< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Brother Mario

 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
14 April 2017 15:39
 

Some newbie had an idea pop into his head that Jesus wanted to abolish money.

No. He didn’t.

He wisely taught that when a person becomes trapped outside of themselves from a false love of external material things, that person cannot enter within themselves and find the more true love of God and all that implies.

I know someone who loves to buy an Angus steak bagel and a medium iced coffee at Dunkin Donuts a few times a week. The bill comes to around $7.50. For the life of him, when he sees (and he really looks) the young people serving him who are not making much money, he just can’t take back the $2.50 change from the ten dollar bill he always pays with, even if he has the exact amount. For him, he is receiving so much more for the $2.50 than he could imagine getting anyplace else. He is happy that money is not abolished, for he gets to use it for more than buying things.

[ Edited: 14 April 2017 15:41 by Brother Mario]
 
June
 
Avatar
 
 
June
Total Posts:  337
Joined  09-06-2013
 
 
 
14 April 2017 16:34
 
Brother Mario - 12 April 2017 07:26 PM

Hi, June.

You’re at this place in your life because of who you are, not because of this person or that who happened to stop by.

But in saying this, take the time to read the letter of John Paul II I posted a link to above. Read a comprehensive step by step apologetic for how faith and reason join together to give to us a certitude of the truth. You will find in this letter an apt description of why today there is the atheistic thinking you now cannot support as good and true.

And “science” is not something that is atheistic, for every scientific discovery opens up more insights into God’s greatness, not into a mindless nature not needing an intelligent God.

Remember, it was a Catholic priest who was the scientist that discovered the Big Bang.

And the Vatican has a respected observatory.

Take care and keep fighting, for it is a fight.

As Einstein said:

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

Hi Mario.

I didn’t want you to think I hadn’t any intention of reading the letter.  I do.  I opened it, and found it to be very long, and being on a computer screen, I’m limited, so I’ve decided to read small portions in the early mornings before work.  Much about human nature, caught my attention. 
 
No, I was not aware it was a Catholic priest that discovered the Big Bang.  That is also interesting.

I’ve taken an interest in the subject of String Theory, God and consciousness, our connectedness for the non-scientific person.and have had a book recommendation already.

 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
15 April 2017 19:33
 

Hi, June.

I’m glad you’re reading the letter. There’s a lot in there that explains what our modern age, and this forum, is all about.

No one else here will read the letter because atheism is first and foremost a product of a personality that simply doesn’t want to be told to do anything.

I see today’s atheists as children who hated so much their parents calling them in from playing outside that now that they are grown ups with the power they refuse to stop what they’re doing and obey any call.

Pay particular attention to where the pope explains how the modern thinker has limited our knowledge and understanding to detached facts, and also where he explains how truth is no longer a priority because everyone’s opinion is equally valid to the modern thinker.

These two ridiculous positions are the heart and soul of this forum.

That is why on one thread there is a call for abolishing all religion because certain Christians don’t bring their children to the hospital, on another thread a relationship with God is equal to a relationship with aliens, and so on.

The dozen or so regular atheists here are so convinced of their superior thinking that they are blind to how they have to keep reminding themselves, and others, by telling everyone how they are not stupid like some religious people.

And what does their superior thinking consist of?

They search Google and the dictionary to write plagiarized paragraphs that appear intelligent but are devoid of any true knowledge and understanding of anything important.

This is the swamp infested modern world we now find ourselves in.

The letter will help you to navigate the weeds and avoid the leeches looking to feed off of you when you tell them that “spirit and truth” matter more than “emotion and opinion”.

Have fun in your journey toward the living God.

But never forget that he is coming toward you as earnestly as you move toward him.

 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
15 April 2017 21:27
 

So on LadyJane’s thread the atheists are debating whether or not religious motivation to do selfless acts is real.

Didn’t know that was an actual question worth asking, seeing as how human history is utterly filled with examples of how religious people lead they way in giving of themselves in every conceivable manner.

You know, being Easter and all, it seems to me that a brilliant critical thinker would be able to piece together how the sacrifice of a single human being that resulted in the revelation that we will all experience a resurrection after we die would be a powerful motivator for us to do more than clothe our bodies and feed our faces.

It’s almost as if a brilliant critical thinker must selectively turn off part of his or her brain to maintain their brilliance.

Strange. The darkening of the mind makes it more brilliant.

...

Have a great Easter, everyone!

(By the way, Easter still makes a sound when it falls on the Sunday after the vernal equinox even if atheists aren’t around to hear it.)

[ Edited: 15 April 2017 21:40 by Brother Mario]
 
Lausten
 
Avatar
 
 
Lausten
Total Posts:  268
Joined  12-09-2016
 
 
 
16 April 2017 05:38
 

Hey Mario, wondered where you went. I think I read that Pope thing a long time ago, but I’ll read it again when I get a chance. I pretty much just skimmed your thread. Can’t say I’m too interested in a post that begins with calling someone an asshole. Anyway, one thing caught my eye, that thing about a priest discovering the Big Bang. It’s not entirely factual. And it’s not unusual for a priest to also be a scientist and to be able to separate those two disciplines.

Here’s some more detail on that history http://winter60.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-pope-and-big-bang.html

 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
16 April 2017 08:07
 

Hello, Lausten.

I didn’t think I’d hear from you again ... sharp point coming too close to a bubble, and all.

But I’m glad I did. You provide a perfect example of today’s modern thinker who is a superstitious believer in science—i.e., a person who believes that a strict following of the scientific method in science can do other things than science. Like when Steven Hawking writes that philosophy is dead or that God isn’t needed for creation, and he has the quantum mechanics to prove it.

I started this thread by outlining a snippet of my positions on such a modern thinker as you, then a few posts later the word “asshole” was used, but not by me. I guess your skimming of this thread left you wanting in facts, but not wanting in adding another feature of me to the picture you have in your mind to help you dull the sharp point coming towards you.

Which brings me to your website.

First, it is “entirely factual” that the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître was the scientist behind the Big Bang theory, which he called a “creation-like” event. And, interestingly, his “primeval atom” or “cosmic egg” correlates to Steven Hawking’s “quark-sized black hole” as the event that we call the Big Bang. The discoveries that went before him that this priest built upon do not negate his importance in being the one scientist to bring it all together as a single atomic-sized event that began the creation and expansion of our immense universe.

Second, you state on your website that dogma must be separated from science because Catholic dogmas must be followed. Wrong. Only ex cathedra proclamations must be followed, of which there are only two. The relationship between dogma and science is the same as any relationship between the scientist and his philosophical thoughts that become metaphysical principles. It is a metaphysical principle that no two contradictory statements in the same sentence can both be true. That every effect has a cause. Etc. Without these principles scientists couldn’t function. But there are greater principles that only the best philosophical minds know. And only scientists with such a mind will be able to go formulate theories that actually work in answering the big questions, such as, How did a finite universe come into being through a finite event?

Here are some metaphysical principles that today’s scientists fail to follow, so come up lame as a rule:

There cannot be an infinite number of finite things.

There cannot be an infinite line of secondary causes.

No combination of lesser things can account for a greater thing without something even greater than the greater thing being added to the lesser things.

And, in following such principles as these, the “dogma” that there is an infinite all-powerful God behind all that exists in our physical universe becomes crucial to any progress a scientist can make beyond simply finding another scientific fact to add to the list.

So, it is only a superstitious belief you have that scientists trapped in the scientific method will one day answer all the big questions. In fact, this is the greatest superstition we are faced with today. It leaves us empty of all that makes us truly human.

...

“Pop!”

[ Edited: 16 April 2017 08:11 by Brother Mario]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 April 2017 09:42
 
Brother Mario - 16 April 2017 08:07 AM

It is a metaphysical principle that no two contradictory statements in the same sentence can both be true. That every effect has a cause. Etc. Without these principles scientists couldn’t function. But there are greater principles that only the best philosophical minds know. And only scientists with such a mind will be able to go formulate theories that actually work in answering the big questions, such as, How did a finite universe come into being through a finite event?

Here are some metaphysical principles that today’s scientists fail to follow, so come up lame as a rule:

There cannot be an infinite number of finite things.

There cannot be an infinite line of secondary causes.

No combination of lesser things can account for a greater thing without something even greater than the greater thing being added to the lesser things.

And, in following such principles as these, the “dogma” that there is an infinite all-powerful God behind all that exists in our physical universe becomes crucial to any progress a scientist can make beyond simply finding another scientific fact to add to the list.

So, it is only a superstitious belief you have that scientists trapped in the scientific method will one day answer all the big questions. In fact, this is the greatest superstition we are faced with today. It leaves us empty of all that makes us truly human.

Well, we do agree that science is limited. And, in my view the method is not yet fully developed in terms of scope. As for where to start with the rest. Golly, gee, so many straight lines, so little time. Let’s start with a quibble.

The statement that two contradictory statements in the same sentence cannot both be true isn’t metaphysical, it’s the logical law of non-contradiction. Heidegger did write a book called The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic, so you could say that since logic is founded on metaphysics the laws of logic must be metaphysical but that’s a bit of a stretch.

Don’t be too impressed by “metaphysical principles” The book Quantum Philosophy by Roland Omnès deals with some of them, pointing out that while such principles as causality seem valid in the everyday world, they fail in the quantum world (even logical laws fail there, for example, excluded middle).

Of course, your other posed principles are open for question:
1. Can there be an infinite number of finite things?
Well, what world are we talking about? In geometry a point is finite but, Zeno to the contrary, there are an infinite number of them in any finite interval.
2. Can there be an infinite line of secondary causes?
Best to ask Zeno, (but also question the principle of causality): and look to the fallacy of continuity, which you might like.
3. Can something greater emerge from the actions of lesser things without there being something every greater than the greater thing being added to the lesser things?
a. Well, in one sense we’re looking at the “intelligible cosmos” here, and the idea of Logos.
b. In a more mundane case, what about a flock of birds? It moves as a single entity, dancing in the air, the flock is certainly “greater” than the individual birds making it up but in fact it arises because each individual bird just does it’s thing subject to three basic constraints: (1) avoid collisions; (2) be attracted to ones neighbors; (3) move in the general direction of ones neighbors. So where is the thing greater than the flock that is added to the birds? Is it these simple conditions of flight in a flock?
c. Is the greater thing just the “laws of nature” which determine how the “lesser” things may be attracted to interact in ways that produce something “greater” than just an aggregation of “lessers?”

While I’m tossing references and quotes about, here is from The Confessions of al Ghazali: He has been describing how he was seeking a foundation for certitude and, having realized that opinion and sense perceptions are not certain, he must look further: “Then I reflected in myself, ‘Since I cannot trust to the evidence of my senses, I must rely only on intellectual notions based on fundamental principles, such as the following axioms: ten is more than three. Affirmation and negation cannot coexist together. A thing cannot both be created and also existent from eternity, living and annihilated simultaneously, at once necessary and impossible.’” But then he considered that even in accepting these principles he may be deceived and they may not be certain (note that he is pushing this skeptical line even further than Descartes). This cast him into a state of profound anxiety: “Such thoughts as these threatened to shake my reason, and I sought to find an escape from them. But how? In order to disentangle the knot of this difficulty a proof was necessary, but a proof must be based on primary assumptions, and it was precisely these of which I was in doubt. This unhappy state lasted about two months, during which I was not, it is true, explicitly or by profession but morally and essentially a thorough-going skeptic. ...I owed my deliverance not to a concatenation of proofs and arguments, but to the light which God caused to penetrate into my heart—the light which illuminates the threshold of all knowledge. To suppose that certitude can be only based upon formal arguments is to limit the boundless mercy of God.”

And of course, this wouldn’t be complete without some of my own input:

Some say science is the only way.
It’s got to be religion, others say.
But flowers don’t care
What perfumes they share—
Look to the fields, see the children at play?

Words as signs may sometimes point the way
Or help to keep dread darker doubts at bay.
But I have a hunch
At the final crunch
Reality will strip them all away.

 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
16 April 2017 10:15
 

Hi, burt.

Long time no hear ... your squabbling.

...

Sorry, these are metaphysical principles because they abstract into the 3rd degree from language naming (1st degree) the things around us and mathematics counting (2nd degree) those things.

And being “impressed” by metaphysical principles connotates an emotional response.

What I am is “knowledgeable and understanding of” metaphysical principles, which connotates a talent for and education in these principles.

Once again you have ventured out of your education in mathematics without taking those clothes off first to dress for the new environment.

I wonder what you would think of me if I looked up, for example, the binomial theorem and tried to impress you with what I memorized by reading about it.

Not too much, I think.

I know you have taken up the hobby of philosophical debate for most of your adult years, but this is not the same thing as being a true philosopher who listens for wisdom crying out rather than the noise of others they just happen to agree with.

My post above needed to be thought about deeply, not rushed through to quickly voice a false bird analogy to what it means for a thing to have a greater essence than the lesser things it is composed of at first glance.

In my mind, you are the one who has become impressed with what you have found in the reading of others who, like you, are philosophers by trade rather than by the gifts they have been given in the womb. And that is why my posts, which you sense as “something”, do not amount to anything in your mind.

...

Have a great Easter.

And remember what I wrote when Easter wasn’t an hour old early this morning:

Easter still makes a sound when it falls on the Sunday after the vernal equinox even if atheists aren’t around to hear it.

I know you liked that one.

 
Lausten
 
Avatar
 
 
Lausten
Total Posts:  268
Joined  12-09-2016
 
 
 
16 April 2017 10:39
 
Brother Mario - 16 April 2017 08:07 AM

Hello, Lausten.

I started this thread by outlining a snippet of my positions on such a modern thinker as you, then a few posts later the word “asshole” was used, but not by me. I guess your skimming of this thread left you wanting in facts, but not wanting in adding another feature of me to the picture you have in your mind to help you dull the sharp point coming towards you.

Using an expletive because someone else used it is still you using it. It does not excuse the behavior. I seem to remember explaining some other childlike maxims like this to you.

I’m not going to argue physics with you because you wrote a rather long post (that appears logical at times) to convince yourself that God is necessary, but you forgot to actually use logic. You know some logical principles. I can see that because you just explained them, but you have no problem ignoring them when it suits you. It makes it nearly impossible to have a conversation with you. If we were sitting across from each other I would stop you mid sentence when you broke a rule of logic or threw in an ad-hoc statement, and then you would accuse me of interrupting and say I have to hear your entire illogical discourse so I can understand it. It doesn’t matter that most of what you say is factual and logical, if you make one illogical leap, it can destroy the truth of your conclusion.

It’s like that cartoon. The one with the big equation on a blackboard and then near the end it says, “then a miracle happens”, then the final answer to the equation.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 April 2017 17:07
 
Brother Mario - 16 April 2017 10:15 AM

Hi, burt.

Long time no hear ... your squabbling.

...

Sorry, these are metaphysical principles because they abstract into the 3rd degree from language naming (1st degree) the things around us and mathematics counting (2nd degree) those things.

And being “impressed” by metaphysical principles connotates an emotional response.

What I am is “knowledgeable and understanding of” metaphysical principles, which connotates a talent for and education in these principles.

Once again you have ventured out of your education in mathematics without taking those clothes off first to dress for the new environment.

I wonder what you would think of me if I looked up, for example, the binomial theorem and tried to impress you with what I memorized by reading about it.

Not too much, I think.

I know you have taken up the hobby of philosophical debate for most of your adult years, but this is not the same thing as being a true philosopher who listens for wisdom crying out rather than the noise of others they just happen to agree with.

My post above needed to be thought about deeply, not rushed through to quickly voice a false bird analogy to what it means for a thing to have a greater essence than the lesser things it is composed of at first glance.

In my mind, you are the one who has become impressed with what you have found in the reading of others who, like you, are philosophers by trade rather than by the gifts they have been given in the womb. And that is why my posts, which you sense as “something”, do not amount to anything in your mind.

...

Have a great Easter.

And remember what I wrote when Easter wasn’t an hour old early this morning:

Easter still makes a sound when it falls on the Sunday after the vernal equinox even if atheists aren’t around to hear it.

I know you liked that one.

Well, I had hoped that you would respond in the spirit of philosophical inquiry rather than the dogmatism of your fixed beliefs, but of course it was only a pious hope. Like the filled pot, your mind needs to be emptied before you will be able to profit from my hints and subtle indications (and no, I won’t go on to speak of cracked pots, that’s the province of my friend Lao Zi Pot). Remember, pride goes before a fall, and your boasting reeks of pride. 

Often times, attending to the Guide
I stumbled, stopped, and sought a place to hide.
As effort expands
We need helping hands,
So on this path the gravest sin is pride.

Highest law says as we sow so we reap
So seek the knowledge that doesn’t come cheap.
The opening door
That leads to much more
Is the realization: ‘I Am Asleep.’

Wake up, Mario…

[ Edited: 16 April 2017 17:18 by burt]
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
17 April 2017 07:23
 

Lausten, you failed to mention my specific sentences that were illogical. And if by “illogical” you mean that my mention of God—an infinite all-powerful perfect being—in a discussion on the big questions immediately makes me so, then I beg to differ.

And what ad hoc (purposeful) statements were there? Are your posts pure logic without the slightest bias toward the exclusion of God because you have excluded God in your personal life?

Please.

My post above wasn’t to convince myself of anything. Forty years ago I began seven years of experiences, great personal sacrifices, and a quest to educate myself properly to understand these experiences. For you to suggest that I now go on the Internet to convince myself that I am somehow different from people who merely opinionate about God (and in their opinion God could not exist because he doesn’t show himself like a cockroach crawling across the floor) is what strikes me as a person trying to convince himself.

The logical position is that any person who claims the things I claim is either a liar, a nut, or completely trustworthy. It would be illogical to see me as a person who was simply mistaken, and a person, such as you, who claims that God is a no-show because he has never experienced God is the trustworthy one.

No. I do not trust your narrative on the existence of God. And I am perfectly logical in this distrust.

...

And what the fuck is wrong with an expletive? Are you an intellectual prude?

And it would be “child-rearing” maxims, not “childlike”.

...

And the existence of God is only a “miracle” to a person dug into sensory perception so deep that he or she sees only what the eyes see and hears only what the ears hear.

And if you are such a person, then any philosophical discussion we may have will be tethered to the ground under our feet unable to be lifted into the sky above our heads.

...

And the final answer to the equation on the existence of God will come from the person with positive knowledge of God he knows to be true through experience, not the person with merely negative responses to God’s existence he sees as true through opinion and bigotry.

...

God exists, and he is first and foremost a divine being with a personality that we receive our being and personality from. Science has never discovered a single fact that completely limits the human being with a personality to the physical universe.

Therefore, it is the most illogical thinking of all to claim that “who we are” is simply a combining and evolving over time of the 118 known elements subjected to physical laws and energy.

[ Edited: 17 April 2017 07:27 by Brother Mario]
 
Lausten
 
Avatar
 
 
Lausten
Total Posts:  268
Joined  12-09-2016
 
 
 
17 April 2017 08:36
 

The critical phrase in my last post is that it is nearly impossible to have a conversation with you. You ask me to point out the specific places where you were illogical, but if I responded to that, it wouldn’t be the first time. And I wouldn’t being doing much more than using descriptions of logic and reasoning that are available to both of us and that you’ve shown knowledge of. But you don’t stop to find agreement on principles, you jump to accusations of what is in my head.

You didn’t merely mention God, you used the concept like this:

And, in following such principles as these, the “dogma” that there is an infinite all-powerful God behind all that exists in our physical universe becomes crucial to any progress a scientist can make beyond simply finding another scientific fact to add to the list.

And then went on to tell me I’m trapped in some method, which is ridiculous, because the method I use is specifically designed to be aware of traps and avoid them. Attempting to have a discussion with you without getting over these hurdles is pointless. This is what people are telling you when they say threads you participate in lead to the same problems.

The next question would be: If I accept the possibility of a being behind the creation of the universe, how do you get from there to your particular god? Do you really think anything would happen other than you accusing me of thinking your a nut and arguments about what logic is?

And I really don’t give a fuck about your fucking fucked up language, other than it gets in the way of trying to communicate.

 
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
17 April 2017 14:29
 

Lausten, the “problems” you, and other modern thinkers, face when you read my posts are your own, not mine. Much of what I’m telling you any scholastically trained thinker would tell you. But you have fallen into the trap that to build upon the past is wrong-headed. It’s not. In fact, any thinker who starts from scratch has already lost all chances of actually arriving at a truth that matters.

The letter I told you to read, and you didn’t, would have told you what I am telling you now. But I guess your “method” doesn’t allow you to read certain things, even if those things were written by someone who changed the world.

It’s no secret to a pope or to a person like me that modern thinkers are some of the poorest thinkers humanity has ever produced. They go back and forth asking the same questions over and over again, all the while refusing to search out the answers to these questions that were given centuries ago by the greatest thinkers humanity has ever produced.

Go read the Doc and Nhoj writing a whole lot of nothing about consciousness, awareness, and some other third thing. They are trapped in the physical universe trying to explain things that are not physical. The answer to what is consciousness, for example, will not be found in chemicals creating brain functions because the power of consciousness is greater than any combination of chemicals and brain functions. The brain is merely the seat of consciousness, not consciousness itself. Only a truly philosophical understanding can make this leap from the seat of a power to the power itself. And no modern thinker using the tools he got in a rhetorical theory class is capable of such philosophical understanding.

So we can’t communicate because you have modern ideas in your head about how we can gain knowledge and understanding of an infinite all-powerful God, which you refuse to define as anything more than a person’s “particular god”, as if the measure of truth is found in the mind of a human being and not in the truth itself.

In the letter you would have read that modern thinkers deny any knowledge and understanding of an absolute truth. All we can hope for is a relativistic opinion that each of us possesses equally. How is this logical? How can everyone know as much as everyone else no matter what another person has experienced, been taught, or has the talent for?

No. It’s not my logic but your logic that is flawed.

I aced rhetorical theory.

I read everything and avoid nothing for I know that the greatest trap to fall in is to be a stubborn bastard foolishing reading only those things that support my opinions.

Your modern talking points I’ve heard many times before because that’s all an atheist can do, regurgitate a talking point, when faced with a scholastically trained argument they know nothing about because they have avoided the “trap” of knowing what the past has taught us.

Hell, the posters here are so incapable of arguing with me at a scholastic level that one of them posted a Bingo game of my “fallacies” to provide himself an excuse for his o ignorance of everything I tell him.

...

So read the fucking letter and see if you can understand a word of it, or your “specifically designed” method is bullshit.

[ Edited: 17 April 2017 21:02 by Brother Mario]
 
Brother Mario
 
Avatar
 
 
Brother Mario
Total Posts:  1156
Joined  26-02-2017
 
 
 
17 April 2017 14:36
 

burt, read your post to see the confused mess you are posing as some sort of humble wisdom.

I am not filled with pride by telling you that I had experiences of God, sacrificed much, and made sure I got the proper education to understand well all that my experiences and sacrifice revealed to me.

In fact, I don’t feel a thing when I write to people about God. It’s far more of a duty than anything else.

Now, if you saw me paint a house ...

 
Lausten
 
Avatar
 
 
Lausten
Total Posts:  268
Joined  12-09-2016
 
 
 
17 April 2017 17:06
 

You’re asking me to first believe what you believe, then we can talk about it. That’s not a conversation Mario.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›