Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

You would think that if the Bible were the WORD OF GOD, He would have enlighten his children to the true nature of the universe. This is a common fallacy of thought.

     Let’s not get into fallacies, here. . .  Let’s forget for a moment that our brains are too small to handle "the true nature of the universe."

      Why forget something that hasn’t been established one way or the other yet?  Whoops.  Too late to forget about fallacies. . . Insight into "the true nature of the universe" would limit us in the following ways: – no need for faith

      So you don’t believe that faith *IS* insight into the "true nature of the universe", nor the result of such insight?  Why, then, would you have "faith"? – no joy of discovery

     Is there not joy in discovering the rightness of your hopeful insights? – no opportunity for problem-solving

     Problem solving does not come from insight? – no reliance on others

      This has absolutely NO bearing on the question at hand, and has no relevance, nor any truth value.  Why would having insight into the universe remove reliance on others? – no new knowledge to look forward to or to reach out for

      So you think that when you see the outer skin of the onion, there is nothing new to be discovered when you peel it away to find a new, different layer? God has in that sense saved the world from nihilism and despair.

      Because knowing about the universe leads to nihilism and despair?  That would mean that the universe is a place that SHOULD be viewed with nihilism and despair.

Response:

about: I think generally the church accepts physical disability easily but does not yet percieve the difference between moral issues and biochemical disorders, etc. I think that a lot of people in general think this way about mental illness and disorders that we can’t see.  If you can’t see something then it must not exist.

     I think it’s a bit more subtle than that.  Not only can’t you see it, you can’t really understand it unless you have a point of reference.      A good friend of mine just told me about how, when she was getting ready for a trip, she ended up going (to a room, upstairs, something) some five times before remembering "Oh, yeah, that’s what I wanted to do", and kinda realized (not that she didn’t have an idea already) that this might well be an "ADD baseline".      If she hadn’t believed in ADD, she might now be able to understand it, because now she had a more solid point of reference.

Response:

I think that the Christian church better soon change some of the old doctines of "if its  something emotional/mental, it doesn’t exist or it must be a demon", which unfortunately is a little too literal out of the bible.

     Actually, you’d be lots more accurate if you said "the Christian churches that believe the doctrine of. . . should change it".  Not all Christian churches believe any such thing.  There is a lot of variation in interpretations of what "Christianity" is.  Some groups believe that it’s wrong to drink wine when Paul actually told one of his followers to do so.  Was Paul an immoral type, not to be believed? (Well, insofar as his rants against gay folks, yes.  But I digress.)

Response:

(Marvell — "had we but world enough and time…") That’s from a John Donne seduction poem and has little to do with christianity or God.  Just thought I’d show off exactly *how* selectively trivial my memory can be.  I have a hard time remembering an important appointment for two hours, but I can remember an exact quote from a poem I read five years ago.

Sorry, I can’t help myself! Ron was correct–the poem is "To His Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvell. It is arguably among the very *best* seduction in words that has ever been written: To His Coy Mistress Had we but world enough, and time, This coyness, lady, were no crime. We would sit down, and think which way To walk, and pass our long love’s day. Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side Shouldst rubies find: I by the tide Of Humber would complain. I would Love you ten years before the Flood, And you should, if you please, refuse   Till the conversion of the Jews. My vegetable love should grow Vaster than empires, and more slow. An hundred years should go to praise thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze: Two hundred to adore each breast: But thirty thousand to the rest; An age at least to every part, And the last age should show your heart For, lady, you deserve this state, Nor would I love at lesser rate.      But at my back I always hear Time’s wing