In Bushido declaring to choose death in a choice between life and death, I think this must be understood as choosing death in Dying to Reject a Life that Is Deeply Sinful, i.e., a kind of parallel to Rejection of the Cardinal Sins by the Weapon. It says, Bushido, that this choice arises "in the presence of Death", not in the joyful life, only. Equally so, Jihad stands more clear to the Christian mind in waging the religious life despite the many challenges (of violence, threats, corruption, other crime). This means that any mentally pathological side to living life needs to be warned against and "fought", also with the weapon in hand, real, unarmed or metaphorically. The Muslims on the other hand say that Christians are in "(metaphysical) global Jihad" with the story of Jesus Christ, one that I have deep sympathies too.
Note: I think there is a need to replace any voodoo suspicion in Ko-(Shinto) with a more spirited (Ko-)Shinto, one that's also more "flexible" in seeing a more lively life, afterlife and nature.
In siding with, note on religious symmetry, ecumenism and religious humanism, (Ko-)Shinto, you may want to take note of the "Maria Magdalena"/Mary Magdalene and
2 Corinthians 6:14-18 - Warning Against Idolatry (Idolatry = Failure to the path of Heaven, failure in terms of morality)
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[a]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”[b]
17 Therefore,
“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”[c]
18 And,
“I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”[d]
(I've used the reference from New International Version (NIV) and www.biblegateway.com .)
Note also that, usually, the decent and morally straight are the ones who assaulted in the back so one needs "to sharpen the senses" and be ALERT in order for a dream of Utopia to come true!
Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.
I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, it is grounded on this:
* The Privacy Argument.
- nothing new from the Atheists.
General, deductive outline:
Privacy holds the best judgment that makes the Bible/God more appealing
Privacy holds the best judgment
The Bible/God is more appealing
Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: Privacy holds the best argument
G: The Bible/God is more appealing
1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E
* The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins.
- that the sinful life seems repulsive and that religious ponderings seem much more engaging. With Se7en-movie backing this up as description.
General, deductive outline:
The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive and that as the Bible makes the case for the other life God becomes more appealing
The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing
Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
S: The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
G: The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing
1 | S
2 | S ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | S 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E
It is noted that the argument can hold another logical line in splitting G into two parts, invoking 2 more lines of logical notation, but essentially the argument stays the same.
* Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design.
- that NDNID defends God as possibility and that Atheism fails to prove, also with logical soundness, the impossibility for God.
The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
Type of logic for this, NDNID: Quantified Existential (Predicate) Logic
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions
G: God proposition
I: Important proposition
P: Propositions in general
E: Objective Ethics propositions
M: Meaning propositions
B: have Belief propositions in
D: Propositions of definition of God
C: Complete Knowledge propositions
(1)
1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).
(2)
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
2. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".
(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
3. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
6. □(∃x)(Dx) R
------------------------------
7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.
(3)
1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Mx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.
(4)
1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Ex) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.
Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!
It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.
One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God. In a definite sense, therefore, God "as idea" threads through the Possible modality to obtain as necessary.
It is noted that as the NDNID holds its own logics, it acts together with the Priest Stories in securing the bottom line, this makes the Religious side the rock solid fortress for Faith in God, ecumenically.
* The ESP-God Debate.
- now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all? Because the contention has been earlier that if telepathy is "realizable" then (necessarily/more conceivably) God, even by themselves.
General, deductive outline:
If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true, the case for God is more credible.
If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true.
The case for God is more credible.
Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
E: If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true
G: The case for God is more credible.
1 | E
2 | E ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | E 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E
It is noted that the "if" standing can here be seen as strong or weak alike. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the Religious, initially do not bother to hold more than the weak "if" rather than the definitely proven case for ESP/Telepathy. This is at least the recommendation.
* The Descartes' Phantom Feelings.
- that if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then God "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that God exists also by this notion.
General, deductive outline:
As The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science, the case for God is more credible.
The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science.
The case for God is more credible.
Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
D: The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science
G: The case for God is more credible.
1 | D
2 | D ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | D 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E
* The Van Lommel Studies.
- that Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, God "more" yet another time Do we get it up? (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?)
General, deductive outline:
As The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls, the case for God is more credible.
The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls.
The case for God is more credible.
Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
L: The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls
G: The case for God is more credible
1 | L
2 | L ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | L 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E
* The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality
The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality - The Black Swans Outside Dumb People's Livingroom, Their Problem of Induction
We start with another list:
reincarnation "out of thin air or using nearby blood and other"
white giant "golems" "also out of thin air, out to crush evil or punish evil or for evil", good people victims being collateral damage, see giants of "Bhima" in India, seeming skulls of giants from those whereabouts
speedy (or very speedy) regeneration "possibly out of thin air or using available blood or other"
the "ice" in girls' or women's vagina "out of thin air" or the poles that shoot out of the penis of men going to the ground and into the air "also out of thin air"
shapeshifting (of "shapeshifter") or changelinging (of "changeling") to other forms, whether fossils or strange creatures, small or large or very large like giant creatures "in a sense, out of thin air or transforming substances to body of something entirely different"
telepathy "magically transferring thoughts from one person to another"
existence as soul without body or anything flesh and blood, popularly speaking being Near-Death Experience (NDE) or Out-of-body Experience (OBE) "with possibility to move around, think, have cognition, to perceive (colours glaring in a beautiful way), also maintaining memory also from being in the state of soul, whether body is destroyed or not"
phantom feelings "the ability to feel other people's touch or objects with one's soul where one's missing limb is"
deeply immoral people's "black spots" (of despicable actions), some deeply immoral people are so utterly bad that they are treated as special waste in terms of "garbage handling" - this is a secret from the trade of the coroner!
the special secret from the trade notion of the insurance sector as business, of "tainted buildings" by "creepy animal/spectre/phantom" (large or small) making the building unusable
possible accounts of "eggs" which are generated from despicable acts as well, whether "virtual guards" for something or markers for something, I don't really know. Large and small? Various looks? Opened "egg shells" like some flower?
Abominations of dead people that make people fearful or morality struck in some sense, black bodies where they have died that's virtually impossible to remove
Freak nature itself by "severe threats against people of worth and dignity, becoming a monster in the process, extreme phenomena may take place in the World that's outside "normal science" or (what I like to call) "laboratory science", that is, natue is upset and "urgent" with deeply adverse quantum physics in the process for those who do this (include "mystical" rage against the doers of these horrors), disturbing the harmony between nature of people (of dignity, worth, goodness, if not all) See also The Bad People List (you may want to add "Olsnes-Lea" in order to locate it)
List is complete?
Thus, conclusion as ever: That is, so why not God as well, moral sense intact? God must exist! 100% religious World (by "white-list" religions) in 10, 20 or 50 years or so?
I also note the following:
I'm tired of hearing these no-knowledge idiots "managing information" for the sake of keeping people in depression!
I just don't take it anymore! That these morons are supposed to tell us what exists or not "based on what they feel is right!"
(Feel free to omit the lying Atheists who have no definite moral obligation either way because they are not Humanists. Hah-hah-hah!)
The possible 8th point: There's another one too, with similar structure: if some aspects more prove true, in addition to the above, by the "priest stories" then God further... But this is one is for the moment dicy or more dicy than the telepathy argument...
General, deductive outline:
If The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences then case for God is more credible.
The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences.
The case for God is more credible.
Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences
G: The case for God is more credible
1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E
Again, The Priest Stories is subject to a kind of limbo of standing, into how it is supposed to be placed with the rest of the logics above. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the
Religious, just listen to these stories, of troubles with the corrupt minds and what events have brought us in terms of history. This is at least the recommendation.
2 more points for the Religious side:
Also, the religious confidence point must also count in favour for the religious side, although a bit on the side of the arguments playing out.
Another point for the Religious side is that "Atheism" (now reverted (back) to Humanism) is archaic by the Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle" view. Therefore, all religions can be considered more modern than the view originating from the text of Aristotle. Besides, given the later development on both sides makes this more definite, because the Religious side has developed into the civilised while the "Atheist" has developed negatively despite the order from Aristotle himself to develop society by his text named "Politics" describing exactly the "political animal", well known in the "Atheist" circles, but "maybe not in this sense. There seems to be a "slave"-word in there."
Besides, from the above:
1. Stronger Religion Every Day!
The Atheists have failed to provide
* soul and not-soul alike - soul found, at least to some plausibility.
* phantom feelings and not-phantom feelings - phantom feelings found, crucially by (f)MRI, two alike.
* telepathy and not-telepathy - telepathy found by increased awareness and research, at least more credibly too, also by millions' personal experience, just ask them about feelings and "emotional awareness".
Let's not hear them whine about not-(possible-)-God (not-⋄-G) too because it makes them look awkward.
It is noted that Phantom feelings can be found, also, by voluntary surgery, laying one underarm in the freezer, and confirmed by (f)MRI in a couple of months, perhaps faster without entering the problem of these people who have had a tragic event in their lives and who wish to not be part of research.
2. Religion, Ecumenism and Humanism Together - How They Match.
Ecumenically religious humanism, just in case too much troubles over the details. 3. to yourself.
Ecumenically religious. 2. to yourself.
Then, fx. Christian and Scientologist. 1. to yourself.
That the best version of Humanism belongs equally much to Religious people as the Humanists themselves, insofar as they only supply one type of "life view"/"orientation in life", i.e., not citing any particular religious view, not to say that... the privacy notions...
Ecumenism holds from the encyclopedia:
[( ek -yoo-meh-nishm, i- kyooh -muh-nizuhm)]
"A movement promoting cooperation and better understanding among different religious groups or denominations."
Notes:
1. This work is a summary of my NDNID from my web-pages, from my work through the jr. high school, my contributions to the ESP and God debate by mSomatism and general logical work by these other investigations into arguments and defences for God, like the Privacy Argument.
2. Atheism has lost it's foundation mainly because of "6+1" and the other contributions for defending God and Religions by hearts and minds. Because of this, Atheism has also fallen outside academia in at least one sense because it fails anymore to present intelligent/intellectual opposition.
3. The academic contribution always lies inside truth and civilisation insofar as civilisation proves sustainable under honest discussion. After 2000 years, it probably does either way, after working up various important aspects such as the subjects themselves, ethics, law, political science, science in general, mathematics and medicine. Well, well, you can add the rest, engineering, architecture, so on...
References:
1. ESP and God Debate is a debate for unknown length of time, that is, my reference point for it is originating from some Psychology Today article that claims Telepathy to not exist.
2. The Descartes' Phantom Feelings is a project that has been carried through, philosophically, by Richard Swinburne.
3. The Van Lommel Studies has been carried out by Van Lommel of Holland, presumably.
[More information for these references later, in accordance possibly, by CMS.]
4. Ecumenism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ecumenism (accessed: September 20, 2013).
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism .
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism .
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism .
8. The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins has a film to it, "Se7en", starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, but actually written as a "test" with Lista Ungdomsskole, where they have literally stolen it from me, also with possible trauma to go, either directly or by severe torture threats, even, maybe, checked out by tech-ears/tech-eyes (cochlea-implants, eyes/ears).
9. The references for my own work, starting with NDNID some time ago, but with other ideas and work having the origins from late 80s and possibly the early 90s, "with 3 communication vectors and one mass communication idea and cast by Se7en".
10. [The last two points for us, the Religious have their own references. I'll come back to these. This page is now, "6+1+2", with a popular reference of "6+1".]
----
Finally a video presentation to make this whole issue more accessible. I hope you like it:
The Defences for God Explained, myself presenting it
---- Additional text to enter more structurally elegant above, but placed here temporarily to provide reliably quick response, that is, speed is not on us, the Religious, we are not the slow ones:The Dark Energy considerations as "secret" celebration from "Atheism" in proving "not-possible-God" in representing a kind of energy constant by the whole of the Universe, the well-known energy preservation principle also from thermal physics must fall by Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both! That is,
the energy preservation principle over the Universe by WMAP-data, background radiation data -> not-possible God Conclusion: Not-possible God by Modus Ponens
must fall because of Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both!
Either way, a research description that's credible must first be made and they need to show that they have NO corrupt motivations for conducting the research! That is, some other freaks who want to subject the World to freak nature are supposed to be granted a go-ahead because the primary and official researchers for investigating the research think that "it may bring something"!
Freak nature is only one thing: the results of torturing people hideously! 2 more points for the Religious: Also, the religious confidence point must also count in favour for the religious side, although a bit on the side of the arguments playing out.
Another point for the Religious side is that "Atheism" (now reverted (back) to Humanism) is archaic by the Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle" view. Therefore, all religions can be considered more modern than the view originating from the text of Aristotle. Besides, given the later development on both sides makes this more definite, because the Religious side has developed into the civilised while the "Atheist" has developed negatively despite the order from Aristotle himself to develop society by his text named "Politics" describing exactly the "political animal", well known in the "Atheist" circles, but "maybe not in this sense. There seems to be a "slave"-word in there."
Summary: 2 points more on the Religious side. 1 point pro-"Atheism" refuted or not foreseeably successful (by far).
There are some other blog texts to this:
An Easy Way to Religion and Stalwartly So
The Defences for God
The NDNID blog text here
Maybe others?
With our arguments and idiot psychologists not putting in any bloody mouth here, our LOGICAL SOUNDNESS goes sky high and is well respected or should be!
To be added shortly:
The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
UD (universe of discourse): Everything
K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions
G: God proposition
I: Important proposition
P: Propositions in general
E: Objective Ethics propositions
M: Meaning propositions
B: have Belief propositions in
D: Propositions of definition of God
C: Complete Knowledge propositions
(1)
1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).
(2)
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
2. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".
(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
3. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
6. □(∃x)(Dx) R
------------------------------
7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.
(3)
1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Mx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.
(4)
1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Ex) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.
Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!
It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.
One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God.
The NDNID part has no "general deductive outline" yet and perhaps you may need to wait until the paper/book! Thank you for the attention.
Their side, Atheism, is continuously weak too: Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins :
"Christians, if you'd been born in Pakistan you'd be Muslim. Muslims, if born in Poland you'd be Catholic. So why so confident in your faith?"
My answer as one possible answer from the religious:
Religion IS cultural. There is no need for the Religious people, especially not the ecumenical, to "postulate" any dominance or superiority
to this country or that. Which part of the Bible is he ranting about now?
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins :
Why shouldn't Saudi women drive? Driving damages their ovaries and pelvis. http://bit.ly/1fOrsZu Oh I SEE, it's not religion but SCIENCE.
My answer again, Moderate and Modern Christian:
This is cultural as well. Religion and culture isn't always the same. Society "does not comply entirely" with the word of the Holy Books and it has been
like this for a very long time, also expressed in Job's Book of the Old Testament in the Bible.
It's also given that there's good possibility that the virtue of kindness will benefit these women in the future as society develops and society, by this, provides
more optimism, health and good life.
This is one possibility for our side to they "who do not understand".
The Arab countries are still struggling with high unemployment and the general level of development, being "developing", but this has several reasons, see Financial Radicalism/Military Complex of USA, also to Nazi-Germany by "serial-Henry", serial production.
Here's what: science of logic fails to refute possible-God. So if we present a logical proof that says necessary-Ethics proves possible-God and come up possible-God as valid, logical conclusion by Modus Ponens, science in general has nothing to come up with. There are several reasons for this, as much as fission and the atomic bomb has stayed outside the human eye until 1945, God stays outside the scientific human eye FOR NOW. There is not scientific basis for proving God yet or possibly forever because science is in a sense very limited to experiment/discovery, observation/data-set and logic (MT/MP). So with the other science as well, some science is just very hard to come by and with Carnap in my mind, maybe it is so that God just remains to elusive for the human kind to ever put God inside our science. It may not necessarily be a bad thing, but here we are with our progress and this is it... Enjoy 2013.
Life and God
Again, Religion is explained by The Holy Books, life under it or elsewhere, Science explains Reality, Religious people or other, like the Humanists... Science doesn't reach everywhere, it needs to comply with the scientific conventions for conducting exactly science. Alright?
What best describes Reality
Also, the Bible BEST explains Religion and Science, under it or not, explains Science. So here is the Vatican: Pontifical Academy of Sciences by Wikipedia or the Vatican directly, Pontifical Academy of Sciences underwww.Vatican.va . Good?
Atheism is now DEAD!
The expressed reasoning for why Atheism is gone from the universities is this:
The logical foundation, in not anymore being able to object to the "whitelist" Religions:
They have no possibility to logically prove the impossibility of God.
They have failed to be the first to prove the Soul by the Van Lommel studies, to prove the Descartes' Phantom Feelings by fMRI, to prove the statistical existence of telepathy as the human direct perception in everyday life of Quantum Mechanics, seriously, i.e., they are scientifically inferior or, worse, scientifically dishonest, maybe pathologically so too!
They do not bother to display seriousness toward leadership by taking on Humanist Values, being serious to ethics.
These charges are serious against Atheism and will evidently be their bane too, whether "Positive Atheism", Atheism as private view of life, or "Negative Atheism", Atheism as (valid) objection to the Religions!
End note for them: they comply (only) with archaic Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle", i.e., one type of Naturalism as "Life Philosophy" and in doing so fail the future opportunities for being credible leaders because they say explicitly that they are NOT Humanists which includes to be serious about ethics and human-to-human and human-to-nature interactions!
Even still, the Atheists need to realise that Humanism remains the only viable strategy for them and turn to it as soon as possible or face ridicule!
Final statement from myself, Olsnes-Lea (accountable)!
The university duties for ethical leadership GO DEEP! Understand this, please, of find yourself OUT!
Adding a 4th point against Atheism:
That the "evil" on Planet Earth can be explained and therefore that "some stupidity" by the people at this time, Humanity on Planet Earth before 1950 CE needs to accept a kind of stupidity-guilt for "allowing" this to happen.
This removes some of the charges of "evil" in "evil" being a part of human nature, deeper than the Bible because people can definitely be stupid/opportunistic!
"Perhaps then, not malice-bound like that!"
Our side, the Religious need to stand on the view that Christianity and the other Religious convictions go deeper in human beings than the malicious mind, that mostly people want to go to Heaven (by Christianity, other for the others), to be of a good nature to one another.
Final claim by this: stupidity is to blame for some (perception of) "evil" in the World, that the Religious life is the deepest in humanity and that these Religious views are the winners, almost by postulate, either in being in humanity now or that the last Religious people have left life for the Maker of the Universe, the Grand Architect, God etc., so as to equate these Religious views with the standing of Mathematics in the Universe. One can burn the mathematics books, but mathematics is bigger than every human being's nose and lives on in the Universe in being TRUE! (Also see the (social) invalidators of Math by Social Power! Pokemon total power?!)
Just to mention some motivational, under Human Beings as God's Miracle:
The Dark Energy considerations as "secret" celebration from "Atheism" in proving "not-possible-God" in representing a kind of energy constant by the whole of the Universe, the well-known energy preservation principle also from thermal physics must fall by Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both!
That is,
the energy preservation principle over the Universe by WMAP-data, background radiation data -> not-possible God Conclusion: Not-possible God by Modus Ponens
must fall because of Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both!
Either way, a research description that's credible must first be made and they need to show that they have NO corrupt motivations for conducting the research! That is, some other freaks who want to subject the World to freak nature are supposed to be granted a go-ahead because the primary and official researchers for investigating the research think that "it may bring something"!
Freak nature is only one thing: the results of torturing people hideously!
Also, the religious confidence point must also count in favour for the religious side, although a bit on the side of the arguments playing out.
Another point for the Religious side is that "Atheism" (now reverted (back) to Humanism) is archaic by the Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle" view. Therefore, all religions can be considered more modern than the view originating from the text of Aristotle. Besides, given the later development on both sides makes this more definite, because the Religious side has developed into the civilised while the "Atheist" has developed negatively despite the order from Aristotle himself to develop society by his text named "Politics" describing exactly the "political animal", well known in the "Atheist" circles, but "maybe not in this sense. There seems to be a "slave"-word in there."
Summary: 2 points more on the Religious side. 1 point pro-"Atheism" refuted or not foreseeably successful (by far).
A slight sub-point more, as we turn to the Bible anew, by its storytelling nature, thus yielding a new approach and increasing the appeal and confidence of Religious people "ten-folds":
The Defences are no less strengthening to the Religious people and appealing to those outside of it by this, also with the "powerlist" of Philosophers:
(Sorry for not being entirely forthcoming on one aspect or more of our great strengths together.)
There's some additional info to various Religions, by Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism and others, for the ecumenical, depending...:
The Heaven entailment, of NDNID, clearly needs rephrasing, but represents no problem with any Reincarnation religion, like in Hinduism, by adding a solution that says "a kind of crossroads before being reincarnated or reaching Nirvana with the preceding psychological confidence too", that this must be the reality of this Religion "in question", i.e., by name of Religion, or /this/ Religion to use the demonstrative.
Additionally: The ecumenical miracle, coming with the "Best wishes for all (who are Religious),", "Ecumenism for All - The World Communion of Religiousness", Some premises that makes this happen, few or many:
1. One is generous about the social issues, some people have troubles living in poor India and so on.
2. One skip some detalis such as kosher kitchen and halal meet and stay with core ethics (of Humanism) and preserve the understanding of grandness that's nicely entailed in all these religions, God as creator of all in the Universe, poss. of Nirvana, a good nod to reincarnation, the rest that's impossible to prove and most certainly not worthy to kill for or go harms way over.
3. One is open about one's own religion and displays openness the other way to, to learn other people's religions, not necessarily to shun one's own or try to be dominating, but merely to listen in and willing to peacefully impart from one's own Holy Book, whether the Bible, Torah, Quran or the others.
We have now entered World Communion of Religiousness forever and with emotional awareness ("telepathy" to be cautious) this is just the best glitz EVER! :-D :-D 8-) 8-)
"Atheism" Killed More
By "Avicenna"
in promoting "Atheism"/(their) Atheism, as he writes:
"We don't have a moral high ground. The moral high ground that religious people claim to hold doesn't exist because in order to have a moral high ground you need to demonstrate that your ethos is the path of least harm."
First, we, the Religious recognise that we've been admitted the moral high ground straight. Certainly, by understanding laws and regulations in practice, we understand what it takes to provide leadership in terms of responsibility. They can't provide moral leadership because they fail morality to start with.
Second, we expect nothing different from them, in them saying "no harm to my Atheist body, but that I'm more than willing to commit anything you want if I can get out of this, unharmed", that I consider to be their possible attack on all of humanity/human kind. Because if we combine failure to express morality in the first place and then they say that they comply to all that makes them unharmed, unknown how this entire/coherent story of theirs unfold, this makes for a very dangerous kind of "agency"/life philosophy because they are then susceptible to behave in numerous, unreliable ways. Indeed, they have unfriended themselves from humanity.
(Third, what if the Atheist meets the Atheist, will we then have the two people fighting one-another so as to go unharmed in a modern day equivalent to dog-fights that are illegal to start, also by moral leadership?)
One charge against (irresponsible, not having changed their archaic Aristotle description the last 2300 years) "Atheism":
There is no God → Human beings are animals (tenet no. 2) → When people are animals why not "a bit", like in Carnivorism? → Life is then life and money must be life because then you can do more? → How is Ethics in all of this? That I can have life with money, but Ethics... No, money is life. → If now death can't be perceived as anything else than "blackness", why not...? → That Ethics... No Ethics? I got it! → No Ethics, no society? This must be logical. Also by late Freudian-Carnivore-Psychologists!
"I am not logical?", the "Atheist" asks!
Here we are! The challenges are definitely alive. Humanism now? You see it too?
----
Words of character, lately:
Pastor John Hagee:
"The Bible says: “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is no God’.” Atheists say there is no God. Let me tell you that atheism has never painted a masterpiece. Atheism has never dispelled fear. Atheism has never healed a disease; faith in God has, but not atheism. Atheism has never given anyone piece of mind. Atheism has never dried a tear. Atheism has never given an intellectual answer to the creation. Atheism is bankrupt and empty; it’s brain dead."
"It is believed that when people stop believing in God, they believe nothing. That’s wrong. When people no longer believe in God, they will believe in anything. That’s why they start hugging trees. That’s why they start staring into crystals, joining cults, running into the woods, ripping off their shirts, baying at the moon, "because it’s something intellectual [not really, they are atheists] people do when they get frustrated"."
PS: Restraining liking. That is, I'm not "extreme". I consider myself Liberal Christian, by Modern, Moderate Christian. I think the public church has to comply with the Human Rights of UDHR or go private, that is, to become a private (club) congregation inside the privacy laws, but strictly still, inside laws and regulations (of USA or other), commonplace.
----
More to the Team:
True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism
"Atheism has never given anyone "piece"/peace of mind." in the sense that piece here means that Religion adds to intelligence because it cares for humanity, for human values, of the true education and therefore, in the most true sense, it adds to intelligence to the degree one is able to live with the Bible and practice the 10 Commandments, supported by the 7 Cardinal Sins on one's way to Heaven/Reincarnation.
To be Religious is to be intelligent in all aspects is the message for the Religious! Also from Pastor John Hagee.
----
More too, questions. What is it with "Atheism" and cultist activities, voodoo, experimentation with drugs, drugs as life-style, E.T.-life-style, "suspended over all of humanity", deeply fascinated with insects and how they ATTACK, and E. O. Wilson and Sociobiology and love camps in declaring the best Conan, the Barbarian there? What is it with "Atheism" and blackness and damp caves, and leathers of "various qualities" and more "food policies than God could dream of"? The questions concerning "Atheism" never end. Let's ask as much as possible.
The Necessity of Atheism or not:
I find it typical that by the first Atheist text of the English language, naming Karl Marx on top of it, that the text is definite toward trying to narrow "the legal spectrum of thought" to what only the eyes can see, referring to the other so-called evidence-based rationale.
However, the author, Percy Bysshe Shelley, seems to neglect the already existing legal objectivity, barring both theologians and psychiatrists/psychologists.
It gets no better with the dead and gone legacy of Soviet Union either, known for its violations of people's privacy and other Human Rights as well as seeing Religion as dangerous to Human Kind, that "Religion has been an opium to the people"!
please, check with the original text too, one being from 1913, not bothering to date "Atheism" to more than 100 years, not very much!
History of Atheism with it, Wikip., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism, not much left of it in terms of the appeal we now should have against it, us representing the World religions.
Another one to "Atheism", other than "Atheist love camps":
"Atheism", I guess "Atheism" is liberal, is known to support all life-philosophies outside the religions, I guess, especially the whitelist religions. But what about the Cults? Can Atheism guarantee that Atheism is cult-free? What is Atheism going to say to the worried mother who wonders about letting her good son to join Atheism? Is the worry well founded so as to join Christianity instead? We wonder. The questions are many.
Is it not so also that Atheism is known to support some "very" strict hierarchies too? Let's assume hedonism and much egoism and some power involved, pecking orders, money, the rest... What do you think? :-)
Just in case Atheism tries it with ~□God, the negative necessity of God...
Just in case Atheism comes up with a crazy ~□God then we, the Religious, walk up the ladder another step with an appeal to logical soundness by "Explanatory Completeness" in that God provides a better SENSE by fulfilling Ethics, Meaning, Eternity and Perfection by Soul and Telepathy than the Human Nature Atheism does!
"Atheism brings nothing new" means that, seemingly, Atheism/"Atheism" has no ethical considerations to develop, has no history for doing so and is not at the forefront for expressing ethical concerns!
I add Frank Turek to this listing despite the fact that we are many, probably, and growing! I don't share his view on gay/lesbian marriage (although I'm not gay myself (or secretly so, no, I'm straight)). Also, I don't share his view of Intelligent Design to the full depth. However, "inside the Religious class" I find it complementary to other views and arguments. The force of it, though, can be discussed.
On YouTube against David
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtumpeHDnbA
His line of argumentation:
C is for Cosmos is concluded with Turek’s argument for fine tuning
R is for Reason
I is for Information
M is for Morality
E is for Evil and
S is for Science
There are more philosophers listed with the blogposting of "(A Part of) The Easy Way to Religion and Stalwartly So". Also the "powerlist" of philosophers.
If the Intelligent Design is so incredibly "trademarked" that I can't be "allowed" NDNID then I revert mine to Non-Dogmatic Grand Architecture, NDGA (after Thomas Paine and the U.S. constitution), which is just as good!
(And without the big egos from them as well.)
In Atheism trying to raise the Problem of Evil "in 2nd power", I'll basically reply to these "wide scale evil" accusations (which are to some extent plausible) that the Bible is also the story of the Judgment Day, a kind of fatalist story! (Please, see the appropriate metaphysics for Fatalism.)
----
While writing the above, I may claim the right to say that my Defences for God constitute (a weaker class of) proof!
Modal Logical Argument for the Existence of God - S5 Modality
UD (universe of discourse): Everything
G: Existence of God
H: Existence of Heaven
E: All Necessary Objective Ethics
M: Necessary Meaning
D: Necessary Definition of God (God is spirit)
C: Necessary Complete Knowledge - all the knowledge we can come to know, also when in Heaven
So,
1 C - Assumption
2 E - Assumption
3 M - Assumption
4 D - Assumption
5 C implies possible H/possible G - Assumption
6 E implies possible G - Assumption
7 M implies possible G - Assumption
8 D implies possible G - Assumption
0-------------------
9 C & E & M & D Conjunction introduction 1-4
10 possible G Implication elimination 2, 6
11 (C & E & M & D) implies possible G Implication introduction 9, 10
12 - (C & E & M & D) implies triple-possible G S5(1) 9,10 (◊◊◊) I guess my interpretation of S5 Modal logic in two steps
13 - triple-possible G implies Necessary Existence of God S5(2) (◊◊◊->□) I guess my interpretation of S5 Modal logic in two steps
0-------------------
14 Necessary Existence of God (□G, i.e., Necessary Existence of God)
I guess my interpretation of S5 Modal logic in two steps such that a possible, possible, possible entity becomes very possible entity becomes necessary entity.
Note: Atheists acknowledge in general that they can't disprove the existence of God.
That is, in simple words, that the necessary entities of Objective Ethics, Meaning, Definition of God and "Complete" Knowledge entails this special version of S5 modality so that these entities suggest a very possible Existence of God (and Heaven) and thus implies the necessary Existence of God (and Heaven).
(Introduction of "this" S5 is then given as example by a (triple-)possible company that operates by principles possible A, possible B and possible C and by these becomes a necessary company in this World, say Intel, Microsoft, Alphabet/Google, Nike, Adidas, Asics, Sony or any other! My innovation?!)
I am to write some commenting to Luther's 95 Theses. In addition, I'll add some to them, that relates.
For example no God's word, no Holy Ghost. Now cleared by information society and greater access to Latin to English translation means.
Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in Latin and English
The original text of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in original Latin and translated English text. More correctly the 95 Theses was actually called the “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” by Dr. Martin Luther (1517).
English text first, Latin text follows:
Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517) Published in:
Works of Martin Luther:
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38
_______________
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”
83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”
85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”
86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”
88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”
89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
Source: Internet somewhere. I need some more time to have the location supplied here, but the words are everywhere, I therefore make this available right away, while correctly citing Rev. Martin Luther's name!
