Dear David,

<<Any object that exists or that one can conceive of is an entity.>>

Correct, but God is not an object and does not exist.

The modern emphasis, giving over-importance to, or should I say obsession with, existence, blinds us to the truth. There is nothing in existence and all its science that can provide us with a moral compass.

The concept of God's objective existence (a logical contradiction in itself) can be religiously useful for weak-minded people (as most are) who feel the need for having something more tangible to worship and concentrate on. Such concept can help to break people's immoral habits and egotistic tendencies to some degree, taking them a mile or two along the road, but once concentration is achieved, the image and/or concept of God as object needs to be dropped.

In truth, there is nothing but God, including ourselves - we are not humans. The false perception of oneself as a limited human-being or an 'ego' is a bad habit, an addiction if you like. It is not easy to overcome, but is possible if we are willing and committed to work towards giving it up.

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
- nobody else will do the job for me. Nobody else will take away my addiction.

And when I am for myself, what am 'I'?
- One should keep asking this question in order to purify out one's wrong concept of self: "What am I for myself, when taking the body and mind out of the equation".

And if not now, when?
- Most people declare their intention to quit their addiction... tomorrow...

No wonder that 'unlimited nature' makes no sense to you within this limited existence. To find out who you truly are, you must step out beyond existence, yet it takes immense courage to step out of this comfort-zone and leave our 'ego', our limited selves, behind. Being absorbed in yourself, your true self, is not in contradiction with living for others, because they too are God!

>>God is not an object and does not exist.<<

>>In truth, there is nothing but God, including ourselves<<

If there is nothing but God and God does not exist then nothing exists which is obviously not right. At the very least I exist: cogito ergo sum.

The conclusion which follows from your premises is false and so at least one of your premises must be false: I'd say it's first one, others will say it is the second. Either way they cannot both be right.

>>The false perception of oneself as a limited human-being or an 'ego' is a bad habit, an addiction if you like. It is not easy to overcome, but is possible if we are willing and committed to work towards giving it up.<<

Why would anyone want to work towards becoming delusional? Wouldn't it be easier to just take some mescaline and hallucinate?

>>To find out who you truly are, you must step out beyond existence<<

I'm not due to cease existing for a good many years yet and I've no intention of making a headstart.

Cheers,

Tony

David f,

You say you are a moral person, yet you condemn Pope Francis without a proper hearing, on a charge of 'omission' simply because he failed to explicitly reiterate a standing injunction on all Church clergy and members to notify the legal authorities of any suspicion of misconduct - sexual or otherwise.
Such scant circumstantial 'evidence' (if one can even call it that) is hardly justification for your obvious vindictiveness.

You further accuse, on no evidence but mere supposition (or pure prejudice) that Pope Francis won't repeat the call for that injunction to be fully and conscientiously applied in all corners of the Church.
So, with no justification whatever you accuse him of hypocrisy?
Yet, you are a moral person? (I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him?)

You say prevention is more important than punishment, yet you are against Capital Punishment? Why so?
I imagine that the risk of condemning on insufficient or inconclusive evidence dissuades you from inflicting the ultimate punishment?
So, multiple murderers get to sit in jail, as do murderers who have confessed to this crime, along with the possibly doubtful cases, simply because you, and others, are 'against' Capital Punishment.
You say you are not religious, so this cannot be part of your reasoning.
A proven murderer will never re-offend if s/he is given like treatment - hence, prevention.
Yet you can condemn Pope Francis for 'omission' in clear conscience?
(So your 'morality' has its limitations?) TBC>

Cont'd> David f,

Your hatred of the Catholic Church has been made clear in many posts, over many threads, including your constant referral to historical malfeasance (Inquisition, etc) as 'proof' that the Church, and religion generally, is evil - and will ever be so.
So, you convict the present on the basis of the past.
On such a basis perhaps no human now living or who has ever lived would be truly innocent in your eyes - by association.

Paedophilia or any form of child abuse is heinous and deserves harsh punishment, as does non-disclosure of evidence of this, but such crimes are far from being confined to religious movements, let alone to the Catholic Church.
It is of course worse for a member of the clergy, or anyone in authority, to use their position to commit and/or to conceal such crimes, and they, and their organisation, deserve due condemnation.
However, all should not be tarred with the same accusation simply by association.

I am truly sorry David f for whatever experience invoked your hatred of the Catholic Church, and wish you well.

Yuyutsu, out of mind and body nothing exists, God is everywhere and nowhere, ...
and nothing makes sense anymore - if it ever did.

Dear saltpetre,

Thanks for wishing me well. I wish you well, too.

You wrote: "So, you convict the present on the basis of the past."

Yes, I do. The past is the only record we have. We don't know what will happen in the future. It would be unreasonable to find fault because of an imagined future. However, institutions and people establish patterns. It is fair to assume that there is a great probability that they will repeat what they have done in the past.

Trials or other judgments always concern what has happened in the past.

If Pope Francis tells those with knowledge of a crime in the Catholic Church to tell the police I will happily admit I was wrong and appreciate the change in behaviour. However, it is like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charley Brown. I really thought Pope John XXIII would bring anew openness to the Catholic, and I sincerely hoped that he would. Since his papacy the Vatican has been trying to restore things to what they were before Vatican 2. To a great extent they have succeeded, and what they have done in the past is in my opinion the best guide to what they will do in the future. I think popes like John XXIII don't come around very often. Maybe Francis will be one, but, as far as I am concerned, he has already goofed up.

Dear david f,

I am sorry but the only rational response I could offer would be to repeat what I wrote in my previous posts, especially the last sentence, namely, that there will always be people who will condemn the Pope, whoever he is and whatever he does, which you illlustrated by bringing into play two other Popes (as for Pius XII you certainly know of Isreal Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome, 1939-1945, who would disagree with you).

I have always appreciated your rationality even on topics we did not agree on, however I have to agree with saltpetre that on the topic of Popes you are more driven by emotions, perhaps rooted in some negative personal experience.

So let us just agree that we two have obviously different expectations of Pope Francis (at this early stage stage one can speak only of expectations).