Agnosticism

[melbourne_guy]

hey everyone,
i would just like to thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I have read all the posts but im just struggling to find the time to respond, im really sorry, but i really am thankful.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

Yes. You accept some things because they are logical TO YOU. From where did you get that logic…?

When you smell a flower, and you like the scent, that experience “proves” to you that the flower smells good.

Logic MIGHT tell you that all flowers smell good, since this one did. That logic is perfectly sensible, but quite wrong. Each flower has it’s own scent.

You must “smell the flower” of the Church, and not merely assume that the Church “smells” like all other “religions”.

I can’t prove to you that a flower smells good. I can only suggest that it does, in this particular case, and leave it to you to bend down and do the work necessary to experience what I take as the wonderful scent of this beautiful thing of God.

Quote:
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.

That is quite true…!!

But if you don’t experience a thing, then comment on the “value” of that thing which you haven’t experienced, what credibility should those interested in the “value” of that experience give you?

Quote:
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.

Ummm,… are you Catholic, or not?

If you are Catholic, you’ve done the necessary experiment, and you have your proof that God is real and is as the Magisterium tells us He is.

If your not Catholic, then you haven’t done the necessary experiment, and you don’t have your proof of the God.

Are you Catholic? What, then, are we arguing about?

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:
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.

OK. But do YOU have that personal proof, and if not, why, as you DO have a religion, whether that religion has a dogma that “God might or might not exist” or not.

Once again, what IS your position on God?

Quote:
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”

Many things “contradict” my religion, but when they do they, by definition, can’t be true. Why? Because it is dogma that that is an impossible situation. We will, quite obviously, have to disagree that that is a sensible thing to say, because I believe that revelation of actual truth is possible, and you don’t. To you, there is only “partial truth” because man is incapable of understanding actual truth and, probably more importantly, God is powerless to inform man of actual truth in any way he can understand.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

You want to get convincing evidence of God, and then also want to have to opportunity to NOT believe your tailor-made CONVINCING evidence.

You want God to absolutely convince you, but then not absolutely convince you…!

You want a contradiction,… which is what all materialists want, eventually, usually unknownst to even themselves.

Quote:
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?

In humility.

That is nearly always the problem when the gifts of God are not received. That you respond with your not doing some ancillary procedural triviality is a good hint as to where your head/heart was at when you were (supposedly) doing the experiment in question.

Consider why it is you demand of God that He give you the contradiction that you want, and not the information that you need.

Quote:
Best to you…!

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

Good health and happiness to you.

I love all sinners, in theory, as actually empathizing with some people as people while putting aside their behavior is REALLY difficult quite a lot of the time,… and I hate all sins, in theory, as it’s very easy to not want MY sins, which look a WHOLE lot like the sins I see in others, to be highlighted because it makes ME feel BAD…!!

…but nonetheless, YOU are not ever to be the target of any coercive force to be changed, as YOU are “very good” as created by God,…

…but your sins are to be ruthlessly smacked upside the head at every opportunity, preferably by you being helped to do it yourself, but in extremis it’s my job to do so in a way that doesn’t harm your person.

Luckily,… pixels are pretty low-level damage doing ammunition…!

If you can’t have fun on your journey, at least do it effectively in search of the worthy goal of truly finding God, and not in finding the least common denominator “god” of the vague-ist.

Best to 'ya…!

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

 

[Aleii]

Aleii:

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

In humility.

That is nearly always the problem when the gifts of God are not received. That you respond with your not doing some ancillary procedural triviality is a good hint as to where your head/heart was at when you were (supposedly) doing the experiment in question.

For some reason we are simply not communicating well to each other. The quoted section, for example. The line “Didn’t stand straight enough when I was an altar server, eh? ” was an attempt at humor, and the wink thereafter is to emphasize that the statement was to be read as a joke, and then me saying “In all seriousness…” after that was to doubly ensure that the line prior was to be read in a lighthearted manner. By your response it seems as though this did not get through to you. When I asked “how am I supposed to respond to this?”, I did not mean in what tone/manner should I respond, but, that I don’t know what you expect me to say, and I don’t know what you are getting at.

I read your reply and for the majority of it thought: “Didn’t I just reply to that?” and “why are you saying that?” I simply don’t know how to better get across what I am trying to say.

What I am saying is, for some reason, not being heard by you, and you may be feeling the same about what you say and what I am hearing. Probably, were we to sit down to coffee together, the outcome would be different, since expressions, gestures, tones, and accents would help convey meaning, but as it is now, we are going around in circles not making progress. Basic things are not getting across to you, nor are they apparently getting across to me, that are key to continuing the conversation in any meaningful manner. It is like we are speaking different languages.

I know your heart and intentions are good, so thanks for the conversation. Its always good to hear another side even if it unfortunately is ending in this manner. I’ll continue my lifelong research. I’ve already got a big list of books that will take a while to get through.

I wish you and your family well. Enjoy the upcoming holidays!

 

[melbourne_guy]

Hey aleii is your life any worse now that your agnostic, has your luck changed or are you depressed? Do you think your chances of getting into heaven(if there is one) have decreased?

 

[melbourne_guy]

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

This mentality causes war. Do you honestly think that the cathechisms of the church is the absolute 100 percent unquestoonable truth?

 

[Keikiolu]

For some reason we are simply not communicating well to each other. The quoted section, for example. The line “Didn’t stand straight enough when I was an altar server, eh? ” was an attempt at humor,…

Yeah,… I did get the humor of it. And it was quite good…!

But it points toward a trait that may have gotten in the way of God’s gifts for you.

and the wink thereafter is to emphasize that the statement was to be read as a joke, and then me saying “In all seriousness…” after that was to doubly ensure that the line prior was to be read in a lighthearted manner.

Weirdly enough, I read EVERYTHING in a light-hearted manner first, then re-cogitate it in other “manners”.

By your response it seems as though this did not get through to you. When I asked “how am I supposed to respond to this?”, I did not mean in what tone/manner should I respond, but, that I don’t know what you expect me to say, and I don’t know what you are getting at.

I said, "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.”

Then you responded, “In all seriousness though, how am I supposed to respond to this?”

And I responded, “In humility.”

What I’m getting at is that you should respond in humility, seeking understanding instead of “debating points”, to an observation of someone who has your best interest in mind in saying what they did.

I said you might not have “been a good Catholic” in quite the correct way so as to get what you needed from “being Catholic”, and that observation apparently confused you.

I suggested that you might try to see where my statement might make sense, ie “being humble”, because you responded to my observation as if it were the set-up for a joke.

I read your reply and for the majority of it thought: “Didn’t I just reply to that?” and “why are you saying that?” I simply don’t know how to better get across what I am trying to say.

Keep trying. There are no points deducted for failed attempts…!

What I am saying is, for some reason, not being heard by you, and you may be feeling the same about what you say and what I am hearing. Probably, were we to sit down to coffee together, the outcome would be different, since expressions, gestures, tones, and accents would help convey meaning, but as it is now, we are going around in circles not making progress.

Absolutely true, I’m sure…! The “pace”, and lack of “information channels” in this venue, makes for LOTS of wacky miscommunication. But,… if people understand that that is the way this asynchronous medium works and that that means they have to work a bit harder, it can make for some rather fun communication screwups as well as nifty insights when we finally DO “click”.

Basic things are not getting across to you, nor are they apparently getting across to me, that are key to continuing the conversation in any meaningful manner. It is like we are speaking different languages.

I know your heart and intentions are good, so thanks for the conversation. Its always good to hear another side even if it unfortunately is ending in this manner. I’ll continue my lifelong research. I’ve already got a big list of books that will take a while to get through.

I wish you and your family well. Enjoy the upcoming holidays!

Best to you as well…!

Stay warm,… or cool if you’re in hot climes,… and keep that well oiled brain of yours spinning into wider and wider realms of wisdom…!

ALOHA nui loa ‘oe…! Most LOVE to ya’…!

(( No,… I’m not doing any surfing this winter. Drat! ))

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I’m seldom right about anything. But when I simply propound the truths of the Church, I’m never wrong.

This mentality causes war.

We are commanded to spiritual warfare. Sometimes that warfare can create the necessity of bodily war.

That is the way it is, and to say otherwise is to not be Catholic.

War is not “never justifiable”.

Do you honestly think that the cathechisms of the church is the absolute 100 percent unquestoonable truth?

Yes I do, inasmuch as it deals with faith and morals.

In all other matters it, and any other authority, is to be constantly “checked” for sensibility.

The attitude that there is no absolute truth is to descend into relativism, and usually a materialistic relativism, which leaves us in slavery to either our need to be a “slave master” to others, or our subservience as slaves to others.

What is MOST misunderstood about the “100% Truth” aspect of the Church is that the area in which it is the absolute authority, given by God, is really very VERY small,… but that tiny area is very VERY VERY important.

The reason that the idea of ANY authority being “100% authoritative” is that in all cases BUT ONE that authority is misplaced.

And that case is the Catholic Church.

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

 

[RebeccaJ]

Firstly i really dont understand the concept of faith, the more i think about it the harder it is for me to comprehend it. Faith basically states that you believe in something based on absolutely no evidence at all. When you explain to a devout catholic, or protesant or muslim, etc, that you have no faith you will usually get a response along the lines of “well you have to open your heart” or “God wants you to have faith but you refuse to”. This sounds absolutely ridiculous, the reason i dont have faith is because i choose not believe things which i have no proof for.

Heres my problem, i cant let go of catholicism i still keep my bible and reconciliation candle by my bedside and i still pray everynight, and for some reason i still try to follow the morals of the church, its wierd. I think theres a very thin line between religion and agnoticism, and at the moment im standing on it.

Is it wrong to be rational? Will God smite me for my lack of belief in something that cant be proven? I personally dont believe hell anymore. Some people define hell as eternal physical torture and some define it as a dark place without God. My theory on Gods punishment to sinners is probably the greatest punishment of of all, being thrown into non-existance.

No matter what happens to my beliefs i guess i’ll always have a special bond with catholicism for some unexplainable reason.
I would like to hear some thoughts from some agnostics on why they arent actually athiest?

Us humans are creatures of habit and we don’t like our comfortable daily rituals to be interrupted. Your faith is gone, I do not agree that it is there. Your fondness for religion and Catholicism in general is out of a sense of habit and maybe even needing a place to belong.

Been there done that.

My recommendation. If you truly want faith, work at building it, not destroying it.

God has defined the way to faith. When you decide that you get to make the rules, that is where it all falls apart. You are defining rules, conditions for your faith. God calls to your heart and your response is “I will when X happens.”

Rather demanding constraints to place on God, eh?

Been there done that too.

 

[Aleii]

Hey aleii is your life any worse now that your agnostic, has your luck changed or are you depressed? Do you think your chances of getting into heaven(if there is one) have decreased?

I sent you a PM