Her cause is our cause

Just wanted to correct the last post if facebook which contained an outdated petition link. I felt obligated by conscience to do this. Below is the correct one with a rough translation of each component of the page.

Her cause is our cause. To be more precise, it is a humanitarian cause for her imprisonment, and her mission. The humanitarian mission to save the life of the unborn, and justice for the persecuted who fight for them in peace and charity.

Please sign the petition.

Here is the Screenshot and rough Translation of each component:

1. Name
2. Last Name
3. Country
4. Zip Code
5. Sign Button
6. Message of Sergiusz Muszyński (View Translation Here)
7. Petition Letter to Ambasador of Canada in Poland (View Translation Here)

Can we really do anything in Iraq?

For days now, I have been posting on social media the atrocious events going on in Iraq. For the most part, I wanted to let others be aware of the evil people are facing in Iraq under the threat of ISIS. A member of my family commented and asked what we can do? It was a very very good question. It was a question that left me to ponder what could we really do? This left me to think that we really cannot do anything. I am not a state power, or a figure of great influence in the world. As a commoner, what power or influence do I have? After much reflection, nothing can be further from the truth. We can do something. Every person can in his or her own capacity can. In my own reflection, two ways came into mind. It consists of the spiritual way and the material way. Whether you are an observer, a commoner, a person of faith or not, you have a capacity to do something. We can do something by approaching it in two ways. We can approach it in a i) material sense or in a ii) spiritual sense.

We can in the i) material sense spread these events in social media as a way to create awareness and thereby create public outcry. Prior to the increase awareness of the atrocities in Iraq through social media, mainstream media has been silent on the matter. When social media became bloated with reports of children being beheaded, and minorities being trapped and surrounded by ISIS in the mountains, the mainstream media jumped on board. Soon enough, public outcry increased. This I believe influenced those who hold authority to take action, for it placed them on a spot where they had to give an account of their standing. It required a decision on their part from the public and not a rhetorical exercise. Prior to social media and mainstream media reports, the majority of the people knew about the ISIS situation in passing or ignorantly. I was among the ignorant. People were compelled to make some level of response to the situation in Iraq, but not until they started seeing videos and images in social media of Iraqis being murdered in masses. After increased awareness through social media and mainstream media, the U.S. was prompted to take measures. After all, the world has not forgotten that they went into Iraq erroneously, and the world holds them at some level responsible for what happens to Iraq in the now, or in the long run. Social media influences mainstream media, mainstream media influences public opinion through agenda-setting, and public opinion influences those who have the power to enact measures. Spreading awareness of these events will no doubt help, as it has done so to some measure in recent days. Sadly, events like these have been happening in Syria and Egypt in the last few years, and the mainstream media was quiet on the issue.

In the ii) spiritual sense, we can offer our prayers and sacrifices to God to assist those in danger of dying. As a Catholic, I approach it in a very sacrificial and atoning manner. Jesus empowers us to make sacrifices by uniting it to His cross, thereby effecting the good and welfare of those around us. Every Christian can make a spiritual lent at any time. A lent enables us to cut off what is wrong in our lives, and to apply the fruits and sacrifice we make for the good of others. This is something that is not new. In history, this ability to pray and make sacrifices (e.g. fasts from things attached) for the greater good has been tried and tested. One example is during the great threat of the Ottoman Empire to expand (their pattern is the same as the Jihadists) throughout the Mediterranean during the 16th century. Christian nations united to form a league which resulted in their victory in the Battle of Lepanto. Prior to and during the battle, all of Europe was called by St. Pope Pius V to pray the Rosary. The result, circumstantial changes just before the battle. The wind current  did a 180 which became a strategic advantage in naval standards for the Christian forces. The League which was outnumbered became advantaged by a twist of fate.

These are just two ways in which we can choose to approach this sad situation in our own capacities. I think it is even better if we approach it using both ways. These however are are just ways by which I will attempt to approach it in my own capacity. There are probably many other ways which we can do something. But for me this is something very reachable in our daily lives in this side of the world.

The Bible is an Evil Book? Objections 1-2 (Rebuttals 2)

"yet I can't help but think you're bending over backwards to apologize and justify what still is revolting and by any standard unacceptable pretense."

Reply
No bending over backwards here, as I just gave an exposition to the LOGIC of why the evils you speak of in the Bible are not what you allege it to be. This statement above does not at all respond to my expositions. Rather, it assumes the points above without providing the premises or reasonings to back it up. The statement above begs the question, so it is therefore in the category of Logical Fallacy. Please provide reasoning as to why my rebuttals to youR assumptions in Objection 2 ( Infanticide is an easy one. We need only look...etc.) is "bending over backwards to apologize and justify what still is revolting and by any standard unacceptable pretence".

"I get it you love your god. The Jo b story I have obviously confused for another, when I can find his name I'll gladly share it."

Let me know when you find the right one.

"Making apologies or justifying the cruelties of your god doesn't make it any less offensive."

Here is another Logical Fallacy of begging the question. What is the cruelty of God in following Justice in an uncompromising sense? Justice considered to its logical consequence is proportional to the cause of God's actions against the Egyptians, and the breaking of the Law. Ask those who work in the Legal profession what their take is on the actual events as I have exposed, ask them to judge whether it was justified. I believe that they will see the principle marks of Retributive Justice for which our current modern justice system employs. It is also kind of strange to me that you sta te an apparent injustice of God in how he treated the Egyptians and Law breakers, but yet you give no reference to the cause. It leaves me to question whether you have knowlege as to why God did those things which you think is evil. For a conclusion to be made on a thing, one needs knowledge of the cause. In this case, you have made no demonstration. You have substituted the cause (God's Actions) with uninformed speculation ("Infanticide is an easy one. We need only look...etc").

"You're okay with the god of the Old Testament being a capricious, cantankerous, mean old (*). I am no where close to okay with that."

I am not okay with God being any of those things you mentioned, for as I have articulated why certain things are in the events of the Bible you mention, God is not any of those things. In the passages I have addressed thus far which you contended, all I can see is the Nature of Evil and its seriousness, as well as the nature of Justice, what it is, and its execution to its Logical consequence. No one in their right mind would contend that Justice is evil or punishing evil would be unacceptable. One thing to consider also which really puts a lid in your argument that God is mean and unfair (paraphrasing here). With Justice, all m en deserve punishment for the wrong he has done (I accuse myself here first). But what does God do? He executes Justice without compromise while at the same time sparring all. How does He do that? He became man, took upon himself the punishment we deserve, suffered in His Passion and Died on the cross as a result. All this, for you, me, and everybody, so that we might live and not perish. Why do you think, those severe things in the Old Testament no longer happen in the present. Why does God now seem to be more lenient? I will tell you why. He took everybody's guilt and punishment and took it upon Himself by suffering and dying on the cross. He did this so that you, myself, and everybody else would not perish from Justice, but that we would be saved through Mercy. This too me is innefable. "God is Charity"(1 Jn 4:8). Good luck proving that God is those unfortunate things you say of Him in light of what he did for all of us in Jesus Christ. It is kind of ironic that somewhere else you say somewhere away from this thread: "26,000 that will die. I'm sure they pray harder than anyone and god either doesn't care, doesn't exist, or just says no," but yet when God takes action against evil or misfortune as is evident in the Old Testament, you call Him "capricious, cantankerous...". I suggest reconsidering your positions by reading the texts you question in depth and in context. Study the principles of Biblical Hermeneutics.

The Bible is an Evil Book? Objections 1-2 (Rebuttals 1)

Objection 1

“The bible also wrote about promoting, rape, infanticide, genocide, misogyny. Any bible that tells me to rape and sell my sister is not one I"m gonna associate with. I thinks I"ll stick to much less evil books. Like the Satanic Versus.”

Reply

Please post the passages you are referring to which you think promotes "rape, infanticide, genocide, misogyny". I will respond to them. I believe you are misinterpreting the scriptures. Scriptures can easily be misinterpreted, if read subjectively and w/o knowing a basic understanding on how to read it correctly. You need to read it in context and as a whole to understand it or to avoid misinterpretation. No part is greater than the whole. Also, you must remember that terminology in languages differs. The Hebrew language in which the old testament was written originally, has terms that have a more expansive meaning than the English language. The English translations of the text are limited. You also have to know the Two Senses of scripture to have a correct grasp of the text. These two are Literal and Spiritual (spiritual is divided into, allegorical, moral, anagogical). I mention these only to demonstrate that reading the texts in part and in a simple sense w/o the two senses easily distorts the texts and can easily be misinterpreted. I have an idea of which texts you may be referring to, but for clarity and so as to reply more adequately to your objections, please post the passages you are referring to and I will reply to it. Your statement of the Bible's alleged promotions is a result of based and LITERAL ONLY interpretation of the Scriptures. The scriptures need to be read in two senses. Also, Satan has no verses, and has no need of it. His very actions are marked in Human History. To express this mark in simplicity, we can infer that Satan's only verse and not verse(s) is the Destruction of Man. He has no need of verses, for this single verse hits the point precisely. With that in mind, why would you say that you would "stick to much less evil books. Like the Satanic Versus"?

Objection 2

“Infanticide is an easy one. We need only look to his his petty murder of the firstborns of Egypt.”

Reply

When reading the Old Testament you must keep in mind its context in relation to the New Testament. Since Christ has not yet arrived in the scene, much of the offences in the Old Testament are treated with severity in balance with Retributive Justice. God who is perfect executes justice in a more strict sense without compromise. For His son, who is to apply Mercy and Forgiveness to the whole world through His death and resurrection by taking upon Himself the sins of the whole world, has not arrived yet. I do not consider the death of the Firstborns in Egypt as murder or infanticide (it does not treat of children or infants alone, but all of the firstborns of Egypt which includes animals), but rather, it is justice being executed to its logical conclusion. Through justice, Egypt as a Nation was punished for its DECREE AND COMMAND TO ALL OF EGYPT to cast into the river all whomsoever would be born of male sex in the people of Israel (Ex 1:21). This to me is Retributive Justice. Also bear in mind that this is severe (killing of all Male Born Israelites) in comparison to what God did to the Egyptians (First-borns only and only after numerous warnings). God constrained himself into the first born only. Nor did God end the lives of the first born by dashing them into the river which the Egyptians did, or inflict death through the sword. Instead, he put to death by disease or sudden death. He also gave Pharaoh a warning as to what will come unto them if they do not let go of His people from slavery and oppression. This is evident in His command to Moses to warn Pharaoh through plagues and continual pleading until eventually when God warned that through the hardness of heart of Pharaoh, death will come upon the first born. God pretty much gave them a heads up and an opportunity to avoid such events. Petty Murder? More like Justice and Mercy.

“Incest is welcomed in so many places but my favourite is when Job loses his wife and home and the angel Gabriel asks his own daughters to go lay down with him.

Reply

Where in the book of Job does he lose his wife, or where does the Angel Gabriel ask his daughters to go lay down with him? I do not see it anywhere. Job’s wife lived with him throughout his ordeals, his first daughters died from a wind storm which caused the house they were in to collapse on them (Job 1:19), and new daughters were given to him (Job 42:13-15) after his tough ordeals. Regarding these daughters of Job after his ordeal, they are only mentioned in the end, and that they were beautiful and received inheritance from their Father.

“How about that he flooded the whole world, that covers genocide, on one occasion.”

Reply

Genocide is broad in its definition, and to apply it to this passage demonstrates a lack of understanding for the term. Universally, it is understood by Genocide Scholars as an “intent to destroy”, or annihilate in totality a particular nation, race, group or religious group. In more recent times, a qualification is posited and added to the genocide definition debate by Dovid Kotz who is a Jewish human rights activist and scholar. He posits in addition as a qualification to the definition: “without allowing the victims any option to change views, beliefs or allegiances to save themselves”. In this case, I do not see this as fitting in any of the categories that define Genocide. The men in this case (flooding) was put to death due to their evil doing and not due to their particular nation, race, group or particular religious leaning if they had any. I would even argue that these men were of the same race, group, and nation as Noah. This is simply God’s Justice being executed to its logical conclusion at a time when Christ has not come yet as a sacrificial lamb to atone and repair for the sins of men. At this time as is evident in Genesis, just before God ordered Noah to build the Ark, God saw “that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that ALL the thought of their heart was BENT UPON EVIL AT ALL TIMES”(Gen 6:5). He is justified in deciding to put an end to their life. He also has the right to do so since He created Man with a purpose in mind with evil not being one of them. Since His Son has not arrived yet to atone for the forgiveness of sins, God’s Justice which is executed precisely to compensate for injustice, is retributive and rightly so. But thanks be to God, He sent his son in the fullness of time for the forgiveness of sin which no man can repay. I would think that Genocide applies to the killing of the innocent in a particular race, group, nation or religion and not to the evil and guilty in general. Evil and Guilt is not constrained to a particular race, group, nation, and religion.

“Stoning adulterers, and those that break the sabbath, a verse very close to that one about gays in Leviticus,”

Reply

This passage which I think you are referring to (Lev 20:10,13) deals more with Human instituted Law (Stoning and Putting to Death etc..) as a means to deter anybody from breaking the Divine Law (e.g. adultery, same sex intercourse). In context of the present Biblical time in question, life was unruly and is given over to lawlessness, therefore great evils (adultery, murder, robbery, etc...) occurred. Also, men have for generations been habituated to do evil, that to undo such a habit would take grace. Since Christ has not yet come, avoidance from evil or breaking of the law depended on human establishments, whereas when Christ came into the world, the doing and keeping of the law dependent on Grace and his revelations or teachings. These Human Laws in particular was by the circumstances of the time necessary, otherwise, there is no possible way that this law could be observed which in turn affects the welfare of others due to the hardness of Man’s heart at the time. But as a reminder, this was only applicable in the Old Testament before Christ came to teach us how to observe the law and for Himself to atone for our sins by His sacrificial death. This is evident when Christ spared the Adulterer in the Gospel of John (Jn 8:11). Christ having come into world through his sacrifice and entrance into Human Life, makes it possible for Man to observe the law not only in letter but also in spirit. Justice entered the world through the Law, but in Christ, Justice is fulfilled (His Sacrifice on the Cross), through Mercy and Grace. Hence, it is impossible to posit in the context of the Scripture in whole that it promotes what you mention. Since the Scriptures comprise of the Old AND the New and taken as a whole and the old being understood only in the light of the New, it is impossible to posit the Scripture for promoting the evils you speak of.

With regards Exodus 31:14 which I think you are referring to with the Sabbath observance, it is Divine Law. However there needs to be a distinction made in the passage itself by careful reading. Here is an example of one such passage that if read simply without consideration of Hermeneutics (Interpretation), can be misunderstood. “Keep you my sabbath: for it is holy unto you: he that shall profane it, shall be put to death: he that shall do my work in it, his soul shall perish out of the midst of his people” (Ex 31:13). Note the distinction between “he that shall profane it, shall be put to death” and “perish out of the midst of his people”. Doing work in the Sabbath only entailed the outcasting of the offender from the Nation and its privileges (covenant) and not physical death, whereas profanation of the Sabbath is a direct insult towards the remembrance of God’s Work in saving them. Since profanation affects the well being of the Nation as a whole which could spread to others and thereby risk others from losing the covenant, it is in this case that the Public Authority has the power to inflict death in this instance. The Death sentence was applied as protection for the welfare of the people.

“but I know how you guys like to pick and choose.”

Reply

I hope I do not fall into that error. I will try my best not to. However since time is limited, I will respond gradually as it would be impossible to respond to all of your objections at one sitting. I will respond to your first reply. Then when the debate on this part is exhausted, I shall move onto your next stated objection(s).

Going back to picking and choosing, I think I could say the same with your method of argumentation to support your claims, for they you only have thus far quoted the passages without consideration of its relation to the New Testament. You have only thus far critiqued the scriptures in part by picking and choosing. I noticed that you have only thus critiqued the old testament apart from the new testament. In Empirical Sciences one comes to the full knowledge and assessment of a thing by considerations of all its parts. Thus, a thorough hypotheses of a thing can be made. Can one then critique the substance of a thing or give a hypotheses of it (Bible) by consideration in part only (consideration of the old testament without the new)? Perhaps this is something you might consider.

“How about when asked to prove his love to god Job was asked to drown his own children.”

Reply

Job was asked to drown his own children? Perhaps you have mistaken it from another passage somewhere or heard it as hearsay. In the Book of Job, there is no mention of being asked to drown his children.

Concluding Comments to Objection 2

Hopefully these response would be enough for the moment for discussion. Then we shall move on to the other passages you mentioned. Thanks for welcoming the dialogue. The Greek ancient scholars (Socratic Method) were very familiar to dialogue. It served as a great means for acquiring knowledge for both sides through critical thinking. I hope this suffices for now, please be assured that I will respond to your remaining quotes as soon as I am able to.

Comprehend vs. Understand

Continuing Clarifications and Objections

The Athenean Stranger Says: I like your preliminary response, I found it quite amusing actually. Correct me if I'm wrong but basically what you're saying is that the phrase "CANNOT COMPREHEND" actually means you CAN comprehend, but just a little bit. I thought that was funny but I can see your point and I would like to expand on it a little further with an example.

Lets say you (or I) were at a rocket science convention and attended a seminar on how quantum physics is related to nano technology using chaos theory mathematics. We may "NOT COMPREHEND" or grasp the concepts being presented, BUT atleast we would have some inkling that the subject relates to our physical world. My reference to this train of thought is from your comment "It is important to note that the expression CANNOT COMPREHEND is not to be confused or understood to mean the absence of apprehension or understanding of a thing, but rather it presupposes the existence of SOME understanding (knowledge)." I don't know if it was the best example but again, correct me if I'm off the wrong track.

Back to my definition, I think this is a matter of context. Now to explain my point, another example: Consider a man who is blind, deaf and dumb. The man is sitting in an empty room in the Philippines, unaware that there is a camera focused on him. You are in Mississauga, sitting in your home office watching this man from your PC. From your position you simply try to explain 1 + 1 = 2 to this man. In the very slightest, can this man comprehend you? Could he understand you? ... Of course he cannot. Why? This man has no knowledge of you. He is handicapped with 3 of his senses and undable to use the other 2 due to circumstance. He is completely oblivious to you. It is in this context that I say he (we) "CANNOT COMPREHEND". Actually I think in this context any word would do: KNOW, GRASP, UNDERSTAND, APPREHEND, etc. Now using your definition of transendence (" .. beyond limits ..") I am still able to hold my position that as human beings we CANNOT COMPREHEND because of inability, lack of capacity and/or circumstance. So, as I hope you can see, without trickery there is no fallacy and the problem really does have teeth.

I know I was supposed to wait till you finished your response but I had some time today to I was able to say a little something. I'll wait for your next response

The Vendéen Response: You need to make a distinction between NOT COMPREHENDING and NOT UNDERSTANDING.

I like your preliminary response, I found it quite amusing actually.  Correct me if I'm wrong but basically what you're saying is that the phrase "CANNOT COMPREHEND" actually means you CAN comprehend, but just a little bit.  I thought that was funny but I can see your point and I would like to expand on it a little further with an example.

Nowhere did I say Cannot Comprehend means, I can comprehend, but just a little.  That would be a contradictory sentence. In my last clarification, I made A DISTINCTION between CANNOT COMPREHEND and CANNOT UNDERSTAND in opposition to your placement of those two expressions as equal. I am using LOGIC here and not loose terminology. In repeating here my last clarification: “To not understand and to not comprehend is not the same thing”. CANNOT COMPREHEND does not signify in the proper sense the absence of some understanding (knowledge), but rather it signifies “the inability to grasp or possess in totality or fullness a thing”. Therefore, to say that WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND GOD on account of His Incomprehensibility is illogical. To rephrase what you wrote above in understanding what I am saying, it should rather say CANNOT COMPREHEHND means you can understand some things and not all or FULLY. Simply put you Cannot Comprehend implies a limit and not a negation.

Lets say you (or I) were at a rocket science convention and attended a seminar on how quantum physics is related to nano technology using chaos theory mathematics.  We may "NOT COMPREHEND" or grasp the concepts being presented, BUT atleastto ou we would have some inkling that the subject relates r physical world.   My reference to this train of thought is from your comment "It is important to note that the expression CANNOT COMPREHEND is not to be confused or understood to mean the absence of apprehension or understanding of a thing, but rather it presupposes the existence of SOME understanding (knowledge)."  I don't know if it was the best example but again, correct me if I'm off the wrong track.

Somewhat, but to be more precise let me modify your analogy above. We may not comprehend (fully) the concepts being presented but we are able to grasp SOME things. We are not completely oblivious to what is being spoken off. In the things spoken of we understand what the concept of physics is (study of matter in motion through space and time in general), what mathematics is in a general level (e.g. numbers, some equations), what technology is in general etc.., but in terms of making sense of it all in the full sense on the subject of “how quantum physics is related to nano technology using chaos theory mathematics”,  we understand it in a confused and limited way. But despite that, there exists SOME UNDERSTANDING (knowledge of some particulars).

Back to my definition, I think this is a matter of context.  Now to explain my point, another example:  Consider a man who is blind, deaf and dumb.  The man is sitting in an empty room in the Philippines, unaware that there is a camera focused on him.  You are in Mississauga, sitting in your home office watching this man from your PC.  From your position you simply try to explain 1 + 1 = 2 to this man.  In the very slightest, can this man comprehend you? Could he understand you? ... Of course he cannot.  Why? This man has no knowledge of you.  He is handicapped with 3 of his senses and unable to use the other 2 due to circumstance.  He is completely oblivious to you.  It is in this context that I say he (we) "CANNOT COMPREHEND".  Actually I think in this context any word would do: KNOW, GRASP, UNDERSTAND, APPREHEND, etc.    Now using your definition of transendence (" .. beyond limits ..") I am still able to hold my position that as human beings we CANNOT COMPREHEND because of inability, lack of capacity and/or circumstance.  So, as I hope you can see, without trickery there is no fallacy and the problem really does have teeth.

I understand completely your point as well as your analogy above. But I see some weakness and inadequacy in your analogy defending your theory. The analogy demonstrates the weakness of the propostion WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND GOD. Here below are some objections to consider in regards to your analogy expressed above. First let us subsititute the anonymous character John Doe in replacement of myself in the analogy you provided above. 

Objection 1:

NOT ALL MEN are blind, deaf and dumb. In fact this is ABNORMAL (handicapped individuals). This particular man is handicapped from the ability to understand normally, but the majority of MEN like me and you can have knowledge of John Doe using the scenario you gave above. The case above is rare and is considered a particular instance. This is a fallacy of relative to absolute which argues from a particular instance and applying it to all circumstances without restriction. In this context the ORDINARY MAN by his ability to reason from particulars to universals, with the ability to interact and abstract his surrounding environment, has the capacity to understand or come to the knowledge of GOD. We come to the knowledge of things by studying their effects and tracing them to their cause. God who is the first cause and principal origin of movement can be known by studying His EFFECTS (creation). Although in the natural field, apart from divine revelation this knowledge is not complete (full), it nonetheless attains true knowledge of particulars. Even if we argue from negation, when we explain what God is not, we nonetheless arrive at a particular knowledge (understanding) of God which eliminates the proposition that God cannot be understood in the universal sense. For instance when we say God is not finite, we nonetheless demonstrate a particular understanding of God. Now is this what God is (not finite) in the full sense? No, because it is not ALL of what God is and it is not a definition of what God is, but nonetheless it is a particular knowledge (understanding) of God. Therefore, as demonstrated, there exists SOME UNDERSTANDING (knowledge) of God as opposed to NOT UNDERSTANDING God universally.

Objection 2: 

Why does John Doe have to be in Mississauga. He can bring himself to where the handicapped man is personally. In person I can communicate to him by his sense of touch, thereby excluding the reality of being completely oblivious. In fact in Theology this personal manifestation of John Doe is a particular analogy for the reasonability of Divine Revelation which adds and goes beyond the natural capacity of Man to understand (come to the knowledge of ) God, since by it God appears in person and communicates in a human way. 

Now using your definition of transendence (" .. beyond limits ..") I am still able to hold my position that as human beings we CANNOT COMPREHEND because of inability, lack of capacity and/or circumstance.  So, as I hope you can see, without trickery there is no fallacy and the problem really does have teeth.

My use of the term “beyond limits” refers to quantity and not a negation. It only means the inability to reach or grasp fully a thing. God is transcending because we can only grasp Him at some level (some quantity) and NOT FULLY on account of his infinite nature. Although we cannot reach a full grasp of God we nonetheless are able to reach him at some levels. Therefore to say that we CANNOT (no quantity) UNDERSTAND God on account of his transcendence is a false conclusion. I am not contesting  that God cannot be comprehended which is true on account of his infinite nature, I am only contesting here the erroneous idea or misinterpretation that this meant NO UNDERSTANDING of God, for NOT COMPREHENDING is not a negation but only a restriction or limit. That is why I made note of the distinction between CANNOT COMPREHEND and CANNOT UNDERSTAND.

I know I was supposed to wait till you finished your response but I had some time today to I was able to say a little something.  I'll wait for your next response.

That’s no problem. I am sorry that I am keeping you waiting like this. I have been finding it hard to take time to respond. But I really do want to engage in this interesting dialogue. In the next few weeks my responses will be more frequent and shorter in wait time since my new portfolio is now online. I just need to do some tweaking to make it better. However we should really get together for some grilled green mussels...lol. I would ask for your patience one more time however. I still need to respond to your older objections. I am imposing on myself a deadline this week for this. Sunday the latest. Do not respond yet until I have finished answering your older objections. If you respond now I will not be able to get to your older objections : (

Interlude Response

Preliminary Clarifications II & Response 

The Athenean Stranger Says: Comprehend - Understand. My arguement is that we cannot comprehend (understand) god. NOT because we don't understand scriptures, philosphies, teachings etc. BUT becuase as human beings we do not have the capacity to understand god ... because he is transcendent. This is my arguement.

Transcendent - (Dictionary definition, with which I agree):
1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.
4. Philosophy. a. Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
b. Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental.
c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

Worship - (again a dictionary definition, with which I agree) reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.

Religion - (again a dictionary definition, with which I agree) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.



The Vendéen Response: Before I proceed with my responses to your last replies I will need to give additional information on the terms Comprehend and Transcendence, so that you may understand where I am starting from, and to ensure a complete understanding of these terms. In philosophy or in any system of thought, small errors lead to big ones. For this reason I will use Logic for precision and rigour so as to avoid confusion and ambiguity.

Comprehend in its proper meaning is apprehension by which we grasp or possesses the totality of an object in all its categories (e,g, substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and passivity). Transcendence on the other hand goes beyond the limits of any knowable categories (see aforementioned examples) and is thus surpassing.

It is important to note that the expression CANNOT COMPREHEND is not to be confused or understood to mean the absence of apprehension or understanding of a thing, but rather it presupposes the existence of SOME understanding (knowledge). In simplicity it means the inability to grasp or possess in totality or fullness a thing. To not understand and to not comprehend is not the same thing.

Therefore to equate the proposition “we cannot comprehend god” with the proposition “we cannot understand god” is a fallacy if comprehend and transcendence is understood properly. Not only is the equation fallacious in reasoning but it is also self refuting. Just by your use of the term God, we can assume that you understand in some level the concept of God (e.g. a higher being that is beyond or transcendent), if you did not, you would not even use the term God at all. The term God and the concept behind it would be meaningless to me and you since as you have said we cannot understand God. It rather proves that you have some level of understanding of the concept and term called God. To prove my point exactly, in one statement you are affirming that we cannot comprehend God, but on the other hand you are denying your self that affirmation by saying we cannot understand God. Hence your reasoning is self refuting and contradictory.

Hence to express that we cannot comprehend God in terms of His transcendence does not express an inability to understand God but rather it expresses that we can only understand God in a limited sense thereby presupposing some level or quantity of understanding.

This response I made is only preliminary. There is more to follow. I will add as time permits. I will say in anticipation that God can be understood, which includes what he wants (His will) in a general level in the natural sense. My demonstrations of this position will follow. I will also say that you need to exercise some caution with regards to Kant's understanding of transcendence which hinges on demonstrable errors found in his epistemology and metaphysics. I will also demonstrate these in due time.

In the meantime please wait for the completion of my replies to your arguments. More to follow.

Not the same Wavelength

Preliminary Clarifications 

The Athenean Stranger Says: I don’t think we are discussing on the same wavelength right now. My written skills aint the best and I may have confused you. I’ll try to get us back on track and we can discuss a little deeper.

Your statement “to my God religion doesn't matter” contradicts your new statement above when you said “we cannot comprehend him”.

No, not really, the fact that we cannot comprehend him, we cannot know what he wants. Given this, I will surrender a little and say we cannot say religion doesn’t matter ... but since we don’t know what he wants ... we can’t say it does either.. but I have more explaining below.

Having established that Transcendence does not equate to nullity, the proposition “we cannot comprehend Him (God)” is defunct.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was suggesting nullity? On the contrary my son, I was trying to suggest the complete opposite, transcendence to its fullest. Do not confuse acknowledgement or knowledge with comprehension. I acknowledge that god exists. I have knowledge or proof that he exists. BUT god being superior and transcendent to me, I cannot comprehend him. Try defuncting it again? (Would you try to defunct it by explaining what you comprehend of him?)

I asked for your demonstration of how being the same nullifies religion.

I am not discussing the difference between religions themselves here. I am saying all religions are the same in the sense that they all require some form of worship. That’s why they are the same. Now, refer back to my theory that god does not require worship. So now what I’m saying is that if god doesn’t require worship then there is no need for religion, any religion. This is the point. (I was NOT arguing that Catholics are the same as Muslims and have the same core beliefs and therefore that fact nullifies religion ... not at all. That doesn’t make sense.)

This in turn eliminates your premise for supporting the conclusion that such a God would not require worship. In fact I find no relation to your conclusion and premise.

Forget transcendence for a second. God is perfect and all knowing. He knows me, he knows my thoughts he knows more about me than i know of myself. Why would I need to worship him? He already knows! God needs nothing from me. As a humble being, I can respect him and acknowledge him .... without worship and without religion. How do I do this? Easy, I treat everyone’s life with respect because it was a creation of god.

If we deny God this external act (worship) we commit injustice which offends God directly on account of injustice, which he in turn cannot tolerate without restitution.

Now this is THE contradiction. Can I really do something that God is not aware of?(THIS IS GETTING GOOD!!!!) Answer the question, yes or no?

YES Option: “Yes, I can offend God WITHOUT him knowing.” This is free will. Are we free beings? Are we independent from God? Maybe god isn’t all knowing and all powerful after all? .... The concept of an “unknowing” god, MAY lead you to an even more transcendent God. Maybe one who does not require worship!

NO Option: “No, God knows everything. God created me and he knew I was going to commit such an offense”. This is destiny and a pre-determined fate. I Love this god! This god has a great sense of humour: he makes me do things he doesn’t want me to do .... hahahaha! We can discuss this more but there are problems with this path also.

this is my problem. From a philosophical point of view, both options have pros and cons with regards to the argument of who god is and what god wants. What do you do with this now? You think about it and let me know. As for me, I’ve thought about it long and hard and my conclusion is that I have to ignore because I do not know if it has any meaning at all since you can answer Yes and No.

If I am wrong in this, please define your understanding of what religion IS and what worship IS.

Simple. Worship is just the act, religion encompasses and describes that act. Again, I can respect and acknowledge him in my thoughts and in my actions, without worship. I do not need a church or a religion to do this.


The Vendéen Response: Yes we are off track on account of my misinterpretation of your positions. As I said in the beginning, it is important to “explicate the reasonings for your propositions”, and “Propositions are open to misinterpretation if not supported by supporting arguments”. I will also add that to have a more adequate dialogue and to prevent misinterpretation one must give clear definitions or explanations on particular terms (vocabulary) used. I will admit that I made a particular error in responding to your statements. The particular error in my part is an incomplete understanding and misinterpretation of what you meant by the term Comprehend. I understood and focused on a particular understanding of Comprehend as apprehension which presupposes some knowledge or perception, while in relation to your statement on the term, I thought you meant a total and absolute negation of some knowledge or perception of God. That is why my response was formed in a way that uses this understanding of comprehend as a point of departure. This is why I got the wrong idea or perception that you were suggesting nullity in the term comprehend. In any case, I apologize for the error.

Because of the setback I make the following steps below to keep us from being at different wave lengths. So before I complete my response to your recent replies so as to avoid further misinterpretations I will need to ask some preliminary questions so as to get a proper understanding of your statements. Since exactness and clarity is important for understanding so as to avoid ambiguity or misconception which leads to error, it is fitting that we understand the terms we use.

Define these terms:

1. Comprehend or comprehension.
2. Transcendence

What is your understanding of what Religion is?

What is your understanding of what Worship is?

Transcendence vs. Nothing

Transcendence equals nothing?

The Athenean Stranger says: “A true God is transcendent! do you agree?  God is all knowing, all perfect, unchanging, omnipotent and transcendent. Transcendent in the sense that we cannot know him, he is "aside" from us, we cannot comprehend him (if we could we wouldn't be talking).  This being the case, such a God would not require worship. Why? Worship would have no affect on such a God. Why? God is all knowing, Omnipotent, Transcendent etc etc. And to be clear, this does in no way mean that respect, acknowledgement, humility, kindness (all the good stuff associated with worship) are abandoned.  On the contrary, such an understanding would be good for humanity.

So from a philosophical point of view, agree with me for a second. If worship (of any kind) is not required, then, as I said before ... religion does not matter .... but Life does ... enjoy!”

The Vendéen Response: First I must point out that what you have just said does not respond directly to my reply on your last statements. You jumped to another subject. What you have said above has more fuel for argumentation which is good. But you have ignored the last points we have discussed in which I asked for your demonstration of how being the same nullifies religion, and how you know that to God Religion does not matter. Your statement “to my God religion doesn't matter” contradicts your new statement above when you said “we cannot comprehend him”. Your affirmation that to God religion does not matter presupposes that you have some knowledge of him, but yet you negate yourself by saying “we cannot comprehend him” in your new statements.

Nevertheless I will respond to your statements above, but if you can respond also to the my last reply that would be good.

You said:

“A true God is transcendent! Do you agree?”

Of course.

You mentioned:

“Transcendent in the sense that we cannot know him, he is "aside" from us, we cannot comprehend him (if we could we wouldn't be talking)”.

We cannot admit of the incomprehensibility of God in the absolute sense on account of his transcendent nature, but rather it is proper to admit that our comprehension of God is limited. If we are to admit that He cannot be comprehended (in the absolute sense) you would have to admit with the atheists and agnostics that we cannot prove God Exists, for proofs depend on certain knowledge. You need to be careful in equating transcendence to absolute nullity or negation. The term Transcendence in itself in relation to the nature of God is complex and does not exhaustively signify a negation. Infinity which subsists in the transcendent, does not equate to nothing but something. Infinity is a BEING, and BEING is understood to be anything that can be said to be or a something. Infinity excludes bounds which is itself a negation. Infinity is undefined but it does not equate to nothing. Transcendence does not exclude knowledge (comprehension) of Him but rather it presupposes some knowledge of Him (limited) since it is not a negation.

Having established that Transcendence does not equate to nullity, the proposition “we cannot comprehend Him (God)” is defunct. This in turn eliminates your premise for supporting the conclusion that such a God would not require worship. In fact I find no relation to your conclusion and premise. How does God's transcendence prove that God does not require our worship? Transcendence deals with the question of our capacity to comprehend God, our similitude and dissimilitude in relation to God, and not whether God does or does not require our worship.

You stated:

“This being the case, such a God would not require worship. Why? Worship would have no affect on such a God. Why? God is all knowing, Omnipotent, Transcendent etc etc.

On the account that “God is all knowing, all perfect, interchanging, omnipotent and transcendent” as you have said, he does not need our worship. In this I agree with you only in the sense of dependence. If God needed or depended on our worship it would make Him as a being who is lacking something. Something that lacks nothing is said to be universally perfect according to St. Thomas¹.

All created perfections are in God, and Justice which is a “habit that perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them”² exists in God in its perfect state, namely in actuality and not a habit. That being the case, God in being perfect justice requires our Worship which is due to Him alone on account of our immanence from him. We would not exist without Him. We owe our being to Him. It is within the realm of worship that acknowledgement is put into act. Since we do not worship or acknowledge God by means of thinking only privately, we also acknowledge and worship by means of external actions. Man is composed of Body and Soul, and to exclude the external part or acts denies our very being. If we deny God this external act (worship) we commit injustice which offends God directly on account of injustice, which he in turn cannot tolerate without restitution. Therefore worship is necessary not on account of God's transcendence, but rather on account of Justice which is perfect in God.

You mentioned:

So from a philosophical point of view, agree with me for a second. If worship (of any kind) is not required, then, as I said before ... religion does not matter .... but Life does ... enjoy!”

From the philosophical point of view as I have considered and demonstrated above, I cannot agree with you for a second. Your proposition “worship (of any kind) is not required...religion does not matter” has no qualification since your premise (we cannot comprehend him) for supporting the nullity of worship is defunct. I would suggest that you broaden your understanding of worship and religion, for they are used in your premises in the incomplete sense.

1St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I,4,2.

2 Slater, Thomas. "Justice." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Jan. 2010.