The Movie Contact

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Yesterday I saw the movie Contact for the first time, which is based on a book written by Carl Sagan, the American scientist who was an atheist. Carl died in 1996 from a bone marrow disease.

The movie centers on the fact that we are not alone in this universe, that there is other intelligent life out there, and I find this a bit amusing, and not surprised Carl is hung up on this, as the Aliens with their advanced technology are like a God to him, in that he has hope for mankind through Aliens which he and many others like to protray as saintly beings with great enlightment. Of course! Only mankind is something that is hateful, and we just have to evolve a bit more, and we will shed this off of our characters, which I think is just nonsense. Humanity is getting worse, and not better, and the so called advanced countries like the western world are behaving like outright barbarians with the slaughter of millions of children through abortion among many other crimes. The reason why I find it funny is this whole "alone" concept, as even if there are no other intelligent life forms in the universe, I certainly do not in anyway feel alone when the planet is shared with 6 billion other souls. We may very well one day go out and live on other planets, adding to our numbers greatly, and thus feeling less alone. No we are not alone, and adding other life forms does not make it feel less lonely.

One of the things I hate about the movie, is that it promotes the belief that a good scientist would not believe in God, as that person would demand proof to believe in God. It's basically saying that science and believing in God is incompatible with each other, and this is absolute nonsense! I myself, my whole life have had a great interest in science, and continue tp do so, all the while having faith in God. There are thousands of scientists who believe in God. Sorry, but atheistic scietists are not enlightened beings! No effort is made in the film to understand God through science, in that the ordered universe points to an intelligent creator. I have never heard an atheist give an explaination for the ordered universe that EXCLUDES faith, like the infinite number of universes theory. They have no proof, but just a theory. What's the difference here!

I like to hear what you guys think of the movie?

Plot is bit wacked out, as they built this alien transportation device, that cost over 300 billion dollars, and they just so happen to build a backup device. Oh yeah sure, at 300 billion a pop, why not! You never know when your first device is going to be sabatoged by religious fanatics! Must have been the 2:1 deal that you get a pizza place. :)

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 13, 2002

Answers

Hmm, a new fold.

For me, I disliked the movie because I thought the premise was silly, but mostly because the chemistry between Jodie and Matthew was not just missing...it was worse than oil joined with water.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), January 13, 2002.


G,
Carl Sagan was not "hung up" on the discovery of life beyond earth. It was his life's work. On the side he built the Cosmos PBS series which introduced lay people to the heavens, wrote some books and proposed many other theories that were related to astronomy.
Remember, Contact was first a book and then a movie. Carl wrote the book and had little to do with the movie except of course take home a pretty decent pay check. So if you care to critique Dr. Sagan's work you would be better off going to the book store rather than the TV switch.
To simply label Sagan as an athesist would not describe his relationship to God very well. I'm not going to attempt to describe what I think that relationship may have been but I could put out something for you to think about.
How many sci-fi movies have you seen where the subject is even approached?
I find a sense of God in all his productions, outside the scientific. What I find enjoyable is that he is asking his audience, Where do YOU think God fits into all of this? If you were looking for a Catholic God, I could see where you might be dissappointed. He was surely not a Catholic.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), January 13, 2002.

+JMJ

Hello,

I enjoyed that movie.

What if we actually built a Tower of Babel? I paralleled the building of the multi-national "space macine" with that of the Tower of Babel. Both were built with the intention to explore the heavens and be like God, both were destroyed but in the movie we were "smart" enough and rich enough to build a second at another site. What would happen if we used that "space machine", what would be the consequences?

Even though the character of Jody Fosters was atheist, she was still searching for answers to questions common to all mankind... what is out there? That is what we all are doing. Some are a bit closer to realizing the answer, some accept faith as the answer but many of us are like the character of Jodie Foster...still searching. The point of the movie was not to prove or disprove God or prove or disprove intelligent life in other galaxies, I believe what Carl Sagen was saying is no matter how intelligent we become or how advanced our technologies are or how much proof we have supporting our theories, we will always have unanswered questions...even if we have our own "Tower of Babel". We will always be searching.

-- Michael (williams007@aol.com), January 13, 2002.


> "To simply label Sagan as an athesist would not describe his relationship to God very well. I'm not going to attempt to describe what I think that relationship may have been but I could put out something for you to think about."

I heard he was an atheist, and did not base that information from the movie. If he was not atheist, then I take it back, as you seem to be hinting that he was not.

> "Carl Sagan was not "hung up" on the discovery of life beyond earth. It was his life's work. On the side he built the Cosmos PBS series which introduced lay people to the heavens, wrote some books and proposed many other theories that were related to astronomy."

I was given a book by a friend about space, by Carl Sagan, and it is one of the most beautiful books I have ever owned. Not sure if I ever saw Cosmos, but it is a type of show I would strongly be interested in. I have always been fascinated by the cosmos.

> "I find a sense of God in all his productions, outside the scientific. What I find enjoyable is that he is asking his audience, Where do YOU think God fits into all of this? If you were looking for a Catholic God, I could see where you might be dissappointed. He was surely not a Catholic."

I did not know that, and I glad to hear it. Not sure exactly what you mean by a Catholic God (Holy Trinity?), as I don't mind a general reference towards God at all, after all honouring God is honouring the Catholic God.

> "We will always be searching."

You bring up a really good point, that we will never fully understand this universe or what is beyond the universe, in other words there will always be faith of one kind or another. Even in Heaven, will we not fully comprehend God himself, for how could limited beings comprehend an infinite being. Would we not have to be God's ourselves inorder to do that.

I have a good question to you guys, how do we know God is "infinite" in his power? Maybe God is just the most powerful being. Where do we get that he is in infinite in his power?

Note I am asking this question to understand my faith better, and not asking to downplaying the faith, as so many people on this board are doing.

God is Great!

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 13, 2002.


Dear Friends. Carl Sagan, as I recall was an agnostic Jew. Most big television executives and producers have been Jews. It's a great industry, as films are.

For anyone to expect their work to mirror any Catholic belief in God, makes no sense. It may not even reflect Judaism's teachings. So much for religious contexts. I saw nothing at all religious about ''Contact'' the movie. I saw it returning from Europe a couple of years ago on the plane. It was typically what most movies today are: chewing gum for the brain.

I won't be reading that book, either. It's probably harmless escapism. It isn't likely very good science either, as books go. Are we alone in the universe(s)? Don't look for the answer in books. The authors of our society don't believe a word about angels. But they believe in the potential of nature to produce reptiles that walk on two feet, star wars and killer tomatoes. Ho-hum!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 13, 2002.



> "For anyone to expect their work to mirror any Catholic belief in God, makes no sense."

The very same industry that gave such Christian epics like Ben Hur, among many others!

They are good business men, in the sense they gave people what they wanted to see, unfortunately today, they give a lot of trash, as that is what people want to see. You vote with your wallet. I miss the Hollywood of old, and hate so many films made today. Before I even consider seeing a film, I check www.screenit.com to see if I would consider the film offensive.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 13, 2002.


Well, fine, Mr. Vink;
It's good to realize there can be exceptions to the rule. In Ben Hur, a scene takes place on the Via Crucis; a fine interpretation. (Hur was the name of one of Moses' captains, BTW, in the OT.) All excellently filmed. It was deservedly a big success; and always will be. I recall avery beautiful movie called Song of Bernadette. It was taken from the book by Franz Werfel; I believe he was a Jew. I don't know for sure if he converted to Catholicism, but I seem to think he did. In any case, the film was very good. Very close to the facts of the Lourdes apparitions and the saintly life of St Bernadette. The producer of this movie was Zelsnick; a Jew.

So, I'm happy to confess that all Jews haven't denigrated our faith. To tell the truth, I love Jews. It happens my Saviour and His holy mother are Jewish. But I don't normally expect the newer movie and TV productions to reflect a favorable view of our Catholic faith. Not always.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 13, 2002.


5 proof of the existence of God by St. Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas Aquinas The Summa Theologica (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Index [<< | >>] First Part [<< | >>] Question: 2 [<< | >>]

TREATISE ON THE ONE GOD (Questions [2]-26)

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (THREE ARTICLES)

Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the beginning of things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures, as is clear from what has been already said, therefore, in our endeavor to expound this science, we shall treat: (1) Of God; (2) Of the rational creature's advance towards God; (3) Of Christ, Who as man, is our way to God.

In treating of God there will be a threefold division, for we shall consider: (1) Whatever concerns the Divine Essence; (2) Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons; (3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.

Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider: (1) Whether God exists? (2) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is NOT the manner of His existence; (3) Whatever concerns His operations--- namely, His knowledge, will, power.

Concerning the first, there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is self-evident?

(2) Whether it is demonstrable?

(3) Whether God exists?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Index [<< | >>] First Part [<< | >>] Question: 2 [<< | >>] Article: 1 [<< | >>]

Whether the existence of God is self-evident?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.

Objection 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self- evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Question [3], Article [4]). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature---namely, by effects.

Reply to Objection 1: To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

Reply to Objection 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

Reply to Objection 3: The existence of truth in general is self- evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Index [<< | >>] First Part [<< | >>] Question: 2 [<< | >>] Article: 2 [<< | >>]

Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rm. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".

Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Index [<< | >>] First Part [<< | >>] Question: 2 [<< | >>] Article: 3 [<< | >>]

Whether God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex. 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

This document converted to HTML on Sun Jan 11 07:46:43 1998.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College. Last updated on August 12, 2000. Contacting the CCEL.

-- James Vahey (vaheyjmj@aol.com), January 21, 2002.


__+

Holy Cow ! --What IS this? Cut and paste your way to the secrets of the Universe? I guess I'd better start to read it. It might be lunchtime before I'm done! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 21, 2002.


carl sagan was not an atheist.he had an open mind.he wanted too believe but had no proof.common sense,use it.a good mind is great if it is kept open,a waste if it is closed. freethinker

-- freethinker (farout96@aol.com), January 23, 2002.


Shirley, you sure love this forum, but you don't even have anything in common with us. Can you be here to preach to us? I doubt it, as I thought you people did not believe in that.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 23, 2002.

Freethinker,

You are probably a big fan of the saying: "Minds are like parachutes, they are only useful when open."

The fact of the matter is, your "open mindedness" is the thing which actually closes you off from the truth. It is similar to saying things like "Pro-choice" instead of "Pro-abortion" for the same perspective. You have created a wall around you by saying you are only willing to discuss things with "Open" minded individuals such as yourself.

Unfortunately, when you use words to put walls around yourself, you eventually end up trapped by your own "openness."

And just for the record, Parachutes are extremely un-useful if one's feet are firmly planted on the ground to begin with.

-- Christian (wardirish@yahoo.com), January 23, 2002.


Carl Sagan's wife said,"He didn't want to believe.He wanted to know". "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it realy is than to persist in delusion,however satisfying and reassuring." enjoy freethinker

-- freethinker (farout96@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

> "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it realy is"

Yes, an ordered universe that atheists cannot explain without faith also, like implying an infinite number of universes. The ordered universe says there is an intelligence behind it, or it simply would not exist.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 23, 2002.


Carl Sagan didn't want to believe, he wanted to know. --
He knows now. Freethinker doesn't believe, but she thinks she knows.

Sagan at least let himself wonder.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 23, 2002.



The intelligent creater was not a jealous,barbaric, savage, god.an intelligent creater would not have drowned his children.would not have ordered the death of men,women, children and animals.would not have asked a man to kill his child too prove his faith.atheist would not hurt another human no matter what god ordered.that is the difference.people with morals do not kill. freethinker

-- freethinker (farout96@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

"Freethinker",

You can't kill anyone. No-one can. You can kill their bodies, but their souls will go on to everlasting life. I understand how you feel about innocents dying here on Earth. It does seem unjust, and people on Earth truly suffer- no question about it. Try and look at it from a farther off perspective, though.

A small child is afraid of a shot, but their parents are willing to *deliberately cause their child pain* for the sake of preventing future disease. Similarly, I think that God is willing to allow innocents to "die" on Earth for our greater good (somehow). I can't say I understand it, but I do believe it. After all, from God's perspective, these innocents aren't truly dead, their time on Earth is only an eyeblink compared to eternity (just like we think that the temporary pain of a shot is worth a lifetime of not being crippled by polio).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 24, 2002.


I discussed the faith with a very fine man, a friend that is altogether agnostic. He is a member of what was once called the ''intelligentsia''. An Academic. Very sweet man.

When I mentioned eternity, he said with a smile, ''Eternity; we don't know anything about eternity, Gene. What is is? ''OK, let me ask freethinkit:

What is intelligence? You call Him an ''intelligent creator,'' wouldn't this and wouldn't that. Who are we to say, He would or wouldn't? Our own feeble intelligence would be useless except for a vast number of favorable conditions in life. All the conditions we can't control, but God sends us from His boundless love and providence.

An atmosphere of oxygen, which could burn right off the earth's surface with merely a slight rise in the temperature of our sun. Taking with it all potable water, not that any life would even survive without air. How is it an apple, and a mandarin orange, a banana-- all have the curious virtue of growing the exact size that children can hold in one hand? Just accidental? Did the tree they grew on have to be just the size of a large umbrella? What if trees were all 12 inches tall? Where would firewood have come from? We'd be where our stone age ancestors were still, burning cow dung.

But the ''intelligent'' Creator drew his plans exactly the way our own shipwrights build a sailing boat, proportioned and balanced and heavy in the right places, slim or light in the proper places. Otherwise it capsizes and sinks. All fitting His purpose. Then on the greatest single project, His MAN; the universe inside his brain. Every molecule is a work of art. In our powerhouse of human cells, this vast complexity, and all perfectly designed by God the Creator.

So. If freethinking says He's too intelligent to be true; let's see what freethinker cooks up as an answer:

What if God (Creator) isn't intelligent at all? What if His infinite wisdom doesn't need what He designed in us, intelligence? Intelligence is a WORD. We really don't know the concept, but we know the word. It isn't an explanation. We say a dog does what dogs must do because it's his instinct. OH! YEAH!!! That explains! --NO; we have no idea, we have a word: instinct. Something nobody understands. We just see the effect. And, we see the effect that God achieves in His Creation. We don't KNOW what He does. He has no reason to tell us, nor did he tell Carl Sagan, or Moses or Job. He is God, that's all we need to know. His word does it. Not His intelligence, because that means NOTHING to God, that's a human term.

I think that's why all the angels sing to Him, ''Holy, Holy, Holy!'' That word stands for ''set apart''-- Sacred. Nobody can look upon God, except His divine Son, His eternal Word. He is Jesus; and Jesus brings all men to their knees, as if intelligence barely matters. For the wisdom of man is folly to God.
Put that in your pipe, freethinker, and smoke it. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 24, 2002.


off

-- - (-@-.-), January 24, 2002.

yes Eugene you are "off".Anyway good bye. I am going to leave you alone.My last post. love shirley

-- freethinker (farout96@aol.com), January 24, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ