Agnosticism

[ricmat]

Actually, rising from the dead is an incredibly common theme in myth and ancient religion. Gilgamesh, Aeneas, Orpheus, Heracles, and Odysseus all traveled to the land of the dead and returned. The goddess Persephone/Proserpine dies and rises every year in the summer-winter cycle – a theme one finds repeated in many, many other polytheistic religions. Osiris was killed and dismembered by Set, but sewn together and brought back to life by Isis. Hinduism and Buddhism claim everybody is resurrected until they attain nirvana. The mystery religion Mithraism is centered around a quasi-deity who died and was reborn. And this is barely scratching the surface.

… Christianity promoted the idea of a loving God – one whom worshipers didn’t have to propitiate constantly, one whom they could see as a loving, close father instead of as a vaguely-interested master, and one who encouraged them to love as he did and would eventually take them to his own abode. The promised afterlife was also a distinctly happier place than, say, the dull and drab Hades.

As you point out, there have been such religions in the past. And the answer to that is that God was preparing humanity (via typology) for the coming of Christ. The whole idea of gods (such as you point out above), and an afterlife needed to be presented to humanity in a gradual way so that when God revealed himself, it wasn’t a total unbelievable shock.

I’m not claiming that Christianity was the first to believe it. But it’s still around, and these others are not.

“Not being first to come up with something” seems to be a common criticism of Catholicism by Protestants, and of Christianity by non-Christians, agnostics, and atheists.

“Eating the body of your god” was not “invented” by Christ either. Nor were the Jews the first to believe in “one” God. I’m surprised you didn’t bring those up too. But again, when preparing great philosophical movements of peoples, you need to lay some groundwork. And the groundwork is not the final masterpiece.

So other than Christianity, which current religion makes the claim that it’s founder is God, and that he became human, and rose from the dead? Where are their followers, who believe so strongly in this that they are willing to die for it?

 

[Mirdath]

As you point out, there have been such religions in the past. And the answer to that is that God was preparing humanity (via typology) for the coming of Christ. The whole idea of gods (such as you point out above), and an afterlife needed to be presented to humanity in a gradual way so that when God revealed himself, it wasn’t a total unbelievable shock.

Honestly, that sounds more than a little self-centered and more than a little wrong. Didn’t the one true God reveal himself to the very first humans, and then to the only surviving people after the Deluge? Why were only Abraham’s children ‘ready’ for God a little later on?

Especially considering the treatment given anyone who didn’t know the Israelites worshiped the one true God and raided or conquered them – or even just built cities in an area they’d be coming into a while later – I have real trouble buying the idea that a just and merciful God would play favorites in such a manner. Was there some pressing reason he couldn’t have spoken through the statue of Dagon and told the Philistines ‘yeah, I’m real, now go make nice with the Israelites, they worship me too but they don’t think I look like a fish’? I can’t think of one.

“Eating the body of your god” was not “invented” by Christ either. Nor were the Jews the first to believe in “one” God. I’m surprised you didn’t bring those up too. But again, when preparing great philosophical movements of peoples, you need to lay some groundwork. And the groundwork is not the final masterpiece.

I may have a tendency to veer offtopic (like we are now!), but I do try – I’m not punking on Christianity as a whole, but on the idea of using a resurrection as a unique selling point

So other than Christianity, which current religion makes the claim that it’s founder is God, and that he became human, and rose from the dead? Where are their followers, who believe so strongly in this that they are willing to die for it?

That I’ll grant you. Christianity is the only extant major religion to have deified its own founder – others are content to claim prophetic revelation or insight. It’s an odd mishmash of ‘new and improved’ and a very primal background.

But again, you can’t really use that to sell Christianity. From the outside, the story doesn’t look like God becoming a man, it looks like a man becoming a god. And if someone accepts your version of events, well, he or she’s already Christian.

 

[ricmat]

Honestly, that sounds more than a little self-centered and more than a little wrong. Didn’t the one true God reveal himself to the very first humans, and then to the only surviving people after the Deluge? Why were only Abraham’s children ‘ready’ for God a little later on?

Yes, God revealed himself. Adam/Eve had the most first hand knowledge. After original sin, we lost the close connection with God, and mankind gradually drifted towards more and more evil. That’s the story of most of Genesis.

The “only surviving people” survived by God’s design. They were the only non-Evil people left in the world at the time. But even then, mankind decayed afterwards, and God needed to reveal himself again, gradually over time, starting with Abraham.

Especially considering the treatment given anyone who didn’t know the Israelites worshiped the one true God and raided or conquered them – or even just built cities in an area they’d be coming into a while later – I have real trouble buying the idea that a just and merciful God would play favorites in such a manner. Was there some pressing reason he couldn’t have spoken through the statue of Dagon and told the Philistines ‘yeah, I’m real, now go make nice with the Israelites, they worship me too but they don’t think I look like a fish’? I can’t think of one.

I can see that God isn’t meeting up to your expectations again

But again, you can’t really use that to sell Christianity. From the outside, the story doesn’t look like God becoming a man, it looks like a man becoming a god. And if someone accepts your version of events, well, he or she’s already Christian.

I’m not selling anything, nor are most Christians. We’re just telling the truth. It’s true that today most Christians were born that way, and accepted what they were taught. But not so in the early days.

There were obviously a LOT of people then who obviously would have been skeptical (yeah right, miracles, rising from the dead, etc.) but ended up believing - starting with those who were closest to Jesus. And they “sold” it so well that they ended up dying horrible deaths for it. That’s not something most sales people sign up for. Those who were close told their story, and died for it, and others believed.

 

[Mirdath]

The “only surviving people” survived by God’s design. They were the only non-Evil people left in the world at the time. But even then, mankind decayed afterwards, and God needed to reveal himself again, gradually over time, starting with Abraham.

Which begs the question – why does God need to do anything?

To be perfectly clear, what I think you’re getting at is something different from the ‘partial truth/fullness of truth’ concept. I don’t have any problems with the idea that people try to reach God as best they know how. But if I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying God basically tricked everybody but the Israelites into believing a corrupted or watered-down version of the truth so he could break it to them more easily. That’s… iffy, at best.

I can see that God isn’t meeting up to your expectations again

He’s got some rather big shoes to fill, doesn’t he?

There were obviously a LOT of people then who obviously would have been skeptical (yeah right, miracles, rising from the dead, etc.) but ended up believing - starting with those who were closest to Jesus. And they “sold” it so well that they ended up dying horrible deaths for it. That’s not something most sales people sign up for. Those who were close told their story, and died for it, and others believed.

You’re not the only religion with martyrs either From my perspective, it really does look kind of like a market with several competing product lines. I don’t have any way to know which is the truth.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:God is our Father. Our Father has set certain conditions. One of those is that, regardless of how He WANTS us to choose Him, we are fully and completely free to not choose Him while we CAN choose Him, and we must make our choice between being “alive” on earth and “alive” after-earth. I do agree with you on the “parent-ness” of God, but you are unclear of what “parent” means. But, your “difficulty” is that you insist on YOUR “logic” over that of God…!

God has TOLD us, in no uncertain terms, that there IS in fact a time after which the decision to choose Him ends.

If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe revelation. If you don’t believe revelation, then the entire subject of “the ends of things” is utterly meaningless to you. Your use of the word “proper” shows perfectly where you’re coming from. You impose your views as “more right” than God’s.

Therefore,…

…you see no problem in believing that God sets no timeframes or limits, because to you that would be “cruel” or “rude”.
Timeframes are not necessarily bad. Timeframes in which you will not ever get another chance? Yes, I see that as cruel for an all-powerful God who knows how fallible His creation is.

What you rebel against, you are quite the rebel you know )), is the very concept of finality.

That is typical of youth, which has only a very distant concept of “mortality”. If you’re not actually “young”, you are certainly “young of mind”, and perhaps “young of heart”.

Since you simply “don’t like” the observable fact of “mortality” (death) it isn’t surprising that you’d simply deny a much less observable thing like “final disposition” (heaven or hell).

Quote:…you see no problem in believing that God should fully inform all creatures such that they will be guaranteed “heaven”, because to do otherwise is to be “rude” and “cruel”.
Why would everyone be guaranteed heaven; wouldn’t free will still exist and only ignorance be demolished?

You don’t understand the concept of “ignorance”. IGNORANCE is not merely “not knowing”,… it is “NOT ACCEPTING NOT KNOWING”. To be uniformed is one thing, but to be informed and not accept the information is “ignorance”.

If God “made known perfectly” that hell was your fate if you didn’t do thus and such, no one would choose to do otherwise.

Since the choice has been “taken away” by being “perfectly informed”, there’s no choice to make. Our free will to make a choice that isn’t there is to negate free will in that instance.

How does having accurate information take away free will? Do educators take away your free will by making you less ignorant of the world?

You want “perfect knowledge” such that the choice which CAN’T be taken away MUST be taken away.

Remember what we’re talking about. Should you believe in God.

You have, whether you believe it or not, sufficient knowledge to believe in God, or at least to find out that God does exist.

By claiming that you will only believe what you are FORCED to believe is to deny free will (protestantism/atheism), which is a bizarre request for someone that puts ALL his faith IN free will.

No, in most cases you have desired the knowledge and pursued it by enrolling in classes, reading books, etc.

That is correct. You have what you need,… but you refuse to check out the resources because they are “silly”.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

I have wondered about this for a while, and asked this question before, and the answer I have received is:

If you have the information, the choice would be obvious to serve God, or I’ve also received:
If you have the information, your choice on whether or not to believe God is real is taken away.

So how about this then, “God I choose not to be ignorant, please provide me with clear concrete information I can understand so that I can make a decision, not based on error, not based upon deception, not based upon lies I have heard, but based upon truth, about whether or not to follow you”

That is a beautiful prayer…! Amen…!

I’ll address each bit separately:

“God I choose not to be ignorant, please provide me with clear concrete information I can understand so that I can make a decision…”

God, show me the catechism. Allow me to read it in the spirit of wanting to understand it and not in the spirit of needing to refute it.

“so that I can make a decision, not based on error,…”

God, allow me to have the perseverance to hold the goal of wanting to know truth until I’m finished doing my research.

God, show me the meaning of the word “error” so that I may recognize it when I see it.

“not based upon deception, not based upon lies I have heard,…”

God, free me of my prejudice that all men are “out to get me” and manipulate me according to how I would manipulate them if I were able.

“but based upon truth, about whether or not to follow you”

God, show me that truth is that which may not be in accord with what I want but is always in accord with what I need, and which will make me both happy and sad for it’s illumination of my weaknesses and strengths.

God, show me this truth which holds together in itself and in all it’s relations to the one reality which it describes such that Your guiding Spirit will draw me closer and closer to You out of the simple logic that it is what is best for me.

Why is this a bad thing? Why would taking away ignorance take away my free will?

Your request is the request that ALL Christians (should!) ask every 25 minutes or so, because our nature is to become addicted to our conforts and forget what we’re doing here.

What we’re doing here is acting without sinning. That’s a BEAR of a freakin’ task…!

I’ve explained how being “absolutely informed” is to take away the choice in question, because free will as regards a question requires a choice. No choice, no need for free will, as there’s no choice to act on with that free will.

I sincerely do not understand this part, and would be more than happy to choose to have the information rather than stumble around in the dark(how much is really gained by that?).

That you want is to be forced to choose wisely, which is a great (and utterly safe) WANT, but removes you from the responsibility of being “a man”.

If you want to be forced to always make the wisest choice, become an animal. They always do the “wisest thing”, in their realm.

And of course, that is the goal of the atheist,… to be forced to do the most “animalistically wisest” thing.

Quote: Your “arguments” replace God with YOU, which is choosing you over God, which puts you in a curious place relative to the required “final decision”, now, doesn’t it?
There are a lot of religions out there that are not 100% truth, you agree with that. So you would agree that it would be good to be skeptical about religions that they may be false and lead a person down the wrong trail, correct?

I’ve travelled the roads of the other religions and semi-religions (eastern, european pagan, amerind-pagan, scientific, new-age, politico-sociological) and they never “satisfied”.

No religion other than the Church is anything more than an “amplification” of some smallish-to-largish aspect of “natural law”.

Once this becomes clear, by the human reaction of “anxious fatigue” (and “chronic headache”), there is only one remaining thing to do.

Humbly immerse yourself into the Church, and take the bath that truly refreshes prepares you for work of the day.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued below:

I believe this, and am simply applying it to every religion including Catholicism.

What you are applying to the Church is “active attack” by mistaking the sinful and degenerate “flashy” trees for the forest.

Atheists, who understand that atheism is NOT what they want, must make a choice to commit, and do so over and over again, to a real religion, because they know that as long as they cling to their own invention, because they think that ALL religions are “men’s invention” (so why change!?), they will always flounder about in the land of the truly IGNORANT (actively not wanting to know).

When either you get sick-unto-death of the overblown narrowness of the non-Church religions, or stumble into the Church by “accident”, you will not be able to make an informed decision.

Concerning the argument: “if you think you have found logical errors with Catholicism, then you must put your trust in God and follow Catholicism logic, as your own is flawed.”,…

I have this to say: I could say the same thing to you and just replace “Catholicism” with “Religion XYZ”.

Until you EXPERIENCE that which you want “proof of”, you can’t make an informed decision.

My experience is that God proves Himself to me by my interaction with the Church.

The question is what your experiences are AFTER you commit, even temporarily, to a religion, and what that tells you.

I need to make sure I am not being deceived by Catholicism as much as I need to make sure I am not being deceived by religion XYZ.

You need proof BEFORE you’ll commit. You get proof only AFTER you commit. That is simply the way it is, and the great stumbling block of the age.

But,… the way around it is to take a look at how really benign the Church is in relation to those who are even nominally it’s members (such as yourself as you are obviously searching for God which by definition makes you a member of the Church).

Do the experiment. Preferably, do the Catholic one before any of the others to avoid the inevitable “suffering through” of the others.

I can overcome seeing a few issues that do not make sense to me in a religion. But when items not only don’t make sense, but seem to be the opposite of what I’d expect, then I have to look deeper. It’s the only way I can honestly look for the truth.

What items don’t make sense, and which are not “what you’d expect”…?

The process of making sense of truths which aren’t what one expects, or thinks they “hope for”, is called “Catechesis”.

Your here to learn. Ask specific questions. Do your research. Listen to those, not to whom give only what you EXPECT, but whom give you actual truthful answers.

How do you know they speak the truth? Because they agree with the Church.

Too circular for you? Dealing with that is the task of humanity in the world.

Quote:
Perhaps God WILL give those in hell another choice at some point. Who knows? But we have no hint of that. I’d be a bit nervous of relying on that supposition if I had ANY belief in God as revealed to us.

Yes, perhaps. There is so much grey surrounding heaven/hell.

Hell IS gray. That’s one big reason it’s called hell. But it’s a rather nasty gray, where even the flames aren’t as you’d expect them to be, “spectacular” and "frighteningly amazing, but only depressing and seriously SERIOUSLY annoying.

Quote:
Absolutely…! The reality of hell SHOULD drive people into the truth, and not out of it. How and why do some people use hell to LEAVE that which is there only to help them choose truth?

The answer? Because they come up with “fantasies” to explain that hell is not a reality.

Speaking for myself, I did not try to think up ways to explain away hell, it was never a goal. I tried (and wow, am still trying) to find a way to reconcile the issues.

Hell is real. Period. Heaven is real. Period. What’s to reconcile?

Quote:
If you are “partially reconciled” with the existence of relative levels of truth in the world’s religions, then you aren’t “reconciled” with it at all.

I guess not. It gave me some newfound religious structure, and kept my faith going a little longer, though the weight of other issues brought the building down.

“It”…!? What is the “it” in that 2nd sentence above?

The “weight” that brings down faith in God is the despair of NEEDING to have all the answers only as you will ACCEPT them.

That wieght will always accumulate over time unless you “give it up” to God, in the Church, as the arbiter of the base of all knowledge, which is truth, as revealed by God through the Church.

 

[ricmat]

To be perfectly clear, what I think you’re getting at is something different from the ‘partial truth/fullness of truth’ concept. I don’t have any problems with the idea that people try to reach God as best they know how. But if I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying God basically tricked everybody but the Israelites into believing a corrupted or watered-down version of the truth so he could break it to them more easily. That’s… iffy, at best.

Everyone has a conscience, and those who had no access to the full truth will be judged on how much they knew and how they followed their consciences (this is a gross oversimplification, but there are other threads for this).

God tricks nobody. Some people talk themselves into doing what they want to do - even though their consciences are telling them that they shouldn’t do it. This happens even to people who know a great deal (almost all or all) of the truth. God is not tricking us, we just don’t want to listen.

Hmm…I’ll bet you believe that science started with simple, watered down truths, and is gradually moving toward “real” truth. Why should religion be otherwise?

 

[Mirdath]

Everyone has a conscience, and those who had no access to the full truth will be judged on how much they knew and how they followed their consciences (this is a gross oversimplification, but there are other threads for this).

I’m well aware of this, and think it conflicts with what you’re saying. You seem to be asserting that God actively promoted various levels of ignorance of Truth in order to more effectively reveal himself later – that’s the sticking point.

Hmm…I’ll bet you believe that science started with simple, watered down truths, and is gradually moving toward “real” truth. Why should religion be otherwise?

Because religion claims to already possess fullness of truth. Science makes no such claim.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Until you “choose one”, and see where it takes you, you’ll be hanging out in the “hallway” of God’s presence, and be as interesting to talk to about religion as one who’s never been into any of the rooms of the “mansion” yet claims to tell us of the spectacular particulars of the “Grand Hall”, and the marvelous portraiture of the “Family Dining Room”.

Are you saying I shouldn’t talk about Catholicism when I’m not one? I’ve been a Catholic a good portion of my life, if that is what you are referring to. I was quite involved with the faith: daily masses or devotions, retreats, weekly rosaries, church volunteering, confessions, etc.

Since you can’t seem to identify the furniture, or the lovely woodwork in the room you claim to have visited, I’m a bit dubious about your having spent much time there.

Of course, you could just be rather unobservant. That’s a distinct possibility.

Quote:
OK. So what? What’s you point in that rather obvious statement?

My point was that you see thorough belief in ANY religion as being a “bad thing” because no one religion can be truly thoroughly believable.

That is where you are wrong. But there IS only one religion that does qualify as thoroughly believable.

While religion is what I have issue with, I don’t see it as a bad thing necessarily. See post #17 where I said “Having religion is not a bad thing, it just is.”

Just seems easy to make a mistake and follow the wrong religion and be in much danger of hell because of a person’s misunderstanding, which does not seem right (if certain portions about hell are true, again, much grey).

You are not held responsible for that which you aren’t held responsible. That’s obvious, of course, but you imply that you can actually be held responsible for something you AREN’T responsible for…!

This single misunderstanding is grave! If this misunderstanding is what you think the Church believes, then I fully understand your problem with the Church…!!

The thing is,… that’s not the Church’s belief…! Yeah…!!

The majority of the world is in that predicament right now if Catholicism is true.

No it’s not, as only that part that they are responsible for will they be held responsible for.

Quote:
Uh,… how many times must I say THIS: The fact of the test is certain, if you believe, and the fact of the consequences of the test as “really REALLY important” is certain, if you believe.

So, the real question is why does God leave us to either believe or not to believe?

Because, to give us a choice that no one would choose is to take away our free will to choose in that matter. God doesn’t do that.

I partially responded to this above. For some reason I am not getting across to you that I know you are saying it is fact if you believe. I am saying it would be nice if the rest of us knew it was fact.

Your error is the desire, a very human one, to trade free will for security.

That is what makes protestantism so attractive. That’s what makes nihilism so attractive. Security at the cost of there being a “mystery” that causes what mysteries always cause, ANXIETY.

Learning to deal with anxiety by giving authority to authorities who are appropriately authorities of ONLY those things which they SHOULD be authorities over, is called growing up.

Giving authority over those things claimed by the Church, and ONLY those things, is the answer to the anxiety produced by “those things” being “dealt with” by ourselves.

I will freely give up my ignorance to know whether or not hell is a fact so I can make an informed choice. Who knows, there probably is a person or two who would choose hell. The bottom line is this: Christians are telling me one thing, Scientologists are telling me another, religion XYZ is telling me another.

To you, is there an anxwer to your question?

If so, how would you know it if you saw it?

If you give up in figuring out what truth looks like (which is the prime gift of God), then you’re on a fools errand, because even if someone offers it to you, you’re still in exactly the same place when you started.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:
But you have all that information…! The only question is whether or not you choose to believe the Teacher is who He says He is, and that He tells only the truth.

If you don’t believe the Teacher exists and has spoken to you, even though He has, whose problem is it that you do as you do on the upcoming test?

That’s the problem! I also have the information about Xenu, Scientologists would argue, and a multitude of others. I can find people of every religion who will tell me of heartfelt visions, their deep faith, and why they are correct over the others. They all look the same to me. I don’t have the information that tells me that the stories in this particular book - the Bible, and not the others, are fact.

You need to concentrate LESS on the “so-called truths” that are offered, and more on what truth looks like.

That info is accessable only from God through prayer. Prayer, in this case, being simply being extremely humble and asking the question as to what truth looks like. Then, humbly listening.

Concerning strong/weak atheism definitions, not all atheists would agree with what you state. Perhaps that would be a good discussion to start with the author of that paragraph.

Yeah,… it most likely would be a fun time.

Quote:
Hell is not a punishment. Hell is a result. God doesn’t punish with hell. Hell is the result of finally not choosing God.

Once you accept that the final choice has been directly after that moment between life and death, the result of that choice, which is FINAL as we are told it is final, which therefore CAN’T be “rehabilitated out of” because it’s FINAL, is respected by God because He has said He will never violate our free will.

see above

Quote:
ABSOLUTE mercy (the forgiveness of ALL errors under any condition) can’t logically coexist with ABSOLUTE justice (the rightful consequences for doing good and evil) because they are definitionally mutually exclusive.

I defined mercy as compassion, not as letting someone off the hook.

Mercy is giving that which is NOT merited.

Compassion is putting yourself in anothers place in empathy and love.

“Absolute Mercy” would be giving no deserved “bad thing” to anyone.

That is how I see that as negating justice, because there is then no contrast between the gift given to the deserved and the undeserved.

The Bible talks about God being both merciful and just. See here for definition of mercy as kind/compassionate that I was using. bibleinsong.com/Promises/…Gods_mercy.htm
My thoughts are that God can lovingly forgive and justly punish that same person, and still be considered infinitely fair and kind.

If you eliminate the concept of “finality” I agree with you.

But I’m not willing to dispense with finality, because God has told us that that is not to be done.

You may argue with God as you like, but I’d rather like to think about the consequences OF that stipulation instead of wander into unreal fantasies.

Would you say that all punishments are unkind?

No.

I would not. Maybe its simply semantics that are getting in the way? Maybe the words perfectly merciful and perfectly just would be better suited?

Your problem is with the finality of hell as we know hell to be, upon which you deny hell’s existence because it’s unjust.

The question is how to deal with your insistence on your conditions for hell as you see hell, and hell as hell is.

You SEEM to deal with it by sundering the entire structure of the Church,… which is your right, it is your “free will choice”, but because to sunder the Church is to sunder God, it puts you in an “interesting” place.

It FORCES not your free will to choose, but forces you to choose God as God, or not.

 

[ricmat]

You seem to be asserting that God actively promoted various levels of ignorance of Truth in order to more effectively reveal himself later – that’s the sticking point.

I’m not saying that God was hiding Truth from anybody. I am saying that God chose to reveal himself over time, to a small group of people, and then to a larger group, and an even larger group…etc.

I can see how this would be one effective way of revealing the Truth. Especially since it actually worked over time.

God could have chosen a different way to do it. Maybe in a way that makes more sense to you. But he didn’t, and that’s that!

BTW - there’s a parallel conversation going on now in this thread - Keikiolu and Aleii. It makes for interesting reading (if you haven’t read it already).

 

[Aleii]

I need to attend to work and family the rest of the week, therefore, my response will be several days delayed.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Hmm…I’ll bet you believe that science started with simple, watered down truths, and is gradually moving toward “real” truth. Why should religion be otherwise?

Because religion claims to already possess fullness of truth. Science makes no such claim.

Actually, you’re wrong in this regard as well…!!

We HAVE the fullness of the truth, but it’s not entirely understood yet.

Much as one can HAVE a whole book, but only have read half of it yet.

All has been revealed, but we are still on the path of growth in the faith.

Regarde:

Growth in understanding the faith (( Catechism,… read it! ))

[94](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/94.htm’) Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.
• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”, the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”
• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.
  95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

 

[Aleii]

Ricmat – Mirdath gave a good answer to your question. I would add that the psychology of religions shows that if people can make up a religion that shares a lot of aspects that the later Catholicism does, then it is a possibility that Catholicism was made up too. I know that you believe it is the truth, and I appreciate your views on things

Keikiolu:

Since you simply “don’t like” the observable fact of “mortality” (death) it isn’t surprising that you’d simply deny a much less observable thing like “final disposition” (heaven or hell).

Not liking something is not the same as not accepting it. Do I like that if I slip on ice I will hurt myself? No, but I still accept it as fact because it is logical. Death makes logical sense to me, even if I dislike the circumstances around it (which, where I work, is often unexpected and violent, such as drunk driving). Hell does not make logical sense to me. Logic is what I have to go by, not feelings. The two are not correlated for what I accept.

Keikiolu:

You don’t understand the concept of “ignorance”. IGNORANCE is not merely “not knowing”,… it is “NOT ACCEPTING NOT KNOWING”. To be uniformed is one thing, but to be informed and not accept the information is “ignorance”.

If God “made known perfectly” that hell was your fate if you didn’t do thus and such, no one would choose to do otherwise.

Since the choice has been “taken away” by being “perfectly informed”, there’s no choice to make. Our free will to make a choice that isn’t there is to negate free will in that instance.

Apparently we disagree on a lot of definitions. American Heritage Dictionary for ignorance = The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. I am not ignorant of what Catholics believe, but I am ignorant (unaware) of which, if any, is the truth, as Mirdath eloquently stated earlier. Simply that you decide to add on another qualifier to a word does not make it so. I have shown you each time where I got the definition that I am using, but you have not given any research to show otherwise, merely make the assertion that I am wrong. I don’t see this argument of semantics as very productive.

I disagree that God giving concrete information that is fully understandable and clear to me is taking away my choice. Just because one decision is much less desirable (to the majority of people) does not mean that a decision has been taken away. You say that I have sufficient knowledge to believe in God, and then you say that if God made things perfectly known to me that I would have my free choice taken away – this sounds contradictory. Many biblical people had complete evidence of God, such as Adam/Eve and Moses. Were they then therefore without free will? Of course not.

That is correct. You have what you need,… but you refuse to check out the resources because they are “silly”.

What resource have I refused to check out? Where are these numerous accusations coming from? Each part of your expansion of the prayer makes an erroneous assumption about me as well.

Again, all religions make the claim to me that they are the accurate one. You have given me nothing to state otherwise except that I must first believe (which has already been the story of my life).

 

[Aleii]

Keikiolu:

Since you can’t seem to identify the furniture, or the lovely woodwork in the room you claim to have visited, I’m a bit dubious about your having spent much time there.

Of course, you could just be rather unobservant. That’s a distinct possibility.

I have taken effort to show you and your religion a great deal of respect in my posts. I ask for the same. Your personal attacks are doing no good; calling me a liar is insulting, as I hold honesty to be of a high priority. I do admit that I could be wrong about anything in this world. Humans are fallible. I hope that you could admit that you may be wrong on some things too, or unobservant on things – such as my background. I wrote in post 17 about how I was born a Catholic and spent over a decade in a crisis of faith “I grew up devout Catholic. I think this is a big part on why it took me over a decade of fighting to stay Catholic before I could call myself agnostic” you responded to the end portion of that post. I then again referred to post 17 in post 57. My profile states that I was Catholic, now agnostic. A quick look back on my prior posts would give you ones such as this. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=129011 I wonder if you have been ignoring portions of my writing that you don’t like to see, because I have been very forthright that I was a devoted, active, faithful Catholic (yes, baptized and confirmed). Yet, a large chunk of your most recent response talks about how I need to give Catholicism and praying a devoted try!

I have laid it out, bare. Please stop the assumptions and open your mind about what I am saying with respect, otherwise further posts will have little to no productivity.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Since you simply “don’t like” the observable fact of “mortality” (death) it isn’t surprising that you’d simply deny a much less observable thing like “final disposition” (heaven or hell).

Not liking something is not the same as not accepting it. Do I like that if I slip on ice I will hurt myself? No, but I still accept it as fact because it is logical.

You accept it not because it is LOGICAL, but because it is EXPERIENTIAL…!!

How can those who have no experience of a thing be expected to choose to accept it over not accepting it, or not even making a decision as to whether to accept it or not…?

The experiential reality of “God stuff” is observable if one does the necessary experimentation.

If one chooses to not do the requisite experimentation, then it’s perfectly sensible that the non-observed results OF the non-performed experiment seem to not exist.

Death makes logical sense to me, even if I dislike the circumstances around it (which, where I work, is often unexpected and violent, such as drunk driving).

Death can’t make “logical sense” to you as anything but “loss of animation”,… of “lack of life”.

Experiencing “death” is not possible unless one does the “religious experiment” whereby one is given an experience of death.

Hell does not make logical sense to me. Logic is what I have to go by, not feelings. The two are not correlated for what I accept.

Hell does not make sense to you, because you have sense of it, precisely because you have no sense of death as death. You see death as “the act of dying” (pain) and the “obliteration of life” (abject oblivion).

You like love (affection) because it “feels good”, not because it’s “logical”.

Since you have no sense, as in “no sensory experience of”, of “God stuff”, you have nothing to work with (either logical of experiential/sensual) to decide one way or the other as to whether any of it makes sense to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
*You don’t understand the concept of “ignorance”. IGNORANCE is not merely “not knowing”,… it is “NOT ACCEPTING NOT KNOWING”. To be uniformed is one thing, but to be informed and not accept the information is “ignorance”.

If God “made known perfectly” that hell was your fate if you didn’t do thus and such, no one would choose to do otherwise.

Since the choice has been “taken away” by being “perfectly informed”, there’s no choice to make. Our free will to make a choice that isn’t there is to negate free will in that instance.*

Apparently we disagree on a lot of definitions. American Heritage Dictionary for ignorance = The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

I’m simply tightening the definition so as to get my point across. You needn’t accept my definition as anything but my attempt to tell you what I mean, as opposed to trying to redefine the word itself.

I am not ignorant of what Catholics believe, but I am ignorant (unaware) of which, if any, is the truth, as Mirdath eloquently stated earlier.

I agree with you entirely, using your definitions of things…!

Simply that you decide to add on another qualifier to a word does not make it so. I have shown you each time where I got the definition that I am using, but you have not given any research to show otherwise, merely make the assertion that I am wrong. I don’t see this argument of semantics as very productive.

I’m not here to convince you of anything but that there is a person, me, that has personal proof that God exists.

That it is impossible for me to convince you with my proof, because my proof is not applicable (usable) to/by you, I agree with you, once again, entirely…!

I’m not merely saying, “You’re wrong”. I’m saying that you are right in as much as you know, because you haven’t done what needs doing to find out that you are actually wrong,… and no “proof” from me helps you in the least to know that, because you have to WANT to do what is necessary to find out the truth, and you’re not there yet.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

I disagree that God giving concrete information that is fully understandable and clear to me is taking away my choice.

That’s because you simply reject the obvious logic that to take away choice is to take away choice.

You’r welcome to your faith-based beliefs, just as am I.

Just because one decision is much less desirable (to the majority of people) does not mean that a decision has been taken away.

I totally agree with you…! Our only disagreement is the degree of “desirability” removes choice.

You need to have a thing “proved” beyond the possibility of doubt to you that it’s real (in the area of God-stuff) in such a way that you could take that “proof” to others and have a near 100% chance of proving it to them.

My belief is that that is prohibited because belief in God is utterly personal, where “proof” MUST be only “to one’s self”, and that the only thing that one person can communicate to another in this regard is that THEY have changed somehow (for the better) and that the “experiment” of doing-religion is worth doing.

That God is worth choosing. He wants us to choose Him, but only if we WANT to choose Him by doing what is necessary to do so.

You say that I have sufficient knowledge to believe in God, and then you say that if God made things perfectly known to me that I would have my free choice taken away – this sounds contradictory.

If you “had no choice” but to believe, would you believe, or would you not believe?

How is that contradictory?

Many biblical people had complete evidence of God, such as Adam/Eve and Moses. Were they then therefore without free will? Of course not.

Adam/Eve chose to not believe that God’s command was not be be violated.

Moses chose not to believe that when God said to strike the rock once, He meant ONCE…!

They had free will to “not believe”, even given “perfect evidence”.

How many people today would explain away the burning bush?

God NEVER gives “perfect evidence” such as to take away free will. Now we’re arguing on the same side…?

Quote:
That is correct. You have what you need,… but you refuse to check out the resources because they are “silly”.

What resource have I refused to check out?

The resources of the Church.

Where are these numerous accusations coming from? Each part of your expansion of the prayer makes an erroneous assumption about me as well.

You’ll have to detail how my impression is wrong. Then we can deal with them one at a time.

Again, all religions make the claim to me that they are the accurate one. You have given me nothing to state otherwise except that I must first believe (which has already been the story of my life).

You may believe what you like as to what religions claim.

If you haven’t done what needs doing to experience God, because there are more than one experiment offered to you, only one of which is the fully trustworthy one, then I’ll just have to wait around for you to get to the right experiment, and actually DO IT, before we have a whole lot more to talk about,… won’t I?

The hunter sees 6 types of deer, 17 types of rodents, several bird species, a couple of bovines, a family of pigs and a multitude of rocks, sticks and grasses,… and since he refuses to choose one as a target for his arrow, because they all “claim” to be food ,… starves to death.

That is what I see in the “agnostic”. A seriously BAD hunter…!

The atheist simply claims there is no suxh thing as food.

 

[Keikiolu]

I have taken effort to show you and your religion a great deal of respect in my posts. I ask for the same.

I have absolute respect for you as a person.

I have no respect for your beliefs,… because they are wrong, or at best very partially correct.

Where they are partially correct, they will lead you to truth.

Where they are incorrect, they need to be explained to you how that is.

Your personal attacks are doing no good; calling me a liar is insulting, as I hold honesty to be of a high priority. I do admit that I could be wrong about anything in this world. Humans are fallible. I hope that you could admit that you may be wrong on some things too, or unobservant on things – such as my background.

I’m seldom right about anything. But when I simply propound the truths of the Church, I’m never wrong.

If you have a problem with being right, due to the source of your information, then may I respectfully suggest that you find a better source of information as regards this “God-stuff”.

I wrote in post 17 about how I was born a Catholic and spent over a decade in a crisis of faith “I grew up devout Catholic. I think this is a big part on why it took me over a decade of fighting to stay Catholic before I could call myself agnostic” you responded to the end portion of that post. I then again referred to post 17 in post 57. My profile states that I was Catholic, now agnostic. A quick look back on my prior posts would give you ones such as this. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=129011 I wonder if you have been ignoring portions of my writing that you don’t like to see, because I have been very forthright that I was a devoted, active, faithful Catholic (yes, baptized and confirmed). Yet, a large chunk of your most recent response talks about how I need to give Catholicism and praying a devoted try!

That you didn’t recieve what was guaranteed to you by “being an active Catholic” tells me only that you didn’t quite “do it right”.

Sometimes, God gives us darkness because He knows we need to see darkness before we can appreciate the light.

I have laid it out, bare. Please stop the assumptions and open your mind about what I am saying with respect, otherwise further posts will have little to no productivity.

“A cabbage is singularly open-minded.” (Chesterton, sort of)

I empathize with you immensely in your agnosticism. I was an agnostic until only very recently.

I understand where you’re coming from, but you’re not hearing what I’m saying.

All your postings are perfectly reasonable and logical. They are also quite wrong, though wrong in a way that is not provable TO you but only BY you.

YOU have to be the one to prove it to you,… and until you want to do so, it won’t happen.

I’m not insulting you. I’m insulting the “brain washing” that says there simply is no truth we miserable humans can fully know because we are ONLY MISERABLE HUMANS.

We are miserable humans, but via humility and “doing” we can take advantage of truth that is offered us not ONLY miserable humans, but miserable humans who are the children of God.

Best to you…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Aleii]

Keikiolu:

You accept it not because it is LOGICAL, but because it is EXPERIENTIAL…!!

I don’t accept magic tricks as magical since it is not logical, even though I experience those. There are many things I learn about which I have not experienced, that I accept based on logic.

How can those who have no experience of a thing be expected to choose to accept it over not accepting it, or not even making a decision as to whether to accept it or not…?

Experience can help with understanding, yes. But without that you can still look at both sides and see which makes more sense. For example, you chose to deny some religions that you have experienced, but you also chose to deny many religions without having experienced them.

The experiential reality of “God stuff” is observable if one does the necessary experimentation. If one chooses to not do the requisite experimentation, then it’s perfectly sensible that the non-observed results OF the non-performed experiment seem to not exist.

I HAVE FULLY committed and immersed myself into Catholicism. What is not understandable about me saying this over and over? That has been my main theme of all my recent posts; I say this clear as day and you keep saying it is untrue. You keep saying I have refused to check out the resources of the church but that is simply an untrue and unfounded assumption. You keep saying I don’t want to do what is necessary to find out the truth, and that is an untrue and unfounded assumption, you keep saying I search for what I want instead of what is the truth, and that is an untrue and unfounded assumption, you keep saying I am trying to refute things instead of trying to understand, and that is an unfounded and untrue assumption. I have corrected the assumptions but you still continue to purport them. In this way you demean the long road that I and others have been on, and belittle the efforts that have been put forth. THIS is what is insulting.

I’m not here to convince you of anything but that there is a person, me, that has personal proof that God exists.

I understand and accept that persons of every religion feel they have personal proof of their god which supports their religion.

They had free will to “not believe”, even given “perfect evidence”.

What I am trying to say is that evidence does not take away free will. We may just have to agree to disagree on this. Because if anything contradicts your religion, you fall back on “well, it just is the truth”

That you didn’t recieve what was guaranteed to you by “being an active Catholic” tells me only that you didn’t quite “do it right”.

Didn’t stand straight enough when I was an altar sever eh? In all seriousness though, how am I supposed to respond to this?

Best to you…!

Thank you, this is one component of respect that I was looking for.

Good health and happiness to you.