communist party.
- Religious people are healthier, wealthier and happier than the non-religious.
- Almost everywhere you look, from the suburbs of Dallas to the slums of São Paulo to the back streets of Bradford, you can see religion returning to public life.
- One poll in 2006 - fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet regime - discovered that 84 percent of the Russian population believed in God while only 16 percent considered themselves atheists.
- Atatürk's Turkey is now in the hands of an avowedly Islamist party. The president's wife, like many cosmopolitan women, wears a headscarf, once regarded as a symbol of backwardness.
- For most of the past decade, India has been controlled by the Hindu nationalist BJP Party, which owed its ascendancy partly to the issue of the Ayodhya Temple, a fiercely contested place of worship for both Hindus and Muslims.
- George Bush began each day on his knees and each cabinet meeting with a prayer. Barack Obama has talked as well as and as eloquently about God as any Republican leader has. This is an interesting phenomenon. It's the first time, really, since Carter that the left has really been comfortable talking about God.
- The single most frequently used noun in the 2008 Republican Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, was "God."
- In France, the fastest growing creed is the most American of all, Pentecostalism. Before becoming president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy published La République, les religions, l'espérance, in which he called for a greater role for religion in public life.
- Poland's Law and Justice Party was elected on the promise of a "moral revolution," based on the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
- In much of South and Central America, exuberant Pentecostal churches, where worshippers catch the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, continue to spread, challenging the Roman Catholic tradition
- Islam has its own version of televangelists, some of them spectacularly successful.
- Up till a few years ago it was said that European politicians do not "do God." This is what Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former spokesman, once angrily told an American magazine. To-day Tony Blair says that he was always a "praying person," and converted to Catholicism shortly after leaving office. His successor, Gordon Brown, claims that he learned his socialism listening to his preacher father's sermons.
This is not a triumphalistic book about religion. It also presents the less rosy side of this revival. They also cite faith as being at the heart of the world's worst flashpoints of violence. Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the Middle East.... The list goes on.
The basis hypothesis of the writers is that modernity with its emphasis on pluralism and individual choice led to an increase in adherence to faith. A discussion of this thesis and also the author's explanation is beyond the scope of this blog. If you google the name of the book you will find a lot of interesting material.
It seems that there is more truth to the Nietzsche and the tomb stones cartoon than perhaps meets the eye at first glance!
RSS
Comments
Please enter your name in the subject so I will know it is yours. Thank you.
This e.mail address is not for use by anybody else.
I would like to personally assure you that in no manner any of my comments should have reflected in any personal offensive manner.
Just in the same way as I am sure that many of your remarks in my regard like " Filled with rage" , "heretical opinion", “predicament by smudging the issue and introducing "metaphors" and "interpretations” "A commentator on the blog is convinced that: “WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE EXIST A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT GODS”, when in actual fact I used the words “suspect” amongst others , were not intentionally offensive .
A reciprocal handshake and apology should be deemed sufficient by both parties. This together with a request to you to reconsider your position of not contributing to blogs by your kind self . I honestly believe that both of us have much in common even within our sometimes diametrically opposite views and opinions .
Hope this matter is closed and our communication channels can be re-established in good faith.
Kind Regards Steve Pace
I did not take steps at law for your undoubted libelous comment only because the moderator protected your anonymity by not supplying your particulars when I requested them. I am still expecting an apology from you or to be provided with the requested information.. I have no objection to the moderator communicating to you my particulars for any legal action you be entitled to (if any).
"Discussing and arguing" is not the same as making libelous accusations that needed removal from the blog as soon as I drew attention to the libel.
One of the biggest achievement this country has made over the last 25 years is the opening up of media . Personally I think the Times has achieved a lot by making these blogs available to everyone.
I personally would like to thank you Dr. Francis Saliba, for your heartfelt challenging contributions to my comments. They give me the opportunity to analyze and scrutinize my own thoughts and feelings and help me realize whether what I believe in is strong enough . They actually do . They also help me improve my English .
I wish you all a beautiful weekend
I cannot believe that the moderator persists in posting ad hominem criticism directed against me by you after he neglected to supply me with the necessary personal "information for the purpose of legal action on grounds that such person ... is aggrieved by any comment ..." and after I informed him that, in consequence, I will not be participating any more in this blog.
when I said something on the same lines , namely "I acknowledge that my Faith is personal and that others may as well believe in anything the deem fit." I was awarded this comment” your Catholicism is your own personal brand and not the universal Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church as generally understood”
@ Jason Fenech - "Citing exorcism as conclusive proof is as ridiculous as it is logically fallacious"...
I said "that I believe that Satanism is the best proof that what I believe in is true ." and not that it is any "conclusive proof " . Logically speaking this means you were referring to someone else's earlier comment.
To put matters into perspective no one ever said that God is logical. Never felt He was and ever will be. Too many things go wrong in the world indicating precisely that either a) God does not exist or b) He is very illogical. The choice what to believe is in each individual’s own hands and it does not have be a fanatically atheist, agnostic or catholic .
It is pretty obvious to me that the Alpha course and the Atheism ad on the London buses are not linked. But what is patently clear is that the people who are ticking the No box on the advert are the same who would be jubilant about the atheistic buses. That is all.
This was my response to the accusation that I was being less than honest (or words to that effect) and sly. Oh so predictably, Francesco did not come back on this. Being called dishonest and sly is a defamation of character. But would I take the good doctor, he of such good will, to court? I do not think he is worth the hassle. While I am here, and after owning up to not being scholarly in anything and least of all Galileo, Saliba said I SHOULD read up on the man. SHOULD? I have always been lead to believe that when suggesting that someone do something, the acceptable form is to say 'could' and not 'should'. Should is too dictatorial and patronising. What's this? The Inquisition?
Words of wisdom, even by vandals, are applicable anywhere Francis. Even in Malta.
Well done indeed! I am in complete agreement with your last post with one minor qualification. In your last sentence you state “…atheists and agnostics alike please stop contributing to such posts since we're simply fanning the fires of religious fanaticism”.
You may be correct. Religious beliefs are indeed very well entrenched in the minds of the vast majority of people. Therefore, when anybody seriously questions their beliefs, they may further harden their positions. On the other hand, “silence is not golden” either. A growing number of people today do question religious dogma…but are afraid to make their feelings known for fear of ridicule or worse still, fear of being ostracized.
Nonetheless, many of these people just need reinforcement. Logic and reason could change the minds of sensible people in the long haul. The advancement of science was brought about by courageous people such as Galileo who questioned religious dogma. The sizeable but silent minority of atheists and agnostics should not remain silent anymore. Otherwise, society will indeed continue to be dominated by religious fanaticism, especially Islamic, but also Christian. The voices of logic and reason need to be heard loudly. Keeping silent is not the answer.
No Mr Fenech, you are mistaken. You are not fanning the fires of religious fanaticism - if anything you are creating doubts into the minds of others who do not hold your views. It is true that there are diehards contributing to this blog but diehards come from both sides. If I care to identify them, I might find that atheists and agnostics number more.
No Mr. Fenech, atheist and agnostics will not stop contributing to this blog for they are using it as a convenient platform to ‘preach’ their particular brand of belief or disbelief – They are countering what you say is a Christian brand of ‘brainwashing’ with their own. So I think that this blog is serving as a fair exchange of ideas. Rather, don’t feel threatened!!!!
http://www.skepdic.com/exorcism.html
I find it extremely disturbing that in this day and age intelligent people, or so I am assuming, still find it normal and acceptable to believe in such giberish. Brainswashing at an early age really works wonders at rendering the mind incapable of rational and free thought. Another reason why state-church seperation is urgently called for. Religious indoctrination at an early age should be considered child abuse - which it is - and dealt with accordingly by law.
Then again if religious believers take comfort in fairytales so be it but please do not try and convince the rest of the world that what you believe in is true by making extraordinary claims which you cannot substantiate (No, the bible is not proof nor is the word of preachers)
Finally, atheists and agnostics alike please stop contributing to such posts since we're simply fanning the fires of religious fanaticism.
@ Jessica - As usual Jessica puts what in my opinion are always extremely valid points by saying "I believe that whatever rules we apply in this world are only there to try and keep a certain order because without rules and regulations the world would be in chaos."
A very prominent member of clergy once told me... Church has Rules... God does'nt ! God sees the heart !
My god-given human brain tells me that it is not right for a baby to be swept out to sea by an act of god. Churchy teaching tells us that it's not for us to question the reasons why AND that these catastrophes are sent to test us. Those words are churchy. They are certainly not my words. Quoting you: ' and this (questioning) not altogether wrong in itself'. Contradiction or what?! At what stage does it become wrong Mr. rolan?
"If I were god I would have spared the child and finished off the mother".
that's the whole crux of the discussion, isn't it, mr. xuereb? that we are not gods, and so by human terms and reasoning we cannot understand "God's discretion". we can only judge things in so far as our human brain allows us to. if one starts to question "God's decisions" then we will keep blogging here forever.
Cause then we would have to start debating why did God send his son in this world? why this, why that? and this not altogether wrong in itself; questioning things. but one can only question things which are, so to say, within the grasp of humanity.
even the concept of 'time' is very difficult to understand. forget the theory of 'relativity'. what is 'eternity' anyway? when people pass away, and their soul will 'exist' for eternity, than the whole concept of time will be lost ( as in nobody will be counting time) . that is because we are still thinking in human terms.
However i would still like comments, about the existence or otherwise of paradise and hell.
@Jessica Debattista
well said.
(2) Not likely to get its lacey cuffs in a twist over that one. The church may well have drooled over his chiaro scuro. It failed to see there was more obsurity of meaning than innocent clarity.
Regarding Caravaggio's oeuvre, I was thinking of 'Victorius Amor'and various youths dripping fruit and flowers and sensuous drapery. It's all there.
Caravaggio fitted the bill. He was not persecuted. He glorified the image the church wanted to project. But he was not only a genius. He had a touch of evil. He had his own mind and he got away with it. Fascinating man. Just like Galileo.
Ms Debattista, we are of course sold this 'happiness' thing. Happiness, like sadness, is a state of mind. Our quest, our duty, is to search for truth and thence justice. It is all we have. If that search and ultimately discovery - discovery, otherwise, why bother - and the journey involved renders us happy, then that's the next question. It is a risky journey because anything worthwhile is. Happiness, like love - deserves a transparent definition.
Part 2.
I believe that whatever rules we apply in this world are only there to try and keep a certain order because without rules and regulations the world would be in chaos. I also believe that one should not be judgemental about another human being. Each and every one of us, at one time or another, has his own battle to fight in life, and we do not need busy bodies - and I am not alluding to priests as the busy bodies, for to me priests serve a very important function through the sacrament of confession - but I am alluding to the poisonous tongues of busybodies who have nothing better to do than to try and find somebody out in what to them are indiscretions. What some would consider indiscretions could be the saving grace to the persons committing the indiscretions. By ‘indiscretions’ I mean just ‘that’ (misdeeds) and not criminal acts.
@Rolan Borg:
Part 1.
Like you I believe that there exists both Heaven and Hell since there are forces of evil as well as forces of good in each and every one of us, and these traits must reflect something which is outside of us. There also exists in us a need to be happy to the extent that if we are frustrated by the way of life we are living our health deteriorates. If we do not alleviate the pain that is causing us frustration, we risk falling into a depression which at times could be suicidal. Willfully harming ourselves is a sin and I consider such a situation tantamount to allowing it to destroy our life.
Now we all agree that suicide is a grave sin, which would send us to Hell. I have my doubts about that, however, for I believe in the Mercy of God, but for the sake of discussion. would you say that a person is living a good life by conforming to the rules but risking suicide? Or would you make a concession if a person tries to bend the rules in order to preserve his sanity and consequently his life?
Continued….
What about the two/three tsunamis in the space of a few years. His apologists would say he was testing us. What? testing a two year old baby, swept out to sea, away from its mother, terrified out of its wits? Maybe its mother bore it out of wedlock so needed punishment. So killing the child will admonish the mother not to repeat the heinous act. If I were god I would have spared the child and finished off the mother. But an orphaned child would be a financial burden on the State or the Church. So it had to go.
And please do not start me on this FN51 flu thing.
if i may pose an idea, a thesis, call it what you may.
Heaven exists, so does hell. If one does not believe in heaven, one can still be sure that there is hell and this is because of the next paragraph. so logic will dictate that if there is a 'bad' place, there is also a 'good' place, right?
When one thinks about the real exorcisms that occur throughout the world, there exist negative spiritual entities which decide to inhabit humans. if there is bad there is good. would appreciate mature comments.
However we must be aware that the present times have also given rise to a new wave of fundamentalism more commonly present in other denominations. It seems that many people feel the urge to prophesize in the name of God and Jesus. This attitude is simply bringing out more and more the level of intolerance to others who may differ in opinion. They feel they are doing the catholic religion a favour. In reality they are slamming doors in the face of those seeking truth.
Galileo was a genius with a touch of evil. Comes with the territory. He was vilified and demonised. But he has been vindicated. His name will live forever even in some constellation. The 'pope' who condemned him, just a tiny, tiny hiccup.
There was another genius>evil (so to speak) < genius. His name was Caravaggio. He was so infamous he had to flee. But he painted pictures that looked nice as altar-pieces, all that chiaro-scuro in the right light. The church gave him commissions. It chose to ignore his short-comings (and goings). Except, in its self-seeking fashion, it tripped up big time. It let in the devil through the back-door (pun intended). A close study of the painter and his oeuvre any half-wit will detect homoeroticism in abundance. Or more appropriately, paedophilia. Not necessarily for the painter himself (although I wouldn't put it past him. He murdered did he not?) but quite likely for his commissioners. It is all there. But the church is not particularly worried about that sort of thing. cont./
Have fun. You are absolutely right. Don't mind those people who call you names in any manner whatsoever, Christian or not
You are soooo predictable......never wrong are you?
I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend. I certainly am. In fact, mine is simply fantastic as it is unburdened by beliefs which have no substance, and I do not carry distorted images of history just to make me feel better. I like calling a spade a spade. You see, I don't sweat the small stuff, even when people call me names in a very un-Christian manner.
However, to each his own! That's the wonderful thing about living in a democratic secular society, We don't have to constantly worry about what we say and how we say it. Fortunately for us in the Western world today, we don't have an Inquisition that will "burn us at the stake" or put us under house arrest for the rest of our lives, because we are heretics.
In any event, It ihas been fun debating with you .
Kind Regards
Arthur
You persist in challenging my comment where I stated that “ … DURING the Galileo controversy no other heliocentrist received any sanction from the Inquisition”. You keep harping back to a Giordano Bruno who had died in 1600, that is DEFINITELY BEFORE the Galileo controversy, to be exact fifteen years before Galileo’s first appearance before the Roman Inquisition (1615) and thirty three years before his second appearance (1633). The obvious conclusion is that you have no grounds to challenge my contention that DURING THE GALILEO CONTROVERSY no other heliocentrist received any sanction from the Inquisition”. And that is on top of the other indisputable fact that Giordano Bruno was condemned by the Inquisition for a host of eight charges, seven of which were theological and the remaining one was for "plurality of worlds and their eternity"
Allow me to differ. You TRIED to trip me - you said so yourself. And I am "people". So you do try to trip people, not often sucessfully I admit because readers are no fools. I have often exposed your attempts to trip readers by manipulating the comments of others. I have done so most predictably, time and time again.
I do not "trip up people" as you state. But, I did deliberately trip you.
Your continued insistence that Bruno was not tried for his heliocentric beliefs is comical, as is you assersion that Galleo's treatment was "mild".
Cheers
Do not distort my written comments as some anti-Church bias acknowledging “that the Inquisition was a horrific Christian institution which, over many centuries, murdered and tortured countless thousands of innocent people …..” Most definitely I did not single out the Inquisition, as you are doing now. I condemned all the “horrendous methods of extracting evidence by torture or about cruel methods of punishment prevalent four centuries ago and carried out by all tribunals, whether lay or clerical. These cruel methods were not peculiar to the Inquisition, as you would seem to imply. The Church tribunals gave up those methods centuries ago. But today there are states and religions that are still practicing similar abhorrent methods. As far as I know they have not drawn any adverse comments from you.”
By now you should have realized that I shall most predictably expose your habit of slyly misinterpreting my written comments.
Only a careless fool would glibly accept your comment as a fair synopsis of my own comments. You are the same ArthurSoler who has just boasted of falsifying the list of Inquisition charges in order to “trip up” people – REMEMBER?
Giordano Bruno was NOT accused of preaching heliocentricity. The precise words of the charge were “plurality of worlds and their eternity”. Heliocentricity means that the sun is at the center of our planetary system (not our earth) and that the earth rotated on its own axis once every day and it circled the sun once every year. The charge by the Inquisition (one of eight) was about the existence of more than one world (plurality), and that these multiple worlds were eternal. Only a blinkered manipulator would pretend that the two astronomical hypotheses are identical. Whether this charge was fifth or eighth is immaterial, much more so when you boast that you made the manipulation deliberately.
Please understand that I have no more time to waste on any commentator who boasts shamelessly of deliberately manipulating facts under the pretence of trying to “trip up” people but who, in the process, succeeds only in shooting himself in the foot.
My goodness!!! You can now even read my mind. Amazing!!!!
Don’t you think that I am capable enough of structuring a letter with bullet points, in any order as I may deed appropriate? Of course, I did not go to Medical School in Malta to study astronomy, philosophy, history and of course mental telepathy….oh! and medicine too, I guess? You simply cannot admit that your entire argument fell apart by your constant contradictions, and that Bruno was charged with heresy which included apostasy, and his heliocentric beliefs (Number 5 on the list remember?)
In any event, you have at least acknowledged that the Inquisition was a horrific Christian institution which, over many centuries, murdered and tortured countless thousands of innocent people, whose only “crime” was heresy. We happen to know about the fate of Bruno (which was indescribably brutal) and of Galileo (which was horrible) only because they were famous people (actually infamous in the eyes of the Church). Just think about the thousands of other innocent, but not so famous victims who shall remain forever anonymous?
Your defence of the Church is however admirable, even if misguided and sooooooo predictable!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I was wrong in anything, it was that I did not waste words to challenge your listing of the charges. You do not fool me for one moment that you were deliberately trying to trip me over. You manipulated the order of listing because that was necessary to make it fit in with your “last but not least”. To me it is totally immaterial whether the astronomy charge was fifth or eight. The important fact is that the astronomy charge acquired importance for the Inquisition only within the context of the other seven charges, all of which were undoubted theological heresies.
New scientific discoveries are in fact reported by scientists only through scientific journals and not through the popular media. This is the universally accepted scientific protocol within the scientific community.
But as ordinary citizens, we have to bear in mind that the press operates under Freedom of Information laws. Of course, the popular media may not always obey the spirit of the law. It is for this reason, for example (and hopefully), that The Times provides readers with the opportunity to comment. If we felt that there were inaccuracies or sensationalism in a report, we are invited to point them out. It is up to the media to act responsibly and up to us, the readers, to speak out. Frankly, I think The Times had been getting far more than it had originally bargained for.
In this blog you stated that, “…during the Galileo controversy no other heliocentrist received any sanction from the Inquisition”.
You then contradicted yourself by acknowledging that Bruno’s astronomical beliefs were on the list of heresies for which he was charged. But predictably, you dismissed this by stating that “His astronomy theories formed a relatively insignificant and incidental small part.”
You then again defended your position by claiming “There is no contradiction” and attacking me for my “usual pretence of not understanding.” and “putting on blinkers.” You then conclude that “Bruno Giordano was condemned for one whole big parcel of theological heresies. The problem was not heliocentricity itself. It was Bruno Giordano’s use of his astronomy theories to support his theological errors. That is why it is PUT LAST and after the seven theological accusations he had to answer.”
In fact, the charge against Bruno for heliocentricity was NOT PUT LAST. I put it last on my list deliberately, for you to trip over it…and you did. That charge was exactly Number 5 on the list of 8, which obviously makes it not so insignificant…indeed, very very significant.
Now, for once, are you humble enough to admit you are wrong?
Unfortunately the need for new scientific discoveries to be reported only through scientific journals and not through the popular media is strongly felt to the present day. One concrete example is the frequent premature sensational reporting of experimental cancer “cures” etc by “medical correspondents” in the popular press.
It's universally accepted within the modern scientific community that Galilei was imprudent in his insistence to broadcast scientific knowledge without consent from the authorities. Today, in fact, no undergraduate course in science would not include a non-elective subject that requires the student to deal with the issue of the inter-relationship between science and society.
Modern governments would normally have what is called the Chief Scientist who reports directly to the Prime Minister. In Australia, Penny Sackett is our current Chief Scientist who provides advice to the government. The hot topic, currently, is not on whether we exist in a solar system but whether we are going to experience solar cooking. As it turns out, she is being very useful to Kevin Rudd because this guy is such a dud on scientific matters-- he only studied languages.
The other important aspect of the modern scientific protocol is that newly found knowledge is reported strictly through scientific journals rather than through the more popular media.
Following the tragedy of Galilei, and the concurrent Thirty Years' War between Roman Catholics and Protestants, western civilisation has come a long way. We now know a lot better.
You are absolutely correct about the distinction between heliocentricity as a theory for discussion in academic circles (that was NEVER opposed by the Church) and its dissemination among the general public as a proven fact when that was still not the case (and this is what Galileo did in 1632 spite of a previous undertaking to the Inquisition in 1616 and which led to his second appearance before the Inquisition). That is what I have been saying all along. It should be obvious that I used the phrase “believing in heliocentricity” in its ordinary everyday sense and not in any theological sense.
For the record, neither Copernicus nor Kepler 'believed' in the heliocentric hypothesis. One needs to make a distinction, here, between 'believing' and 'theorizing' when we are talking about scientific men/women. Scientists do not 'believe' in anything when they are dealing with natural phenomena.
Nicolaus Copernicus carried out astronomical observations and 'modeled' the circular motion of the planets around the sun. He completed his manuscript in 1530, and later handed this manuscript to a Roman Catholic bishop for later publication. Luckily, Copernicus got to hold in his hands the publication moments before he died.
Johannes Kepler went a bit further. He had access to a large body of astronomical observations which he had inherited from astronomer Tycho Brahe (also a drunk and a womanizer). Kepler was a Lutheran and a deeply religious man, but also a brilliant mathematician. He went on to 'prove' that planets revolved around the sun along elliptical paths (1627).
Copernicus' work was only a model, and therefore not threatening. Kepler's work was very dangerous, but the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over a Lutheran in Germany.
I am replying to your comment in its original form - not to the later expurgated version that replaced it after some time.
My views about the Inquisition are not those that you falsely attributed to me. There is no excuse for your deception because I had very recently described my genuine opinion in my comment @Joseph Borg. I protest against your original comment because it is deliberately libelous. I never made any excuses for the torture methods of the Middle Ages that I do not consider them “appetizing” at all. Similarly, there is no truth in your allegation that my approval “ …can be seen very clearly in many of your very own comments …”
I feel that you defamed me deliberately by your original comment that was posted for some time before it was prudently edited out. I expect an unconditional apology for your deliberate defamation otherwise I will be obliged to take further action according to law.
If you had read, and if you had understood, my recent comment @JosphABorg you would not be stooping so low as to libel me by the false accusation of approving an “inquisition which is so appetizing to you as can be seen very clearly in many of your very own comments, the same inquisition which put witches on stakes to burn alive. The same inquisition which still serves us with the mask of shame as souvenirs at the Mdina Dungeons”.
I have never said anything that could be misinterpreted by you as any approval of the tortures used by state or church tribunals in the Middle Ages. Moreover, The Msida Dungeons are not run by an Inquisition that does not even exist.
You should hang your head in shame for making such patently libelous and false allegations. I am very disappointed that such libels are allowed at all – especially when reasonable replies in my defence are so often edited out. Your rage at being regularly discomfited is no excuse. I insist on my right of reply and moreover I reserve my right at law to take any other measures in the absence of a genuine and sincere apology.
There is no contradiction – only your usual pretence of not understanding.
You are putting on blinkers so as not to see that Bruno Giordano was condemned for one whole big parcel of theological heresies. The problem was not heliocentricity itself. It was Bruno Giordano’s use of his astronomy theories to support his theological errors. That is why it is put last and after the seven theological accusations he had to answer. And that is why Copernicus, Kepler and others believing in heliocentricity never had to appear before the Inquisition and Galileo was condemned for his reneging on the promises he had given to the Inquisition.
Incidentally it may interest you to know that before he incurred the wrath of the Roman Inquisition, Bruno Giordano managed to be excommunicated by the Calvinists in Geneve, the Lutherans in Halmstadt, prevented from lecturing in Oxford, had to flee from Paris, and was arrested by the Republic in Venice before that republic reluctantly agreed to hand him over to Rome. What a colourful career!
P.S. Medical Schools, in Malta and everywhere else, do not teach astronomy. They teach medicine.
Sincere Congratulations! You have done a superb job contradicting yourself.
In an earlier post addressed to me you said, “…during the Galileo controversy no other heliocentrist received any sanction from the Inquisition”. However, you now acknowledge that Bruno’s astronomical beliefs were on the list of heresies for which he was charged. But predictably, you dismiss this by stating that “His astronomy theories formed a relatively insignificant and incidental small part.”
How exactly did you get to this conclusion? There were eight specific charges and this was one of them. You might as well pick any of the other seven charges and dismiss it as equally insignificant. Logically, the Inquisition must have deemed it to be serious enough (i.e. “Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.”) to have included it in the list of charges….otherwise it would have been excluded. Your statement is based on no facts whatsoever…just an unfounded assumption.
As for you stating that ““plurality of worlds and their eternity” is not the same as the heliocentricity” …now that is comical indeed. Bruno specifically believed in planetary systems (i.e. planets revolving around stars). That is heliocentricity…unless your Medical School in Malta taught differently?
Had you quoted the whole of my sentence, and not just a fragment, you would have discovered that I was not speaking about “absolute truth” in general but only to the particular elusive “truth” that at the time of Galileo the scientific proof that the earth moves round the sun was still elusive – that is no longer true today. “Maybe one day you will accept it as well ...”
The charge of the Inquisition against Bruno Giordano’s astronomy theories must be seen in the context of all the eight charges brought against him and not in isolation. Any other interpretation would be a remarkably dishonest and “very selective interpretation of history”.
Bruno Giordano’s “plurality of worlds and their eternity” is not the same as the heliocentricity of Copernicus and Galileo. In Galileo’s time, geocentricity and heliocentricity were the subject of vigorous academic debate with eminent astronomers and theologians ranged on both sides. The Inquisition did not oppose this academic pursuit as long as it was not diffused outside academic circles as if it were a proven truth – at a time when such scientific proof did not exist.
Your fallacy lies in your blinkered and selective concentration on the astronomy charge and isolating it from all the other much more significant theological charges. That is deceitful. The astronomy charge viewed in its proper context would convince any reasonable person that Bruno Giordano was tried for a massive theological onslaught against Church doctrine. His astronomy theories formed a relatively insignificant and incidental small part.
You realize, of course, that your intervention on behalf of Arthur Soler does not afford any explanation why, apart from Galileo himself, the Inquisition did not investigate any other exponent of the heliocentric theory. The age of Copernicus is totally irrelevant. The Church’s alleged possession of octopus-like tentacles would actually have enabled the Inquisition to take action on all exponents of the heliocentric theory – but that was never its intention!
Your very selective interpretation of history is quite remarkable.
The numerous charges against Bruno were as following: (Source: Luigi Firpo, Il processo di Giordano Bruno, 1993)
• Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
• Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
• Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
• Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
• Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
• Dealing in magic and divination.
• Denying the Virginity of Mary.
And last but not least,
• Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
This last charge was based on Bruno's books in which he theorized that the Sun was simply one more star, and the stars all suns, each with its own planets. Bruno saw a solar system of a sun/star with planets as the fundamental unit of the universe. Essentially, he totally supported the Copernicus model of heliocentricity and refined it further. And for this “heresy” and his apostasy, he was burned at the stake. His only real crime was “Free Speech”, which in those days, was certainly not “Free”
As a doctor I know that a catalyst is an accelerator of a chemical reaction unrelated to mental illness and that is idle to discuss the psychiatric cases mentioned without more information than currently available.
What we do not need is more theories about Nietzsce's insanity. There was a definite family predisposition on his father's side and the suspicion of syphilitic brain disease. The precipitating cause is alleged to have been his distress at seeing a horse beaten by its owner.
Allow me to write this, as usual, off the top of my head. No research, no encyclopaedias, no Stanford quotes. Just common sense.
Reference has been made to Nietzsche's'madness' in his later years. I remember reading somewhere that he was a Nihilist. My mother used to say that holy pictures with the words Nihil Obstat at the back meant that the imagine was genuine - ie 'nothing to impede it'. I may be wrong about N.'s nihilism. If not, then no wonder he went crazy. And then I thought. Maybe he was unstable because he rejected everything. Including faith. The only anticdote to our anguished lives. The fear. Destabilising Human Condition.. That the evolved human brain cannot deal with unless anaesthesised. He refused the opium. So he went crazy. No wonder. Maybe going mad is our natural legacy. Hence we created an antidote. Makes sense to me.
Note. We all seem to make free use of the word mad. I would like someone to give me a definition of mental sanity. How is one declared mentally sane in other words?
Did I say anywhere that “it was OK to burn Giordano Bruno”? Of course not. This blog is about God is Back – it is about the “here” and “now”. It is not about any horrendous methods of extracting evidence by torture or about cruel methods of punishment prevalent four centuries ago and carried out by all tribunals, whether lay or clerical. These cruel methods were not peculiar to the Inquisition, as you would seem to imply. The Church tribunals gave up those methods centuries ago. But today there are states and religions that are still practicing similar abhorrent methods. As far as I know they have not drawn any adverse comments from you. Stop guessing. I do not “rile against Islam for the intolerance towards poor Christians …”. I oppose all forms of religious intolerance and that includes the violent persecutions of today, with particular reference to the frequent Moslem and Hindu violence between themselves and also when “poor Christians” become caught up in that violence.
So it was OK to burn Giordano Bruno because he didn't agree with your religion's particular brand of fairy tales? I guess you're the type that riles against Islam for the intolerance towards the poor Christians…
And a few hundred metres away from the ancient city's hubbub, there is the Meryem Ana Evi (the Blessed Virgin's House).
http://secret-harbor.blogspot.com/2009/08/meryem-ana-evi.html
The house is a destination for pilgrims - Ahh those Turks!! - and the villagers who keep up the tradition are probably continuing a tradition practised by the sizeable Greek Community that lived in Western Turkey until they were thrown out last century. Anyhow, some believe the House dates to about 200AD. In which case, the Virgin never set foot in its kitchen or vegetable garden. Ahh those Turks!!
Got off lightly, "given the circumstances". As Mr Soler pointed out, Galilei could have suffered the same fate as that of Bruno. Luckily for Galilei, however, unlike Bruno he was a genius, had several influential friends both in Italy and abroad, and in the end --and most importantly-- he also had the wisdom to abjure. The latter is important because of the sudden impact that would have ensued on Catholic European societies at the time. One has to give some credit here to the Vatican administration. Social change needs to be implemented gradually in order to prevent instability. Vatican officials had already known that the Aristotelian view of the world had come to an end; but they also needed time to adjust. This to protect their interests and the interests of their allies. Interestingly, at this point in time, Kepler also decided to withhold publication of his newly found laws of planetary motion. All of a sudden, it seemed, everyone in Europe began to realize the potential consequences to society at large, and started to act with caution. And recently, in the Czech Republic, pope Benedict spoke of "...the Christian 'traditions' which have 'shaped' [our] culture."
Thank you for proving so promptly my correct prediction that you will not explain why during the Galileo controversy no other heliocentrist received any sanction from the Inquisition. You are so good at avoiding an issue by diverting irrelevantly to something else – this time to Giordano Bruno. He was burned at the stake in 1600, (sixteen years before Galileo’s first appearance before the Inquisition) and at that time the Copernican theory was certainly not “heretical”. Giordano Bruno’s real heresies were numerous theological errors and included erroneous opinions about the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the Incarnation, Transubstantiation, practicing magic and divination, claiming that Christ was only a skilled magician etc.
I get these facts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy not some “soooooo predictable !!!!!” “infidel” website.
During the Roman Empire, the Jews kept their religion, the Egyptians as well, the Greeks didn't change anything as Paul says in one of his epistles. The early church was competing with many other cults, which ended being incorporated into church tradition (cult of Isis, Mithraic mysteries etc…) Yet for all the tolerance of christianity, nothing of all this survived for long after Constantine ruined the empire and made the pope head priest!
Copernicus published his works when he was old. The church had its tentacles everywhere and effectively muzzled dissent. Then went on to write history to show how great and indispensable the church is. Even in Malta! Until a few decades ago, if your family didn't have the means to help you study, your only option was to become a man of the cloth and be subservient to a clueless bishop.
Spare us your expressions of astonishment and idle speculations. Come down to earth from your wonder and your speculative “may be”. Don’t be vague. Give us your clear alternative explanation why the Inquisition condemned Galileo, and Galileo alone, among all the scientific and theological exponents of the heliocentric theory. I have given my explanation, more than once! Your idea of logical dialogue is to dismiss it glibly as “naïve” hoping to get away with it. Please be usefully constructive and provide us with any different explanation you may have concocted. I know you won’t. You simply do not have any alternative plausible explanation and also you are “soooooo predictable!!!!” in being consistently evasive.
You know, I have been through so much in life - and 'events' keep coming at me. At one point I decided enough is enough. The least I can do is refute lies and being taken for a ride. You would be surprised how strong the weak can be. And being homosexual did not help the cause for continuing faith. You didn't think atheists just happen did you Sammut? Like waking up one rainy/sunny morning and deciding to do with a god. No, it does not happen like that.
I recently went to the Oxford to listen to Richard Dawkins in conversation with another great thinker. I am no scientist and I fairly nodded through most of his references to how we think, the genes, the mechanics. It was above me and I got bored. My area is more to do with WHY people think what they think. More graspable for an earthling like me. I observe people and their foibles. Their mental gyrations, their acrobatics, their dodge'em car machinations, rationalisations - you're still with me? I can ramble too.
Answer this one simple question. Of all the many exponents of the heliocentric theory , scientists and theologians, why was Galileo - and only Galileo - the only one who fell foul of the Roman Inquisition? I have given my answer many times although there is no evidence that you understood it. What is yours apart from your "soooooo predictable!!!!!! "
Quote.. “That is the whole explanation for the Galileo-Inquisition controversy and why NO OTHER SUPPORTER of the heliocentric theory ever earned the sanction of the Inquisition.”
REALLY?
Now Francis, where in Heaven’s name do you get your facts from? Perhaps you would care to comment on the case of Giordano Bruno in 1600 (please refer to my post to Raymond Sammut). However, for your benefit let me repeat what I said to Raymond. Giordano Bruno was an Italian philosopher, mathematician and astronomer best known, like Galileo, as a proponent of heliocentrism and the infinity of the universe. Giordano was not as “lucky’ as Galileo however. In 1600 he was burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition who found him guilty of heresy.
Please refer to this link for more details.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
In any event, it’s a pity that sometimes we get “egg on our face”. Sometimes however, there are those who a big enough to admit that they are wrong, while others persist in their delusions.
Quote, “Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition, which very rarely resorted to torture.” I find your comment interesting. “Very rarely resorted to torture” means that it sometimes did so. It also resorted to “burning at the stake” sometimes. Take the case of Giordano Bruno who was an Italian philosopher, mathematician and astronomer best known, like Galileo, as a proponent of heliocentrism and the infinity of the universe. Giordano was not as “lucky’ as Galileo however. In 1600 he was burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition who found him guilty of heresy. I wonder how much of this horror must have weighed on Galileo’s mind as he “agreed” to denounce his theory, when facing the Roman Inquisition.
The differences between the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions were simply in “degree of brutality”. The Spanish one was certainly a lot more widespread and brutal …but both were brutal. No other institution in the history of the Christian Church was so horrible, so unjust, so...un-Christian The Inquisition was directly responsible for killing thousands of innocent people, and it ruined the lives of tens of thousands more.
You have a way of taking Dr Saliba too seriously.
Is it not absolutely remarkable how some people refuse to accept reality despite overwhelming evidence? Consider for example those who deny…..
- that the Holocaust ever happened
- that Evolution is a scientific fact.
- that the Earth is billions of years old
Of course, there are also those who actually believe that Galileo was not condemned by the Inquisition because he promoted the heliocentric theory. Rather, they naively believe that he was condemned because he broke his promise to the Inquisition that he would not promote this theory. Of course, one wonders whether these people refuse to acknowledge the truth, as doing so, would provide “ammunition to the enemies of the church”. However,, the Pope himself must have given the Church’s enemies lots of ammunition when he publicly apologized to Galileo, albeit 350 years later. Maybe the Pope did realize that truth is paramount, and acknowledging a wrong is the right thing to do.
I must admit my frustration with some contributors to this blog who are soooooo predictable!!!!!! Notwithstanding, I hope that at least one particular individual does keep it up. It certainly provides for a lot comic relief to me and many other readers, I'm sure.
You are so right in your assessment of Galileo’s aggressive, intolerant and devious character that managed to antagonize even the high Church dignitaries who had supported him. That is the whole explanation for the Galileo-Inquisition controversy and why no other supporter of the heliocentric theory ever earned the sanction of the Inquisition. The Roman Inquisition did not oppose the search for that proof within academic institutions. It objected to the heliocentric theory being propagated as the absolute truth by Galileo at a time when that absolute truth was still elusive.
There has always been only one Galileo Galilei, and it's highly unlikely there shall be another. He remains, without a doubt, the greatest man of science for the very simple fact that he "made" science by giving us the Scientific Method. He presented this method in four simple steps, namely, sensate observation, experiment design, data collection and tabulation, and inference. He practiced this method during tuition classes he gave to his cosmology students. It is quite remarkable how we still use these four steps today virtually unchanged. They constitute, most probably, the most powerful form of thinking.
But this also made him a very dangerous man. His unusual abilities were quickly recognized by Guido Baldi, who was a bit of a tinker himself. The trouble with this marquis was that he had many connections in the Vatican, and the Vatican, of course, had the Jesuits in their service -- many of whom were astronomers. It should be clear, therefore, that given the circumstances, the man got off very lightly.
Regards,
Christian Sciberras.
Would it make you happy if, with my tongue in my cheek, I were to agree with you that Nietzsche was only a philologist and not both a philologist AND A PHILOSOPHER? That all the modern encyclopedias are wrong but only you are right? And that apart from his criticism of other philosophers he was also the author of the appropriately named Mad Letters and that he ended his life absolutely stark raving mad?
You should be interested in the details of the Galileo case so as to learn that it served the very good purpose of disposing of the fallacy that the scriptures must always be interpreted literally. This could happen only AFTER the theory of heliocentricity shifted from being a speculative scientific theory to that of a proven scientific fact. Galileo did NOT provide that required proof but his hunch, and that of fellow heliocentrists, was later proved to be correct. In my opinion there was no sufficiently good reason why a Church apology for Galileo’s treatment by the Inquisition was delayed for so long after the Church had tacitly accepted for centuries that the heliocentric view of our planetary system was correct.
You may suffer the misfortune (hopefully not) of one day some people wanting to "identify" you as a philosopher. It happens very often, and to the best of us, and to my mind it would be a terrible thing.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a philologist both by vocation and by profession throughout his entire active life until his health, very tragically, failed him in 1879. He was also a philanthropist by offering himself as a nurse during the Franco-Prussian war. His literary works (1872-1889) are ranked among the greatest of the nineteenth century. How you, Fr Borg, and others want to interpret his works is entirely your business. None of you have any right whatsoever to impose your interpretation on others, especially when you take things out of context.
I pointed at BG&E(1886) in particular because I happened to take an interest in this work consisting of a long series of sharp fast moving argumentative small pieces. I was shocked to discover how Nietzsche vehemently detested philosophy and all philosophers--not just Plato and Kant as you claim. Satan cannot cast out Satan, and I am convinced that Nietzsche was anything but a philosopher.
You are not saying anything that I had not answered before. For the last time:
The Church objected to the wide diffusion of the heliocentric theory outside academic circles, at a time when the heliocentricity was a theory that lacked scientific proof. This was because of the apparent contradiction with a literal interpretation of the scripture. Until then its diffusion outside academic circles as a proven truth was unacceptable and heretical. The Church’s position was clearly stated by Cardinal Bellarmini: “if a real proof of the earth’s motion were given, then the literalist interpretation of the biblical passages concerned would have to be modified accordingly”. Galileo had undertaken to abide by this condition in his previous appearance before the Inquisition in 1615 but he subsequently reneged on his promise at a time when heliocentricity was still debatable theory lacking scientific proof. That is what rendered Galileo’s duplicity and his “Dialogue” heretical in the eyes of the Inquisition.
Being “sooooooo predictable!!!!!!!!!!” you will pretend once more not to understand this but I will not repeat it any more for your benefit.
You are sooooooo predictable!!!!!!!!!! If your life depended on it you still could not ever admit that you are wrong.
You keep insisting that you “proved that Galileo was not condemned for heliocentrism” You did not prove anything of the sort, and you obviously did not read the actual verdict handed to Galileo by the Inquisition and I quote….
SENTENCE OF THE TRIBULAL OF THE SUPREME INQUISITION AGAINST GALILEO GALILEI, GIVEN ON THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 1633.
1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Dear Francis, if you want to continue to “keep your head in the sand” that is your business. However, may I recommend that at least once in a while, you really should get it out and smell the roses? You may even be surprised how beautiful reality can be.
Questions that cannot be disposed of by another bland "Untrue!"
Are you serious or are you only joking when you conclude that by his infamous “God is dead” Nietzsche “is provocatively admonishing us for our materialism and lack of faith”? Are you talking about the same Nietzsche whose hero was a teutonic version of superman (ubermensch) driven by a faith in the “will to power” that inspired Nazi philosophy?
Do you believe that because he criticized Plato and Kant then Nietzsche could not have been a philosopher himself? Have you not heard of “Discensus inter philosophos”? What are you trying to prove by a very incomplete list of Nietzsche’s philosophical works and a reference to his terminal madness? Are you trying to prove that Nietzsche was a philologist not a philosopher when he was evidently both?
Do yourself a big favour, carry out a Google Search for Nietzsche, Philosophy and Philology (e.g. Stanford Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Amazon etc) and count the scores of times Nietzsche is identified as a philosopher – then come back and let us see if you still have the brazen cheek to repeat “Friedrich Nietzsche was not a philosopher”.
My comments (to some ramblings, I do not doubt). I am not a proselytizer by any means. I write and it consolidates what I am about. Beyond that, I do not care. What people believe in is their business. I made my choices. They made theirs. Choices need revesion if we are not to stagnate and die. Some, many, can not begin to start to consider any change at all. Nothing to do with me. And please call me Joe, Francesco. None of this Sir nonsense. I am god's creature, and a nonentity at that. Really I am.
May comments and any links are meant for reading. Whether they are read or not, and whether they are taken on board or rejected as rubbish is no concern of mine. We live in a free world, a free democracy. Don't we?
"God is dead" appears in Nietzsche's greatest work "Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885)". Nietzsche's vitriol against philosophers--and against philosophy in general--comes later in another of his major contributions "Beyond Good and Evil" (1886), from which I quoted in my earlier comment. This is just one year before he collapsed owing to ill health, and shows clearly that he loathed philosophers until the bitter end. His works are scholarly more than anything else, but not philosophical as so many try to claim.
Also, there is nothing "notorious" about the phrase "God is dead". Much ado has been made of this phrase taken out of context. Here is an excerpt:
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?..."(Wiki) He is provocatively admonishing us for our materialism and lack of faith.
You should have noticed the great similarity between your own three questions and the subsequent Joe Xuereb comment mentioning the same questions appearing on the London Underground posters and being defaced by vandals. Personally I do not think that the opinion of these vandals about the existence of God is worth mentioning but it seems that some people believe that their words of wisdom merit quotation in far away Malta.
Nietzsche was a philologist turned philosopher. His notorious "God is dead" belongs to his latter period.
I do not dredge up and defend the methods of the Inquisition (and of the State) commonplace at that time but now abandoned for centuries by church and state. It is not possible to discuss that vast subject in short 200 word comments.
I proved that Galileo was not condemned for heliocentrism: that theory was being discussed freely by scientists and theologians. He was convicted for breaking promises Galileo gave during his first appearance before the Inquisition (q.v.)
Galileo was not the scared weakling described by you. He was a headstrong difficult person, obstinate and confrontational and managing to antagonize even the high prelates, including Pope Urbanus, who went out of their way to support him.
Galileo was proved wrong when he claimed that his wrong theory of the tides proved the heliocentric theory. Copernicus and the heliocentric theory were eventually proved right. The Church was right when Cardinal Bellarmini insisted that: “if a real proof of the earth’s motion were given, then the literalist interpretation of the biblical passages concerned would have to be modified accordingly”. That is what the Church did after heliocentricity was finally proved.
I do not have my own personal standard for conformity with “Roman Catholic Standards”. It is you who claimed a peculiar “acknowledged personal Faith” and it is up to you - not me - to explain in what way this “personal” faith of yours is to be differentiated from classical universal Catholicism. After recovering from your fascination with the word “preposterous” could you please illuminate us (with the help of on-line links if absolutely necessary) how anyone could possibly “inquest”(!) you. “Inquest” is a noun, not a verb, and it means a magisterial investigation following the discovery of a corpse or some serious crime. Where do you fit in?
Godfrey
The Lenten invocation “you are dust and to dust you will return” refers only to our earthly body. It has no terrors for the genuine Christian who believes in the survival of the soul and in an afterlife in the presence of his Creator. The dismal omega of “leaving this hallowed hall a hundred times more alpha primitive” distresses only to the unbeliever.
For the record, Friedrich Nietzsche was not a philosopher. He was, in fact, a philologist. He studied philology at two universities, one at Bonn, the other at Leipzig. Soon after completing his dissertation, he was appointed chair of classical philology at Basel University where he remained until his health deteriorated.
During his university studies, the young Friedrich read the works of Arthur Schopenhauer--a radical cynic and atheist who failed to impress. Nietzsche accused him of superstition, and went on to develop a profound dislike for philosophers; most notably Descartes, Kant and Spinoza. At one stage he writes this vitriolic sarcasm (in BG&E) "In every philosophy there is a point at which the philosopher's 'conviction' appears on the scene: or, to put it in the words of an ancient Mystery: adventavit asinus, pulcher et fortissimus [the ass entered, beautiful and most brave]."
Nietzsche's admiration was reserved for Nicolaus Copernicus and Roger Joseph Boscovich; neither a philosopher, and both deeply Catholic religious men. So I think that Fr Borg is both in error and committing a grave injustice against one of the most outstanding scholars.
The Inquisition was a horrific institution of the Church, guilty of untold atrocities. It systematically tortured, killed, burned at the stake and terrified countless thousands of innocent people. Is there any logical reason not to believe that Galileo was terrified about the possibility of being tortured, or worse, of being burned alive? Come on …whatever happened to common sense?
Now just in case you are still not convinced of the atrocities committed by the Inquisition , and to Galileo , these are the exact words of Pope John Paul when he issued a formal apology in 1992…
"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...
Bottom line...Galileo was right:: the Church was wrong: the Inquisition was horrific.
I find it incomprehensible how you simply cannot see the “forest for the trees”.
The issues are not whether “Galileo’s “proof” based on his theory of the tides was completely wrong.” or whether he was sentenced to a “mild form of house arrest".
The fundamental issue was the horrific level of atrocities committed by the Inquisition throughout the ages, and the fact that Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to avoid being tortured or being burned at the stake.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html
A 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Here is the translation "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become TERRIFIED and weaned away from the evils they would commit." (.. continued)
"Moreover, believers did their best to put religion and the god they believed in into disrepute"
That's pretty much the only thing that made sense here.
Which god of the many?
The title should have read:
"Militant religionism is back"
The US is showing the crude resurgence of idiots with its brand of militant christianity (envangelicals) who think the earth is 8000 years old; take the bible literally; love Jesus but do not want social welfare for the poor; hate muslims, blacks and whoever bursts their bubble - including scientists fighting to keep the science curriculum out of their clutches; they deny evolution but use science everyday to ride to work, fly for holidays and take MRIs thanks to their expensive private health insurance.
In the meantime, the pope seems to have been ignored by the sceptical Czechs. No wander he is railing against atheists and blaming them for all the ills of society!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/europe/27pope.html?_r=1
There is a link to The Theological Status of Heliocentrism - J. S. Daly. Apologies for the wrong info.
And just to clarify a distortion you intentionally created
My comment was " acknowledge that my Faith is personal and that others may as well believe in anything the deem fit. "
You said "your Catholicism is your own personal brand and not the universal Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church as generally understood"
Where exactly in that particular comment or in any other for the matter have I not met your Roman Catholic Standards of conformity ? They may have irked you personally , but you certainly are not in any position to Inquest me or anyone else ! If you do feel that you do than as usual you are just being preposterous ( I like this word ! )
@Andrew Camilleri. In what way is it contradictory ? I never said i don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Can anyone prove it though ... no ... Religion is based on faith not on any tangible proof. That was my line of thought.
It is not honest to mention a Christian interdenominational course of studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course) and to slyly associate it with a totally different and incongruent atheist link. It is simply not true that “All this Alpha Course seems to deliver .... is the promise that: 'from dust you came and to dust you will return'. Or more prosaically, ' you come as alpha (ie primitive) and you will leave this hallowed hall a hundred times more so”. It says much more not to the liking of atheists. Some readers do not swallow everything you write and they do take the precaution of checking the links, you mention, you know.
All this Alpha Course seems to deliver (I have followed a full course on television) is the promise that: 'from dust you came and to dust you will return'. Or more prosaically, ' you come as alpha (ie primitive) and you will leave this hallowed hall a hundred times more so'.
Choose an answer.
Q: What the heck are you all arguing about?
1: That God does exist.
2: That God doesn't exist.
3: Arguing against someone else.
Depending on the reply, here's my reply to your problem:
1: OK, at least 56% of mankind thinks that is true. So just quit it.
2: What can I say? Go search the meaning of "god" if you don't know it. If you do, simply take it as one of those kids' stories, where the wolf eats the god guys, so just stay away from the wolf.
3: This is some serious problem. OK, either get some popcorn+beer and go watch some TV or go to the local band club/bar/WhereverYouWant and keep yourself entertained there.
Seriously, you all have no idea how these arguments are COMPLETELY useless. Most of you aren't even on topic .
Just give it a damn rest, will you? Why the heck do you just keep arguing...for nothing?
Best regards,
Christian Sciberras.
I am glad that you admit that Galileo’s punishment was really a “mild form of house arrest" as stated by me. Your link turns out to be a totally inadequate very short account of the Galileo question that omits to mention the relevant points identified by me in my 200 word précis abstracted from authoritative encyclopedias that devote whole pages to the question. Your link does NOT prove any “notable distortion” on my part – it is simply too short to discuss the points raised. Unlike the other elusive link mentioned previously by StevePace it has the merit of actually existing in an accessible form and not as one “that could not be found” or “Oops the link appears to be broken”. Take some time off, do read more extensive encyclopedic accounts, do not restrict yourself to some fleeting visit to inadequate on-line links and then come back again armed with facts and arguments that I can discuss intelligently. I would not be interested to reply to any rash opinions or advising me to access links of doubtful relevance.
challenges that absurdity has to be worthwhile.
Ms De Baptist, if you cannot 'read' me, arrange a tryst at Cafe` Premier with your confessor, or your general practitioner, singly or menage a` trois, and debattist my spoutings. Why, you might even see me walk past. You cannot miss me. All dressed in black, dark glasses, black felt hat like Aristide's (pseudo feutre of course - like a bride, I must have something pseudo as long as it's not my new groom - some hope!) and bedecked by flashy jewellery, strictly symbolic you understand. A re-incarnation of Michael Jackson with arthritic legs if you like.
One could also invite Charonne la charmante. She would be an excellent arbiter. A breath away from the Grand Master's palace. Chess could never be like this.
Your distortion of history is quite notable. Galileo was given the "mild form of house arrest" only because he agreed to retract his position as he was under threat of torture by the Inquisition. Please refer to the link below.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html
Galileo Galilei was one of many defending the heliocentric theory, but he was the only one to be condemned by the Roman Inquisition. Discover for yourself why his only “crime” was not that of “demonstrating a scientific truth”. Heliocentricity was widely accepted for discussion in academic circles among astronomers and theologians as a working hypothesis sanctioned by the Church as long as it was not promoted as some proven scientific truth - at that time no adequate convincing proof was generally accepted. Apart from Galileo himself, no scientist and no theologian who defended heliocentricity was condemned by the Inquisition. Why?
Galileo himself had been freed from any censure in 1615 but he gave an undertaking not to push the theory as an absolute proven truth. The 1633 Inquisition sentence was not for “demonstrating a scientific truth”. Galileo’s “proof” based on his theory of the tides was completely wrong. The condemnation was for breaking his undertaking to the Inquisition not to present the theory as a proven truth by publishing his Dialogue in which he presented the heliocentric theory as the proven truth and by ridiculing Pope Urbanus as a simpleton champion of geocentricity.
Apologies for my last comment wrongly addressed to you when, obviously, it should have been directed at Arthur Soler.
No “may be” about what I have written! Facts are facts. You are not competent to prophesy that I “… can never admit that the Church is sometimes unequivocally wrong”. On the contrary, I insist that any theologians who maintained that the scripture must be accepted literally were absolutely wrong. Cardinal Bellarmini, the leading theologian of the time, wrote: “if a real proof of the earth’s motion were given, then the literalist interpretation of the biblical passages concerned would have to be modified accordingly”. At that time leading theologians and astronomers were still discussing the theory in academic circles and using it as a working hypothesis with the blessing of the Church. The snag was that Galileo, and Galileo alone, was prematurely insisting that the Copernican heliocentric theory was already the proven absolute truth and he was disseminating it outside academic circles. Moreover he was basing his argument on his erroneous theory of the tides.
You speculate wildly about Galileo’s “mental anguish” and what could have happened to him. Stick to the historical fact is that he spent his house arrest in the luxurious comfort of his friends’ villas. Your idle suppositions and speculations do not merit a reply.
Quote...“I never said, and I do not believe, that the “the church (or any individual Catholic) were so unequivocally always right”. Maybe so. On the other hand, you can never admit that the Church is sometimes unequivocally wrong.
Take the case of Galileo. Quote.."...the actual treatment of Galileo Galilei by the Inquisition was only a mild form of house arrest in his own country house". Mild form???? Come on, get serious please! How could there be a "mild form" of house arrest? Have you ever considered the mental anguish that Galileo must have suffered through the years when his only "crime" was to demonstrate a scientific truth? For this he was constantly hassessed and threatened by the Church authorities. I suppose however that his sentence was "quite mild". After all, he could have been burned at the stake for heresy, as so many others were...even when they were speaking the truth.
And of course the Pope was wrong to apologize 300 years later. After all,Galileo was only subjected to a" mild form of house arrest." And the Pope did not really need to "give ammunition to the Church's enemies", now did he?
You are sooooo predictable!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find the contents of the link below quite convincing, if disturbing (to believers, that is). But then I would be convinced, would I not? The familiar 'preaching to the converted' to quote a cliche. Or to give it a bit of an uplift, 'to preach atheism to the staunch atheist'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
Thank God it's Friday.
@ Joe Xuereb:
You are so hilarious, and quite predictable! I knew that at some point "Café Premier" would feature in your comment. Soon we will be having the “fish in the dust” as well, but probably you are waiting for Sharon to show up so that you can throw it at both of us. - Makes more of an impact, I suppose.
By the way, you do excel at creating tableaux. I must hand it to you. I could just picture it!
“I used to believe that happiness was other people. I gave up on that one long ago. Because it doesn't work. Because it cannot work.” - So sorry that you must have been so disillusioned as to stop believing that happiness was other people! Probably if you were less of a cynic…….?
You are right to say that other religions are to be respected, because there are good things in all religions. However, your statement is somewhat contradictory. A Catholic (or Christian) believes that Jesus is the Son of God - no other religion claims this to be true (hence making Christianity unique). John 14:6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” Since you claim to be Catholic, then this should be the one truth for you. If it is not, then why claim to be a Catholic?
That's the problem with you all. You just keep arguing.... uselessly.
Regards,
Christian Sciberras.
I won’t argue about the so called Christian values but to me these are only natural and I dare say instinctive. There is nothing divine in their origin. What I greatly resent is that many follow suit just because they have been brainwashed in doing so just to avoid eternal punishment.
As Albert Einstein eloquently put it;
“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
"Point is, knowing about something, what it does, looks like, etc, is the first step to test it's physical existence."
And by that I take it that you acknowledge my thesis since;
.. we don't know what god looks like
.. we definitely don't know what god does or wants given the many religions and countless interpretations
.. there isn't a single shred of testable physical evidence
"Speaking of God ... Religion replies to all these questions, hence, God must exist, at least in these religions"
Religion on the contrary evades all these questions. At the very best it comes up with ridiculous notions such as the trinity, holy spirit, original sin and what have you.
However I do agree with the last part of your sentence. Indeed, outside the realm of religion god only exists as a figment of the human imagination. This is easily proven by the fact that there have been countless other gods in the past only to be relegated to myth and fantasy as humanity progressed.
I hope that we as a species are still progressing.
(cont ...)
It is called a Freudian slip when one absolutely denies the existence of God and invokes Him, soon afterwards as the supplier of a superior brain.
Yes it does as you amply demonstrate by your frequent use of the term God (4 times in less than 9 lines, to be exact).
“One should only invest in oneself or in god. Because only god is just and consistent with it."
Would you please elaborate on the above? Help me understand whether you are being cynical or whether you truly believe what you say. Coming from you one wonders!!!
Happiness is other people. Happiness is sitting at Cafe` Premier. Watching couples pass by, totally invested in each other. They found love. But he is normal. His gaze falls on the undulations of the woman walking on the pavement. The gaze lingers that much too long. When they get home there is hell to pay. But they make it up. The investment in another person is complete. Until the next time. I used to believe that happiness was other people. I gave up on that one long ago. Because it doesn't work. Because it cannot work. Good morning all.
Thank you for your clarification that your catholicism is your own personal brand and not the universal Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church as generally understood. That explains a lot!
Please, identify precisely the “Facts according to J.S Daly” that you describe as “Not exactly as you put it Mr.Saliba”. Whenever I try to access the elusive link proposed by you I only get the message “cannot be found” or “appears to be broken”. Do me a favour and submit the facts that, according to you, do not agree – and I will reply.
It should not “seem” to you that I do not believe that “the catholic church in 2000 years has committed a number of errors which later were acknowledged by the pope”. I clearly stated in a previous comment specifically addressed to you, that: “I never said, and I do not believe, that the “the church (or any individual Catholic) were so unequivocally always right”. You fail to understand such plain English when typed in “lower case” and that forces me to resort most reluctantly to “upper case” in the slim hope that this could make a difference! I fear that it won't, either!
I wanted to find proof myself that Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ...thus I thought the best way to do so is to go back to Christ Himself, apostles and progressed into the first generation...that is why what I wrote posts below, gave me the proof that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church. Again what worked for me doesn't necessary it works for others...but what I found out are historical facts.
Please read my two posts way down - don't know if works for anyone else but it did for me.... proof how I came to believe that the Catholic faith is the religion that Jesus Himself founded.
I believe in the catholic faith and a leave a door which allows me to see the validity of other faiths and beliefs. No one including yourself will ever manage to give proof that what we as Catholics believe in is the One truth and that is one fact which irritates you very much but I’m afraid you will have to accept it until such time that you leave this world.
I believe that the catholic church is made of human beings prone to error. Again this may be a very hard fact for you to accept but again, there is little you can do. I leave the door open to the reality that the catholic church in 2000 years has committed a number of errors which later were acknowledged by the pope (not by you it seems) .
I think you should have your keyboard checked. Your caps lock seems to get stuck.
I honestly thank you for your valid contribution to my comments. They add spice.
A little cynicism never hurt anybody. Cynical to a fault mutates into pessimism. When one becomes one's worst enemy. Optimism is of course good. Optimist to a fault is often tragic. It mutates into gullibility. One should only invest in oneself or in god. Because only god is just and consistent with it. The rest, - the mundane, the mortal, the flimsy - forget it.
The God we may believe in isn't there to be disputed. We all know fairies, zombies, etc do not exist, yet even modern day games (as an example) feature mythical/fantasy creatures.
Maybe, people should simply dispute less God and focus more on the values presented by the respective religion.
(rant)
I've read the part were a particular person wouldn't want to pray together with a person of a different religion.
I would like to ask why such a person (assuming s/he is a Catholic) would feel the necessity to pray to his God in a Mosque (assuming the other person is a Muslim) or vice versa.
Best regards,
Christian Sciberras.
You can die naturally at some older age, or you can make it somewhat harder by starving/drowning/suffocating/etc yourself.
Some things you can't return from, I suppose hell is just like that.
@mary borg - And, I suppose that that would answer my - anyone's - question, albeit in your own personal opinion.
@Jason Fenech - Actually, I can. What do they look like? What do they do?
I'm sure that many different cultures may answer those questions.
Point is, knowing about something, what it does, looks like, etc, is the first step to test it's physical existence.
Speaking of God, what is he like? Where is he? What does he do? Religion replies to all these questions, hence, God must exist, at least in these religions.
Lastly, here's an interesting connection between God and the fantasy creatures named by Mr Fenech.
What's the use/point of the mythical creatures? Stimulating imagination, creativity, adventure and fantasy.
Likewise, what's the point of belief in a religion (and its God/s)?
(continued to P2)
Quote…”My problem is why does someone who “honestly believes that there is remotely not enough evidence that God actually exists”, why would he bother that there are Christians who accept Christ’s message that there is a final judgment and an eternal damnation for those who wilfully reject Him and his commandments?”
You are correct in calling this your problem, as it certainly is not mine. Believe it or not, I still have many many friends and family who are practising Catholics and I still have a lot in common with them. In terms of Tradition, Art and Architecture, I am a great admirer of Christianity and these particular benefits that it has contributed to Western Civilization. Thus, I consider myself a “Cultural Christian.”
However, I am also passionate about seeking the truth. I cannot lie about my lack of religious beliefs, but I do not deliberately ridicule those who embrace them…unless of course they happen to show no respect whatsoever for my own position. In most cases however, I have been able to engage in very civilized debates with Catholics, Protestants, Jews and even Muslims. With one particular individual however, I have found this to be exceedingly challenging.!!!!!!!!!!!!
My brief account of Galileo’s second appearance before the Inquisition is NOT “Facts according to Saliba”. The facts are easily confirmed from reliable history books with no anti-Catholic axe to grind and also by an intelligent and honest non-selective study of on-line sources. You will discover that the actual treatment of Galileo Galilei by the Inquisition was only a mild form of house arrest in his own country house. That is another well known historical fact and not one “according to Saliba” only.
Everybody has a different perception of God...some perception depends on how one was treated by the parents or guardians when very young. If treated with love then God is love. if treated with discipline...God is a judge. If treated with cruelty...God sends punishment - a cruel God. It also depends how people and friends treat you...if you find people around then God never leaves you in time of need...especially in time of need. That is as far as the human brain goes.
However, when one experiences God...when I started reading about God and His love... I came to realise God is love, my ever trustful friend, my perfect companion, mymy everything....He is the creator, He is the ever loving Father, He is has no beginning and no end.....the lists goes on, the definition of God goes on
I think we all agree that all the above are just artifacts of the human imagination and anyone claiming to the contrary would be in dire need of psychiatric help.
The burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the believer.
Do I need to go further?
Facts according to Saliba
"The Inquisition was outraged by Galileo’s ingratitude when he put the pope’s words in the mouth of the simpleton character Simplicius to be ridiculed. The second appearance before the Inquisition, resulted from this scurrilous treatment of the Pope in the Dialogue and Galileo’s failure to abide by promises he gave during his first appearance before the Inquisition."
Facts according to J.S Daly
www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf
Not exactly as you put it Mr.Saliba... probably you are still trying not give ammunition to the enemies of the church as you once admitted .
This work gives very comprehensive details of the whole story. It is also very interesting to read how the Catholic church handled people who were deemed heretical . It was surely not a highlight age for the roman catholic church .
You are absolutely correct. My statement "And then there is Hell…which logically cannot exist.” is technically incorrect. What I meant to say was “And then there is Hell…the existence of which is highly improbable.”
I obviously cannot prove the inexistence of Hell. However, I can readily conclude that logically, it is highly improbable. Also, the burden of proof surely rests on those who claim that it exists. There is no evidence whatsoever to support their position.
In a previous post, this is what I asked FR Borg. “How could a loving and caring God damn his own creations to eternal torture, no matter what horrible crime(s) they may have committed? Eternity is a very long time indeed. In any event, since God would have known that they were going to commit these crimes for which they would suffer eternal torture, why then would He have let them be born in the first place?
Albert Einstein said, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.” I hope that this clarifies my position.
Why do you think it cannot exist? You talk of logic, but, thinking logically, how are you sure that such a place of penitence doesn't exist?
Science never says "X" cannot exist, science simply reasons, including how it may exist.
As such, you cannot affirm hell's inexisitence, but rather only confirm you lack of knowledge about it's possible existence.
Best regards,
Christian Sciberras.
Answer that and you will know if he existed or not. Think.
Regards,
Christian Sciberras.
As a catholic i cannot understand how it would be possible to pray together to god or God if you will, with someone from other religions who supports kamikaze attacks on innocent people or a different religion that denies that Jesus was the Son of God.
As you say think about the iconography . Maybe we should create a universal symbol to represent all three different religions in one iron. We already removed the cross from the Red Cross in some counties and now we have the Red Moon !
This is what i have been trying to explain all along my comments. To me they cannot be and are not the same god. If there is one God, then there is only truth .
I wonder how God ( if He exists ! ) would handle three different philosophies diametrically opposing each other and all saying they are one with God .
Jesus said, "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. " I wonder how Muslims and Jews feel about this .
The Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai were evils we were cautioned to avoid in daily life on earth. The Beatitudes, Christ delivered in the Sermon on the Mount aimed at a transformation of the inner person, motivated by love.
The Church in its infancy could have exerted on its followers the spirit that Christ had breathed on its foundation but I do not deny that the Church became degenerate along the years – human nature is tainted by sin, and power and greed is a driving force innate in man even more than his quest for survival. Fortunately there existed within the Church individuals who lived up to Christ’s expectation and these we revere as saints and should be held as icons we need to emulate.
It is regrettable that religions who profess to honour the same God are constantly at “warfare” but even we, the laymen, turn a deaf ear to entreaties the Church sends out for us to tolerate different religions. It is so easy for us to blame the hierarchy of the Church but I believe that we are shirking our responsibility as well.
Please, Sir, may I ask how can “humans have a GOD-GIVEN (my emphais) brain” if the “Proof of the existence or not of god … has so far proved elusive”?
You admit that “Galileo was cleared of any offence” when he appeared before the Roman Inquisition in 1615. You also admit that at that time there was a raging controversy about the validity of the heliocentric theory. Members of the clergy were divided in their support of the two theories. You could have added that Galileo had based his opinion on an incorrect theory regarding the tides and also that the Church had unreservedly supported the academic discussion of the heliocentric theory and its adoption for mathematical astronomical calculations.
Galileo’s second appearance before the Inquisition fifteen years later, in1633, followed the publication of his “Dialogue” written with the conditional support of Pope Urbanus VII who had actively supported Galileo during his first appearance before the Inquisition. What the pope had not bargained for was Galileo’s difficult and contentious personality. The Inquisition was outraged by Galileo’s ingratitude when he put the pope’s words in the mouth of the simpleton character Simplicius to be ridiculed. The second appearance before the Inquisition, resulted from this scurrilous treatment of the Pope in the Dialogue and Galileo’s failure to abide by promises he gave during his first appearance before the Inquisition.
A pessimist is not expected to react favourably to the phrase “Happiness is other people”, but it takes all kinds to make a world and that is what gives life colour and contrast. I am an optimist by nature and I tend to dwell on the good side of life rather than the bad. Just as people can be Hell to others, they can also be Heaven.
In life nothing is expected to be “eternal” but a transient happiness can give one a taste of heaven nevertheless.
Not all marriages go sour and those that do could have had their moments of heavenly bliss. A newborn baby to proud parents; academic/artistic achievements shared with peers; a locked gaze with a loved one; a smile; an embrace; philanthropic work and its ensuing satisfaction; teamwork spirit after a successful game …. If love is a major ingredient, a taste of heaven cannot fail.
@JessicaDeBattista (2)
You then add that “maybe that is what Christ came to save us from.” Maybe so. But with all due respect, is this not mere speculation? Have we not had the Ten Commandments since well before the birth of Christ? Are these commandments not critical foundations of all the three major religions? If we all followed them, should that not lead us all to a balanced life… a good life? I think so. So what exactly was Christ adding which was not already covered in God’s Ten Commandments? What did Christ save us from?
According to Christian scriptures, Christ came on Earth to redeem us from Original Sin and open the gates of Heaven. Is there any reason to believe otherwise? However, since Adam and Eve did not exist, certainly not biologically, what exactly was this Original Sin for which all mankind became somehow responsible? And then there is Hell…which logically cannot exist.
I am sure that you genuinely believe in all of this…and I did too, passionately so. But logic and reason led me to reject essentially all of it, and I evolved into a state of profound scepticism. And that is were I am today.
Quote… “We cannot but agree that man and his egoism has caused a lot of havoc to the general balance of the whole planet.” Absolutely!!! I agree with you 100%. Our planet has had, and continues to have so much strife, with nations hating nations and religions hating religions. For two millennia, Christians have inflicted untold misery on Jews blaming them for Christ’s death. Since the birth of Islam some 1400 years ago, Muslims Jews and Christians have been warring and killing each other, almost always in the name of their God. They have never reconciled the differences amongst each other, despite the fact that they all believe in one Creator, and profess their religion to be one of peace, love, kindness, compassion, understanding etc.
I simply do not see how religion, any religion, has in aggregate, been beneficial to our human race, about which I care very much. I am a “Humanist” first and foremost. I genuinely worry about global environmental destruction, and the ever increasing conflicts amongst the world’s major religions/countries. I am generally a very happy man but I do worry about the fate of my children and grandchildren… (continued).
Your asked “Can you provide us with enough proof to sustain the argument that indeed what the catholic church is teaching is the absolute truth, nothing else but the truth" and "Maybe you could tell us that the church was unequivocally right in stating that it is heretical to say the world is round” also "if the Church was so unequivocally always right".
One of my replies stated clearly that “I never said, and I do not believe, that the “the church (or any individual Catholic) were unequivocally always right”. There is no need for me to elaborate further at your instigation and to refute the similar query if the Catholic Church teaches “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. You are not some court official administering an oath to a Church in the witness box! An answer from me would be another exercise in futility because:
a) it would require volumes, not 200 word comments,
b) it would be a wasted effort because you cannot resist the temptation to distort my comments, and to misinterpret them as your fancy takes you,
c) I have protested often enough about your tomfoolery but you are absolutely incorrigible!
If you want an alternative reason, here it is: Could it be that Christ came to save us from ourselves? I believe that there exists a force of goodness, as well as a force of evil in each and everyone of us. This duality in our nature is constantly battling for the upper hand. Our conscience dictates what is morally good but we are often prompted to perform in a totally different manner. If we are left to our own devices we risk doing harm not only to ourselves and the people around us but to the whole planet in general.
Christ’s Beatitudes teach us to be humble, meek, just, merciful, pure, peacemakers etc., If man abides by these teachings there would be no revenge which prompts wars, or greed for material goods which has resulted in so much injustice. We cannot but agree that man and his egoism has caused a lot of havoc to the general balance of the whole planet and maybe that is what Christ came to save us from.
Quote.. “I wonder why Arthur Soler gets so hot under the collar about any punishment of God when he prides himself that he does not believe "in the Hell as described by Pope Benedict”. The only reason I can think of is that, after all, he is not as convinced about the inexistence of this Hell as he would like us to believe."
Let me assure you first of all that I absolutely and positively do not believe that Hell exists in ANY form after our death…not Pope Benedict’s, not yours, nor anyone else’s.
Why I get so “hot under the collar” about this matter is because I strongly believe that it is criminal for the Christian Church (and Islam also) to inject the fear of an imaginary Hell into the innocent minds of growing children. This is cruel brainwashing to an extreme given that their developing minds are most vulnerable, and cannot distinguish fact from fantasy.
This "fantasy" about Hell cannot possibly be beneficial to their normal development, but can certainly have negative consequences.
Hell is other people and we wish them away. If they do us malice, don't lift a finger. Their malice taints their lives. Self-inflicted punishment (a Persian proverb states, 'when you dig a grave for your neighbour, dig its measurements to fit your stature'. In Maltese we say, 'hallieh f'idejn Alla' (or fid-destin in my case)....leave him in God's hands, to his destiny, what goes around, comes around etc.
Happiness is other people. Wow! where do I start. Surely not based on contractual promises in front of God and x number of family and friends. How can anyone in their right mind promise eternal whatever to anybody. Shakey terrain for happiness. /continued
You quote me correctly as constantly expressing “my unequivocal belief in the one true God as described by Christ and as taught officially by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church." That clear conviction of mine cannot be corrupted into a dishonest interpretation that, for me, “Jesus as the Son of God” or his “resurrection” are only some unimportant minor detail. The detail I mentioned is found in the relative descriptions of the nature of that one same God as interpreted by the different monotheistic faiths. I do not minimize in any way the magnitude of those differences and the details I accept are those professed by the Catholic Church. Any different interpretation could only be due to ignorance or malignant distortion.
You made a question starting: “If the church were so unequivocally always right ……” and I answered that question promptly thus: "I never said, and I do not believe, that the “the church (or any individual Catholic) were so unequivocally always right”. You should understand that I did not fail to give a pertinent answer to your quastion. Period.
but the Churches teachings are Christ's teachings. A proof of this is to take the cathecism of the Catholic Church...after each teaching there is a quote from the bible showing from where this teaching was taken. If the bible is Christ's teachings, and each of the teachings of the Church are taken from the bible, isn't it a biblical Church thus a Church founded on Christ's teachings thus the Church of Christ?
The Church is run by humans who very much sin...thus it's members and ministers even, make mistakes...sin...go against what Christ teaches basically..but these are the members (humans-and humans tend to sin)...the teachings are Christ's thus no mistakes there. What the Church needs to do is to discipline it's ministers where it needs be. At times it is because of the behaviour of these members that the Church gets such a bad name...and it is not just these ministers it could be us as well...the way we live or our diminished relationship with Christ gives the impression that the Church teachings are improper...we are the mirror of the Church..the way we live
You stated "I have constantly expressed my unequivocal belief in the one true God as described by Christ and as taught officially by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. "
I asked ... " Can you provide us with enough proof to sustain the argument that indeed what the catholic church is teaching is the absolute truth, nothing else but the truth "
You replied "I never said, and I do not believe, that the “the church (or any individual Catholic) were so unequivocally always right”.
Do not go beyond what I write in my comments."
I made a question , you failed to answer . Period.
"You have entangled yourself so deeply in your own sophistry that your only way out is no way out Saliba ! "
With regards to your assertion in the quote below,
" preached the heliocentric theory of our universe without any church sanction "
which you may found beyond the scope of this blog, but is relevant since we are dealing with interpretations of God, i dd check and what i found is completly different to what you are stating . -
Before any cautious person would jump to the conclusion that by “everlasting fire” Pope Benedict meant the fire of Dante’s Inferno (rather than Christ's "unquechable" fire) he would take the elementary precaution of reading the whole of His Holiness’s speech on some reliable source and not as a sensational fragment taken out of context in a news item in The Times. Until then it is would only be prudent to believe that His Holiness meant the totally different "unquenchable fire" of his Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. H.H. Pope Benedict, Christ's Vicar on earth and myself are all saying the same thing - even though, according to Arthur Soler, we are probably all wrong!
I wonder why ArthurSoler gets so hot under the collar about any punishment of God when he prides himself that he does not believe "in the Hell as described by Pope Benedict”. The only reason I can think of is that, after all, he is not as convinced about the inexistence of this Hell as he would like us to believe.
Then you say this about Jesus "he could not possibly have been speaking literally of the same bonfire with which humanity is familiar" ..
How do you decide what should be taken literally or not ?
My conclusion is that what i told you before stands more then ever before namely that " If you were a theologian, your interpretation of the bible would be a completely new religion with a new god "
Your definition of Hell tallies very much with mine. May I refer you to an earlier blog: The Tru(wo)man Show – Friday, 27th March 2009, where I said “Hell, to me, is not of the “fire and brimstone” type. I can conceive it as a different dimension where the lost souls, whose ultimate aim is to be reunited with God, are denied their union with God.”
In a comment to Mr. Steve Pace, in the blog we are discussing today, I said, “To me Hell is a denial for the soul to ever be in union with God...... The aim of the soul is to be re-united with its source…”
I trust I am consistent enough in both cases. However I do consider the other possibility for I am as ignorant as the next man/woman about something that has not been proven.
@Arthur Soler: “The Pope specifically said that “Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire”.
The Pope is actually STATING that Hell is of the fire and brimstone type, therefore who am I to question this assertion? However it would be helpful to know how he arrived at this conclusion.
I never said, and I do not believe, that the “the church (or any individual Catholic) were so unequivocally always right”.
Do not go beyond what I write in my comments.
My clearly stated opinion (without your “ergo”) is that the monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, are correct in their common belief in one God. Beyond that fundamental identity of beliefs there are divergent details but the one religion I adhere to is Catholicism. That is the religion I defend against all comers whilst leaving all judgment about the honestly held beliefs of others to God himself.
P.S. Check and learn that the church never stated: “it is heretical to say the world is round” in fact many Catholic astronomers, including Copernicus himself, preached the heliocentric theory of our universe without any church sanction – but that is a big discussion outside the scope of this blog.
My problem is why does someone who “honestly believes that there is remotely not enough evidence that God actually exists”, why would he bother that there are Christians who accept Christ’s message that there is a final judgment and an eternal damnation for those who willfully reject Him and his commandments?
And whilst understanding that religion is still very important in poor / developing countries.. i do believe Christianism is somewhat 'loosing'. Check europe.. monastries have closed down, mass attendance is low, churches becoming private homes, clubs, museums. The same is slowly happening in Malta.
The Nazis did officially persecute and kill homosexuals. However, if one was a sadistic homosexual, one was exonerated. And one was automatically promoted to be part of the killing machine. The Church works along these lines, often. It is called self-serving. But then it is a human institution, instituted by humans and practised by them. What did you expect? Of course you can believe that the whole circus was God's/Christ's creation. And that belie,f, that faith, transcends all the horrors. If God made it, much like marriage and its indissolubility, then it is beyond the pale. You do not question God, no sirreeee!!!
It's one of those blogs I'm afraid. "Tighten your seat-belts. It's gonna be a bumpy ride" (Bette Davis quote). Such fun!
I do not believe Hell exists and especially the Hell as described by Pope Benedict, and other popes before him. How could a loving and caring God create a place of eternal torture for his own creations? Imagine if a father ever tortured his own children because they rejected him? You cannot conceive such an atrocity, now can you? No matter what reasoning any Christian theologians may come up with, it is preposterous to actually believe that such an indescribably horrific place can possibly exist.
Francis Saliba believes that he and Pope Benedict are on the same page regarding this matter. They are not. The Pope specifically said that “Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire”, in effect, an inferno. In contrast, Saliba stated that he “did not believe that damnation would take the graphic form as described in the “Inferno” of the Divina Commedia.” Well, either the Pope is right or Saliba. Most likely they are both wrong.
This raises an even more important question. If Hell does not exist, what did Christ come on Earth to save us from?
When Christ spoke of the “unquenchable fire” he could not possibly have been speaking literally of the same bonfire with which humanity is familiar on earth because that fire is definitely quenchable, it consumes and it is not everlasting. Christ was speaking figuratively (as on many other occasions) using the totally inadequate language of man to explain an eternal damnation whose essential feature was the unrepentant sinner’s self exclusion from the presence and communion with God.
Well done Joe! Your post is excellent.
Let me add that one other problem associated with an unsubstantiated belief system is not simply the ignorance that it fosters, but also the dragging of the innocent into the pools of fantasy. The advancement of knowledge and the faculty of independent critical thought are then severely curtailed. This is because the questioning of religious beliefs/dogmas (and this applies to all major religions) is often considered heresy, with Galileo and Darwin being good examples in Christianity.
But it goes further than that. At the end of the day, we are “birds of a feather who stick together”, which makes it very difficult indeed for an individual to leave his flock…his “klikka” as it were.
Just imagine how difficult it is for one, who is brought up in a fervent religious family /nation, to tell his family and friends that he rejects their beliefs. One is then ostracized at best, or in an Islamic country possibly killed as an apostate. In my case, I often feel that I am not quite in the “klikka” with some of my “friends” anymore.
However, I would much rather be honest with myself, then dishonest with others.
Will last minute redemption save a soul ? A soul which has committed unimaginable crimes. To add some spice , would have Adolf Hitler gone to heaven if he confessed to his sins, surrendered and duly executed by the law ?
Do you think he is in the same hell as someone who has killed his family and shot himself in the head ?
Please note that I am not trying to be preposterous here. I am just asking a question and in no way am I feeling that I have the power to judge .
God is infinite good we say, but we Catholics also believe that God is Just . How is justice made in context of what Jessica is asking ? Fr. Joe… Any help ?
!
If the church were so unequivocally always right, why was there any need for the previous Pope to issue apologies for all the atrocities and injustices committed by the church in the past ?
The conclusion is that now there is conflict in your argument. Since now that you have acknowledged that other religions are not valid. As a representative of the church Fr.Joe is also wrong in your mind. ! This means that your assertion is contradicting what a representative of the church has said .. Ooopss !
You have entangled yourself so deeply in your own sophistry that your only way out is no way out Saliba !
One thing which struck me from all your statements was the following.
"my unequivocal belief in the one true God as described by Christ and as taught officially by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. " - You are stating that the catholic church is preaching the true God.
Ergo you believe is that all other denominations and religions are wrong , since there can be only one truth . You are also convinced that they are not valid and therefore do not have any level of validity as Fr.Joe put it.
Can you provide us with enough proof to sustain the argument that indeed what the catholic church is teaching is the absolute truth, nothing else but the truth.
Maybe your could tell us that the church was unequivocally right in stating that it is heretical to say the world is round
Part One
Thank you for your warm welcome … I haven’t been contributing lately but I have followed the blog.
Earlier I quoted Sartre’s famous saying ‘L’enfer, c’est les autres’ rather glibly because I have had occasion to identify with this particular aphorism. But then who hasn’t ? However, Sartre himself objected to such a loose use of it. He says, in a commentary to the work that contains this phrase, that this saying has been « toujours mal compris » (always misunderstood) because what he actually he meant is that when relationships are twisted and polluted, then it is hell. He asks a rhetorical question : « Why is this ? » Of course, being a philosopher he has the answer. He says that people in are lives reside in us, for they are the means to getting to know ourselves. Sartre goes on to say that when we think of ourselves, when we try to build a knowledge of self, we are unconsciously using what the others already know about us, meaning that we use the same yardstick by which others have judged us.
Part Two
Therefore Sartre is essentially saying that this gauge of self- knowledge is handed to us by the people who know us. So, according to Sartre, what I say about myself, what I feel about myself contains what others think about me. Therefore, if some of my relationships are twisted and polluted (« tordus et viciés ») I put myself totally at the mercy of these people’s judgement, and therefore I am in hell. This does not mean, Sartre concludes, that we are not able to have and maintain relationships, but it charts the importance of other people’s influence on our lives.
On a lighter note…then we can end the Lord’s Prayer thus: “Deliver us from some people so we’ll be in heaven”. Mhux hekk Fr Joe? ;)
You can say that again!!!!
An interesting article can be found here:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html
As I have explained already the Anschluss was initially favoured by most Austrian Catholics, including Cardinal Innitzer, because of the anti-communist element. This lasted for a few months only after the Nazi annexation of , that is until the Nazis showed their true anti-Christian colours by a massive persecution against the Church schools and Church property culminating in the wrecking of the Cardinal's residence because he led a demonstration in St Stephen square protesting against the Nazi persecution of the Church. That was definitely a persecution, not against some anti-Nazi who happened to be a Christian, but a persecution against the whole Austrian Catholic community.
Hi Victoria, welcome back :-)
I wonder what happened to Sharon! Hope she is still following this blog.
It was Jean Paul Sartre who said that "L'enfer, c'est les autres" - Hell is other people...and I believe this completely...
The majority of the nazies were Christians, although their nazi doctrine took the upperhand in most cases, which is why I don't associate nazism with Christianity. I just want that to be clear.
My only point was that their Christian beliefs did not make them behave any better in these cases.
I still claim that there were no general persecution of Christians though. Of course there were people, who happened to be Christians, who were persecuted by the regime at the time, as they were opposing it. Raoul Wallenberg, another personal hero of mine, vanished abrubtly towards the end of the war, after saving countless jews. Wallenberg was SWedish, this does not mean the nazi regime persecuted Swedes.
The Anschluss was opposed by some Christians, but greeted by the majority. I salute the ones opposing, but it in no way shows how Christians in general were persecuted.
I am assuming that the "encyclical letter" you have mentioned is the one of Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge.
It was all part of the politics of the time ... agreement and then disagreement between two political ideologies which led to the stronger-through-arms Nazis trashing their unarmed rivals.
It was all political and took place before WWII and the Holocaust.
We can discuss history, Renaissance literature, or quote the intellectual giants of philosophy, until we are blue in the face, but we will not be able to provide one shred of physical evidence of the existence of God.
In the absence of physical evidence, all arguments fall into the realm of the imagination.
Your answer to Mr. Laarson, "I do believe that the revelation of God by Jesus Christ is the best account that humans have of God. How do we know this? Faith." is by far the most honest answer. Faith. Either one believes or one doesn't; or simply, does not care one way or another.
Problems arise when believers insist on legislating their faith to bind everyone, including the unwilling, into an undesirable lifestyle. In the modern world, anything politicized is bound to meet stiff opposition.
Sincere thanks for your reply. Much appreciated.
I see your point about rejecting God. Indeed, it would make some sense that if one honestly believed in God and willfully rejected Him, then an eternity in Hell could be somewhat justified (although extreme) given it was self-imposed. My problem is that I honestly do not believe that there is remotely enough evidence that God actually exists. I believe even less in a Personal God, given that there are so many of them. I shall not go through my reasoning as I am sure that you probably have read most of my posts. (As an aside, my apologies if and when I went “over the top” in response to one particular individual’s posts, who finds it very difficult to engage in civilized debate.)
Bertrand Russell, who was an atheist, was asked “What if you're wrong and God exists? And what if, when you are facing his judgment, He were to ask” Why did you not believe in me?” He replied “I would say to God “Sorry, not enough evidence”.
I keep searching for the truth,….honestly. In the meantime I remain profoundly skeptical.
Permit me a few questions regarding the above quote from your exchange with Dr. Francis Saliba.
Assuming that there really exists an everlasting fire: do sinners burn for eternity without being consumed?
Are there grades of pain suffered according to the severity of the sins committed?
Just for the sake of the argument, would it be fair to be consigned to the same measure of pain for some common human failing such as unfaithfulness and cohabiting when there are heinous crimes such as murder/genocide, usury, blackmail and most of the evil doings that Steve Pace mentioned?
@Fr. Joe: In view of the above I tend to reason as the Christian authors who moot “the possibility of a temporary hell”. I would also go a step further and say that possibly the “lesser” sins only qualify for purgatory.
Some humans are weak but their love for God is genuine. Would that not be enough to purge them from any human failings? As Steve said "the spirit is mostly willing."
I do not call anybody anything but I categorically reject your heretical opinion that there are many “different gods” in the Catholic religion (to which you were inclined to add your own particular version). You are now trying to squirm out of your predicament by smudging the issue and introducing "metaphors" and "interpretations". I have never quibbled about “metaphors” and “interpretations”. I have constantly expressed my unequivocal belief in the one true God as described by Christ and as taught officially by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. You have entangled yourself so deeply in your own sophistry that your only way out is to imagine that it “seems” to you that I am illogically adopting one of the undefined interpretations of god as invented by you and that, according to you, is “certainly not the Same God we Catholics follow!” Could anything be more preposterous and illogical!
According to you, Hell is “not the earthly fire and tortures imagined by Dante in his Divina Commedia and by other human beings”. Seems to me that Pope Benedict knows something about Hell that you don’t know. Or possibly, could it be the other way around?
POPE SAYS HELL AND DAMNATION ARE REAL AND ETERNAL
London Times
March 28, 2007
Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, Pope Benedict XVI has said.
Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, the Pope said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to "admit blame and promise to sin no more", they risked "eternal damnation - the inferno".
Hell "really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more".
The Pope, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was head of Catholic doctrine, noted that "forgiveness of sins" for those who repented was a cornerstone of Christian belief.
It is a grave mistake to question the Nazi persecution of Christians and to associate Christianity with a vicious Nazi culture whose basic philosophy was based on the inadmissible Nietzschean concept of “God is dead”. At first there was a single point of contact between German Christians and the Nazi party because of a common antagonism to Russian communism. The Nazis shamelessly exploited the Catholic fear of an atheist antireligious Communism in order to further their expansionist dreams to the East. The German and Austrian Catholics very soon opened their eyes after the Anschluss when the Nazis closed parish schools, confiscated church lands and vandalized the Episcopal residence of Cardinal Innitzer Primate of Vienna who had led an anti-Nazi demonstration after initially supporting the Anschluss. Well known Christian victims of Nazism that readily come to mind are the university students who were executed by decapitation for their anti-Nazi sentiments, Pastor Niemoller and Maximilian Kolbe.
An age where we all go through serious doubts about our catholic beliefs which have been force fed since nappy age.
Some of us manage to move on and mature, some of us remain in that safe haven under mama’s wings and retain the religious maturity of an infant never doubting and never questioning faith, God and His representatives.
Now maybe you will say that this is the kind of purgatory you imagine. Well maybe yes, as I write maybe yes, that is what it is actually.
In the meantime many others not pertaining to the catholic faith will raise valid questions. Questions asking whether in deed God exists or whether God is dead.
Maybe yes, Maybe He is dead or maybe He does not even exist. I'd like to believe He does, but what if He does not? Would that Hell and purgatory on earth be a waste of time? Hope not .
The only consolation for those victims of abuse and for those people like us who are sometimes called heretical or anti clerical, is God. His eternal forgiveness and the energy He gives us to forgive those who condemn us and judge us.
In the meantime Jessica, some of us are living this particular form of a hell on earth .
The denial of the soul idea you proposed is extremly valid in my opinion. In my life i have experienced it and from what i saw -
You can call me whatever you want, it still does not change anything in what i said and certainly will not stop me or anyone else from expressing an opinion .
Yes there are as many gods in our catholic religion as there are interpretations. It seems you follow just one of them and it does not be the same God , Jesus taught about and certainly not the Same God we Catholics follow !
The fact that that you cannot understand what is said metaphorically is a limitation only attributed to you and not other catholics or bloggers. So do not put all other bloggers and catholics in your level of understanding. It is an insult to all of us !
Quote “If twenty travelers to Malta gave twenty different descriptions of Malta they would not create twenty different Maltas”. Ah!!!!! But the existence of Malta is an established fact…whereas the existence of God is not. Which is why over the centuries and even today, hundreds of different Gods have been created by men.
You may say that the only one true God is the Christian God, but the vast majority of people on Earth would disagree with you, given that 70%+ are non-Christian. If I state that the only one true God is the God of Islam, how do you prove me wrong? Are more than 1.4 billion Muslims all wrong?
This brings me back to a point that I made earlier. In the Koran, (the word of God according to Islam) it specifically states that a Muslim has the right, indeed the duty, to kill an apostate….and they appear to do it routinely. In Christianity “thou shalt not kill” is one of God’s Ten Commandments. The Koran also states that women must be subordinate to men.
So, which God is the one I should follow? Which one is the one true God?
Human life is based on choices and we are held responsible for our choices. This is the basis of freedom exercised responsibly. Some humans (I don't think that there are many) consciously decide that they do not want anything to do with God either here on earth or for eternity. Hell is the result of such a decision. It is the freely chosen state of existence without the root of existence: God.
Your intrusion (into the question about Hell that I posed to Fr Borg) was unnecessary but not unexpected. I am sure that Fr Borg is very capable indeed of standing his own ground and does not need a side-kick.
Notwithstanding, the incongruity of your arguments is glaring. On one hand you specifically attribute to God “infinite compassion, love and care for mankind”. Of course, “infinite” means FOREVER. On the other hand, you justify God’s willingness to torture his own creations for Eternity (i.e. FOREVER) by stating that he makes the rules. Logically, once God condemns an individual to Hell, his “infinite compassion, love and care” for that individual become very finite indeed. However, I am a mere mortal and using “logic and reason” appears inappropriate when trying to understand God !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for your statement that “God has chosen not to divulge his plans for the eternity that follows His last judgment”, may I suggest that you should read the Bible. There are a few dozen references about Hell by Christ himself. For example, in Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Enough said.
Do children fully understand their parents? Now they don't; but children who know that their parents love them will do what they tell them even when they do not fully understand the reason behind their parents' demands.
The persecution of the Catholic Church in Spain in the 1930s was carried out by the Republican (leftist) regime. The martyrs of this period were all victims of the Republicans/Communists. General Franco was the leader of the great national movement that fought, and defeated this evil regime.
We must not falsify history in order to appear 'even-handed', or tocurry favour with the 'progressives'.
Consumerism got a good blow by you as well, although I fail to see how. I personally see religion as irrelevant, but I can't see how consumerism would lead to this.
I have already commented on the article mentioned and how the conclusion of the reviews you read differs from the ones I read, but your article clearly shows what many people have pointed out before. That for the religious, any belief seems to be better than no belief, no matter how wrong it may be.
Religion has been around for aeons and to be honest I don't think we will see and end to it for a long time, if ever. I do not have a big problem with this, as long as believers are prepared to give me my rightful space.
First and foremost, I think you greatly misrepresent Marx by simply reiterating the much mined quote about religion as an opium of the people. The full quote reveals Marx to have a much higher opinion of religion than most people realise. There is no doubt that Marx was anti religious, but not in the sense that he simply wanted to obliterate religion, but rather saw it as untrue, although both beneficial and useful.
Nazism persecuting Christians? Yes, there were some groups, such as Jehovas Witnesses, that were persecuted. But it is also true that the majority of Nazis were christians.
Also interesting to note that the only one of Hitler's high command that was excommunicated from the Church was Goebbels, if I remember correctly. This for the heinous crime... of marrying a protestant.
Franco was highly critical of Hitler's attempts to manipulate religion, as this went against his deep catholicism. How this amounts to pretending I do not know.
Pinochet I'm quite blurry about, so won't comment on.
Continued...
I understand the point of the story perfectly. Added to that I think the poem which it is sourced from is a lovely little poem (please remind me where the men are from. Indoustan?), providing good food for thought. Despite my fondness for its literary value I find it to be highly inaccurate to describe the division between religions. In the scenario of the elephant the blind men do describe their own versions of the elephant, but they all have the option to validate their separate descriptions by simply further investigating the object the bumped in to. To equate it with religion they need to make claims about properties which they could not know, such as its colour.
Also, you earlier claimed that they (the monotheistic religions) have a level validity and now you claim that only through Christ can we reach a proper high understanding, hinting that christianity have a higher validity. How can we know this?
To answer your question, had you been following the earlier postings, you would have noticed that it was in response to the out-of-step soldier who "could not persuade anybody that he was right and that all the other soldiers were wrong because all of them were not marching in step with him."
The soldier must have been Maltese, in an EU regiment.
You missed also my comment that it was a distortion of history to lump Christians with Jews as victims of the Nazis. Care to comment on that? (Bear in mind that, at the time of the Nazis, Germany was solidly Christian, and Hitler was Roman Catholic.)
Don’t call my comment “nonsense” and then forbid me from replying. First of all you must realize that it is God who makes the rules, not you, not me – otherwise He would not be God.
God’s will, as communicated by Christ, is that man love God and his neighbour failing which he has ample recourse to God’s forgiveness up to the moment of death after which there will be a closure. That has been promised and will be delivered by a just God. The essence of the punishment for the unrepentant would be a self-imposed exclusion from the presence of God and not the earthly fire and tortures imagined by Dante in his Divina Commedia and by other human beings.
God has chosen not to divulge his plans for the eternity that follows His last judgment. Therefore no human being could supply that answer to anyone who has the temerity to demand an explanation and still less to dictate or impose on God – failing which His existence or His mercy and justice would be challenged by presumptuous mere mortals. (subject to any correction by Fr Borg if he thinks the question merits a reply from him).
One day ago you intruded in an exchange between Arthur Soler and myself with your outrageous suspicion “that even WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE EXIST A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT GODS (your words - my emphasis) and that you may just as well conjure up your own personal Jesus god customized to suit your personal specifications. That suspicion of yours is absolutely NOT TRUE. In fact it is simply heretical. There are no number of different gods “WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” and that is not only my opinion and it is a certain reality for all Catholics. I hope that my reluctant use of the otherwise unnecessary Caps Lock will assist you to focus on this real issue.
Your two part comment to Arthur Soler begs for some serious thinking. Like you I tend to be sceptical about the existence of Hell as presented to us during catechism lessons in preparation for the First Holy Communion and Confirmation. I believe there should be a more mature explanation due to an adult. Similarly I do not believe purgatory to be a place such as we see depicted in religious pictures – which granted is only an artistic expression, but certainly approved by some ecclesiastical authority from centuries ago.
To me Hell is a denial for the soul to ever be in union with God and Purgatory is a place where the soul is purged from minor imperfections before it is deemed perfect and worthy to be united with God. The aim of the soul is to be re-united with its source and in this aspect I believe that the soul is that something in man that is God-like.
As to the quote selected above, I would give my own view: Certain decisions I took in my life made me create my own purgatory.
Please do not reply to this post. I’ll await Fr Borg’s reasoned response instead.
The way i see this is from my personal experience. Certain decisions i took in my life made me create my own hell. I for one do not believe that there is a physical hell. The hell i believe in is the hell that will keep me away from being in peace with myself and God.
I used to not believe that the word freedom should have existed in religous terms either.. Why ? for the simple fact that if i am not a good person i will go to hell . So where is the freedom. I either do as God wants or else i am punished !
Today i believe that the punishment is self inflicted . In the sense that not being at peace with oneself is equivalent to being condemmed to hell .
No God will ever try to stop anything from happening. He never did and never will. Why ? that is a good question.
exactly my point... ergo creating a new god.... not God... what is the issue ?
God gave an irrefutable proof of his infinite compassion, love and care for mankind “no matter what horrible crime(s)” committed when he promised a criminal being crucified at his side that he would join Him in heaven that very evening after the thief's simple request that Christ would remember him! It is only the unrepentant sinner that earns for himself an eternal punishment. God allows the sinner to be born because God’s intention is that everyone be given the opportunity to join Him in heaven, no matter how sinful during his lifetime, as long as he does not remain defiantly unrepentant to the very end by a willful rejection of God’s abundant opportunities to repent.
I am not impressed by any primadonna style tantrum. I criticized your arguments. This is proved incontrovertibly by your own description of my comment as: “a valid rebuttal” and “a valid qualifier”. It is this admitted “validity” of my arguments that gets your dander up, not any lack of civility on my part. I do not feel that any apology is due.
Christians do not speculate what “the different prophets decided to interpret” as one God – they accept without reservations the God preached by Christ. Different “interpretations” of this one God do not create a multiplicity of gods. If twenty travelers to Malta gave twenty different descriptions of Malta they would not create twenty different Maltas. It is preposterous to “suspect” the existence of “a number of different gods” “within the Catholic Church’. Anyone may try to “create a new religion” with his own “personal Jesus” and a god different from the one preached by Christ. By so doing he would not be adding a different god to the Catholic faith – he would be cutting himself from the community of the Catholic Church and its God.
In regards to your elephant story it really does not compare. To compare it with theism the blind men would be debating the elephants colour, not it's physical feature. Form and shape is not a limitation for a blind man.
You do not seem to realize that God cannot be actually “very Dead” all over the place and also simultaneously possibly “alive among us Maltese”. You feel the need to ask if “God is alive in us Maltese” then your other claim that “God is actually very Dead” can only be your fantastical wishful thinking.
God, the creator of time, eternity and an infinite universe, would certainly have no problem if God wants to communicate with His own creation. God 'is' perfect.
The fact that we can produce over three hundred different interpretations of the gospels suggests that the gospels communicate imperfectly.
Having said that, a sober view at all mainstream religions that influence world thought, and here I include agnostic and atheist thought, all agree that love of neighbour is the peak of 'spiritual' expression in its widest sense.
The 'God' concept may not be, after all, as complecated as we think it is.
"An audience of 2,000 Christian conservatives gathered to listen to their political and media icons, condemn the Obama administation's alleged socialist agenda and plot the downfall of the Democrats at the 2010 mid-term elections....The mood was angry and defiant at the annual "Values Voters Summit"...After weeks of vociferous attacks on several fronts, including the Obama healthcare proposals ("Obama-care" to the assembled crowd), American conservatives feel they are back on the front foot. Rightly or wrongly, they scent blood...One delegate, Sue Phelps, drew comparisons between Barack Obama, Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler - "they were good orators too" - and said the president's nationality and religion were "unanswered questions".
If this is a typical example of the great American moral awakening, then 'the return of God' is not likely to benefit the poor and the underprivileged. The allied forces of religious and economic conservatism are up in arms because President Obama (the candidate opposed by the US Catholic Bishops - unlike George W. Bush who prayed so often!) is trying to do something for the children of a lesser God.
My point is another. What i am trying to say is that whilst the root may have been one and the same, some people have created new gods . So yes again i agree with you here. It is not the same God.
Imma.... again i ask ... the million dollar ( or euro issa ! ) question.... Who is right ??
These are different interpretations in my opinion of the same God, but yes , as you say the end result is a list of gods . All ready to server their humble servants . All moulded to suite and fit the beliefs of those who want something in return .
I dont agree with the church on a number of issues, i might as well create a new religion with my personal Jesus
Christian doctrine believes in Hell as do some other religions. In the New Testament, there are more than 100 references which warn of Hell and over 50 of these references are attributed to Jesus. The Pope also reminded us some two or three years ago that Hell indeed exists for those who do not follow God’s ways.
What I really struggle with is this very concept of Hell. How could a loving and caring God damn his own creations to eternal torture, no matter what horrible crime(s) they may have committed? Eternity is a very long time indeed. In any event, since God would have known that they were going to commit these crimes for which they would suffer eternal torture, then why would He have let them be born in the first place?
I am honestly looking for an answer that makes some sense, because in my mind, Hell and a loving God are completely incompatible concepts.
Ever since I have been following this blog, I have gone through a transition from a complacent belief in God I have been brought up with, to a disquieting questioning whether He really does exist.
Now I find myself wondering whether moral issues are simply guidelines to live a good life in society whether one believes in God or not.
I believe that life is a pendulum and at present I am in transit to the side that probably will keep me questioning for a while. If I delve too deeply, I might arrive to the breaking point but I am not unduly worried for my upbringing can never truly sever the ties no matter how far out the pendulum will swing - eventually it will swing back..
The fact that this blog is creating so much discussion could, in itself, be a positive sign that God is still very much alive. How often have we heard somebody declare, “To me he/she does not exist”, when in reality these words are only uttered because his/her existence is actually too much present in the person’s heart?
Let me now address your points. I did indeed state that God cannot be "back" because he “never left”. However, I then added that “He has always existed in the minds of millions of people around the world who honestly believe that there is some Supreme Being who is the creator of all things.” In effect, while I believe that God probably does not physically or spiritually exist, he certainly does exist in the minds of people.. and, their perception becomes their reality irrespective of whether God is real or fiction. Thus, for many millions around the world God “never left”.
I have acknowledged that the three major religions are monotheistic. My question, which you have not addressed, is “which is the real God?” As I have pointed out, they are very different from each other. For example, if I were to follow the God of the Muslims, I would have the right to kill all apostates, as explicitly stated in the Koran which is the word of Islam’s God. I would also treat all women as subordinate to men.
Would you not agree that this God is very different from the Christian God?
Can we please keep this debate civilized? It started that way but you are now reverting to your old ways of attacking the individual rather than the argument.
For example… “You assert that God cannot be "back" because he “never left”. Immediately after you had declared his continuous presence you incongruously question his very existence.” …a valid rebuttal which I will address. But then you follow with....” Make up your mind.” ….a personal attack which is uncalled for.
Followed by… “How can a God, whose very existence you doubt, be always present?”…a valid qualifier of your previous rebuttal. But then you add further insult to injury by stating… “Consistence does not seem to be your strong point, does it?”… another uncalled for personal insult.
On your next post your start off with … “Someday you will understand…”. To be honest, you don’t have to be so rude and patronizing. I am not your child and while I do not understand many things in life, I am no different for every other human being on this earth.
An apology would be appreciated.
If different religions mean that god's message was interpreted differently in different regions of the world, as you have argued, does not this mean that had you been born and bred in an Evangelist community you would have come an Evangelist minister and believed your religion to be the most valid? Couldn't you have become an Imam in an Islamic community and believed that the Islamic truth was the most valid truth? That is why I believe that god is only alive in those who believe him to be so. The notion that we cannot understand god's ways, to me sounds as a very convenient excuse to cover all inconsistencies and to prey on the hopeless.
Sometime ago you asked; “Is the wish for a just society a futile dream?” I had been sorely tempted to reply “Yes” in the sense that the quest for absolute justice on earth is a method of traveling towards - rather than the actual arrival at - a desirable ultimate destination – a sort of Don Quixote's “impossible dream” anticipated by Christ’s prediction that the poor will always be with us. I feel the same way about humanity’s earnest quest of the understanding of everything about God through different creeds all trying earnestly to achieve the same purpose along different pathways. Resented inter-religious conflicts arising from this praiseworthy search for the truth can never be blamed on God himself. They are solely due to human frailties and pride in demanding to have an answer for everything. Christ himself in the gospels once replied simply that it was not up to Him to divulge the answer.
Have all these interpretations given people an alternative route to heaven than they previously had ? Are they now on the right track ? or have they been misled ? Who can tell ? And what compensation will they have when they ( If afterlife exists ) go to the other side ?
"But it does not mean that the partial understanding of God is not a valid understanding. Different philosphers and religions reached different and partial understanding of this reality commonly called God. All understandings have a level validity."
There is only one truth but the interpretations are so different .
No Atheist, satanist,catholic or any member of any religous denomiation has the certainty of being absolutely right . Some religions including the catholic faith do not rule out a 'heaven' for anyone who is not a roman catholic. Fr.Joe may like to correct me in this as his expertise is higher in this area.
It seems common ground for all schools to have some sort of eternal reward or damnation .
Some of us do not even believe in God , but believe in energy or balance. Again, this is an interpretation which also holds validty as you said .
My earlier comment that God is dead has nothing to do with any wishful thinking as someone implied. If nothing i wish for the exact opposite. I do however believe that our society has actually Killed God , yes, God in our souls ergo, He is dead.
The more we know about this God the more we will love God and the more we will love God the more we will know about God.
We also believe that the most perfect understanding we can have of God is when we see God face to face after we die.
They were all speaking about the same elephant but from different angles and perspectives.
God is greater than us. In his infinite love God tried to communicate with us. We can never fully understand God. But it does not mean that the partial understanding of God is not a valid understanding. Different philosphers and religions reached different and partial understanding of this reality commonly called God. All understandings have a level validity.
Someday you will understand that your circumlocutions do not disprove my initial assertion that Christianity, Judaism and Islam share a common belief in one single God of creation in spite of Christianity's concept of the role of Christ in the doctrine of the Trinity and of other differences in detail that do not exclude the common belief in one single God of creation.
Malta: No, No, No. No way; never.
Rest of EU: Yes.
Now, what's that noise about an out-of-step soldier?
You ask: “are God, religion and the bible alive in us Maltese …? Your query does not make sense when made by someone who asserts that "God is actually very Dead” Either He is "alive" or He is "dead" not both. I do not think that you are asking a genuine question - it sound much more like wishful thinking!
@ArthurSoler
You assert that God cannot be "back" because he “never left”. Immediately after you had declared his continuous presence you incongruously question his very existence. Make up your mind. How can a God, whose very existence you doubt, be always present? Consistence does not seem to be your strong point, does it?
Quote…. “Your reasoning about outdated astronomical theories is irrelevant because – unlike the prevalent, widespread and durable belief in the existence of a creator God – those obsolete astronomical theories are not held by anybody today because they were disproved scientifically many centuries ago. The same cannot be said about the widespread prevalent and durable belief in the existence of a creator God.”
In the USA today, there is widespread and durable belief (50%+ or -) in Creation rather than Evolution of the species. In the USA Christian South in particular, there is also widespread and durable belief that God created the Earth about 6000 years ago. As you well know, these beliefs clearly contradict all scientific facts. Interestingly, there is widespread and durable belief in the existence of a creator God, by these very same people.
Might it be that they are wrong on all counts?
I am still searching for the truth, but as I said, I remain profoundly sceptical.
I think that God has provided the world with solutions to all the problems we have if only humans acted as a team and worked positively. But instead, we are messing up and stewing in our own gravy.
Who knows what all those dying, starving children could have become if we let them reach their full potential... same for aborted foetuses, abandoned old people who still have loads to tell us... and so on
I actually did read and well understood your second sentence, quote... “They (Christians, Jews and Muslims) only differ in their respective interpretations of the details of his (God’s) attributes and his laws”.
My original question still stands. “I wonder how many Muslims or Jews would acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God and the Creator of the Universe?” You may think that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same one God, but Christ is certainly a different God for the Muslims and Jews. As you will no doubt acknowledge, “the devil is in the details” and these details are terribly important in how people define their God.
The God of the Koran (Muslims) and the God of the Old Testament (Jews) and indeed the God of the New Testament (Christians) are different Gods in many very important details. Which begs the question…? “Why does every major religion believe that its God is the one and only true God?”
This is precisely why there is so much hatred between religions and why, over the centuries, so many atrocities have been committed in the name of God.
Is God back? He never left. Whether he exists is another question.
My comment on the common belief in one God by Christians, Jews and Muslims consisted of two sentences. You give no indication of having read and understood the second.
How come I ask, is it because a) He does not exist b) He is very patient c) He just waits for us to realize and find Him. The answer depends on each of us. I tend to go with the answers b & c. But I must say... He knows how to play hide and seek very well and sometimes it’s very difficult to find him.
On the other hand he must really have a good time, reading our blogs. He must really have a good laugh at us when many of us proclaim that what we do and say is actually in His name! Surely He laughs at those who kill in His name and expect to find virgins on the other side! I wonder if He also sniggers at us when we are made to feel guilty because we have not fasted in lent or missed a mass on Sunday.
How very true. This reminds me of the canvassers of politicians running around just before an election working hard for their candidate. Their reward for their work will be probably an employment soon after the election ( If the candidate is elected ) .
One question which comes to mind is ... Is God back in Malta ? or is He dead ?
I don't personally find any statistics of who goes to church and all that very real for the simple reason that many people simply attend church celebrations either because of fear of sin or simply because it is a custom . My point in all this is .Yes true , the Maltese are mostly Catholics ( or so they proclaim ) , but are God, religion and the bible alive in us Maltese, or are they simply there to provide us with an alibi ?
To be very honest with you , looking just around me in my everyday life, I seriously think God is actually very Dead !
Quote “Christians, Jews and Muslims all agree among themselves about the same one real God”. Really? I must say that that is new news to me. I wonder how many Muslims or Jews would acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God and the Creator of the Universe? The answer is none.
My comment was evidently in response to the sarcastic speculation that the ancient and persistent universal belief in the existence of a creator God must be due to some "mysterious virus afflicting all newborns”. That logic reminded me of a soldier marching on parade and who was putting his right foot forward when the rest of the platoon was putting the left foot forward. He could not persuade anybody that he was right and that all the other soldiers were wrong because all of them were not marching in step with him.
Your reasoning about outdated astronomical theories is irrelevant because – unlike the prevalent, widespread and durable belief in the existence of a creator God – those obsolete astronomical theories are not held by anybody today because they were disproved scientifically many centuries ago. The same cannot be said about the widespread prevalent and durable belief in the existence of a creator God.
Luke 4:1-13 comes to mind - Jesus…was led by the Spirit in the desert … where the devil led him up to a high place and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. And said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
The cartoon comment is even worse. When a person passes on, that person is either ushered to ‘life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary the angels and all the blessed,’ where the person ‘shall reign with Christ for ever and ever’ or stops over to be purified in purgatory or remains separated from God for ever’
A Catholic God created the very eternity of man’s soul. How can He attribute death to a human person. It must have been one of those other gods long dead tipo Bacchus.
You conclude that “…..this universal common belief of humanity (in a Creator) must be well founded and that it is you (and the minority like you) who are out of step and not the rest of humanity from “the high Arctic to Polynesia and all in between”. Well, for millennia, there was a universal common belief from the “the high Arctic to Polynesia and all in between” that the earth was in the centre of the Universe. Today we know for a fact that such a universal belief was completely unfounded. The Earth is, in fact, an infinitesimally small speck of dust in an incomprehensibly huge cosmos.
Could it not be that this universal common belief in a Creator is equally unfounded?
And how much better it is to have religion as opium rather than the harmful substances that man has all too readily resorted to!
Religion might not solve the problems that weigh down mankind but neither does drink, drugs and other questionable habits which modern man, skeptical of religion, is drawn to as he desperately tries to numb his senses and escape from the hardship of life.
If anything religion is “positive” opium for with hope comes the drive to work towards a better life but with the “artificial” opium, man’s noble qualities and his health are endangered. It is often under such effects that man performs acts which in his saner moments he would probably shun.
Having said that, I could concede that it makes sense to think that “religious people are healthier, wealthier and happier than the non-religious.”
Nietzsche's words and works are still very much alive! Very, very few of us will ever leave behind such a great immortal intellectual legacy.
A universal common belief does not make it true just because it is universally common. There used to be a time when it was a universal common belief that the world was flat or that disease was caused by some diabolic intervention. Although Fr Borg may rant that 'God is back' it is also quite reasonable to assume that the percentage of non-believers has grown subtantially, politics does not 'do God' anymore and science proved itself to be a better aid to humanity.
With all the prayer going on around the world, God still thinks that man is better off in a world of pain and misery while He enjoys an eternity of bliss and totalitarian authority. Religion is just self enslavement.
Christians, Jews and Muslims all agree among themselves about the same one real God. They only differ in their respective interpretations of the details of his attributes and his laws. As in all things in life, ”Mitt bniedem, mitt fehma”.
You ask: “How is it that ….. humanity had this common belief in looking up to the skies in search of the Creator?” May I humbly suggest that this universal common belief of humanity must be well founded and that it is you (and the minority like you) who are out of step and not the rest of humanity from “the high Arctic to Polynesia and all in between”?
What is interesting is that there were literally hundreds of different Gods that have existed in the minds of men over the centuries, despite no tangible evidence of their actual existence. Virtually all of them have been discarded in the dustbins. But, there are exceptions of course, with the God of Christianity, of Islam and of Judaism being the most notable ones currently. Unfortunately, they cannot agree amongst themselves which one is the real one. And, none of them has any tangible evidence that their God actually exists.
As for me, I keep searching for the truth. In the meantime, without reasonable evidence, I am profoundly sceptical.
'The single most frequently used noun in the 2008 Republican Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, was "God." '
That one shook Mark Twain in his grave and he thundered: "There is no doubt that, the GOP brass, rapacious and morally rotten as they are, are deeply and enthusiastically religious."
On a more serious note, lumping Christians with Jews as victims of Nazism is a distortion of history. The Holocaust was the result of racism and deep hatred towards the Jewish race.
Being neither a philosopher, nor a theologian, I find the questions about God's existence or non-existence, to be rather humourous. To me, the perplexing question is: How is it that, even long before Marconi came around, everywhere on this planet, from the high Arctic to Polynesia and all in between, humanity had this common belief in looking up to the skies in search of the Creator?
It must be some mysterious virus in the air that afflicts all newborns' instinct ... with the challenge of: Now that you know, prove it!
The difference between God and Nietzche is that God has the power to resurrect Himself - Nietzche, doesn’t.
….“It seems that there is more truth to the Nietzsche and the tomb stones cartoon than perhaps meets the eye at first glance!”