Atheism

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness: >>This seems like “playing dumb” to me. I cannot play dumb.<<

I cannot “play dumb” either. If somebody were to tell me they don’t understand anything some words could mean, then if I knew, I would simply tell them, not say “You’re playing dumb”. I really am unable to imagine anything that “God” could refer to (other than just some more words that I can’t imagine anything they could refer to either)

rcwitness:>>Yes, and while we wait, we have either two options. To trust, or to distrust in whether the Covenants were given from the divine Being (as opposed to man’s imagination). Those who choose to trust, participate in the Body and Blood of the New Covenant.<<

That’s the problem – choosing to believe something without a reason (other than the “reason” “I want it to be true”). As I’ve said before, I am unable to simply choose to believe something and to actually believe it. That’s because I cannot believe that choosing belief has any effect on truth. Indeed I do choose to believe that there is some way that we could beat death and all live forever in bliss. But choosing to believe that is a far cry from believing it.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness: >>This seems like “playing dumb” to me. I cannot play dumb.<<

I cannot “play dumb” either. If somebody were to tell me they don’t understand anything some words could mean, then if I knew, I would simply tell them, not say “You’re playing dumb”. I really am unable to imagine anything that “God” could refer to (other than just some more words that I can’t imagine anything they could refer to either)

But I told you. And probably nothing new for you, since you are a member of a Christian Church. You are aware of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. This is the definition of **who ** we call “God”. The Testimony of the Covenants. This is what you are rejecting, not some abstract, imaginary concept from wishful thinking men.

That’s the problem – choosing to believe something without a reason (other than the “reason” “I want it to be true”). As I’ve said before, I am unable to simply choose to believe something and to actually believe it. That’s because I cannot believe that choosing belief has any effect on truth. Indeed I do choose to believe that there is some way that we could beat death and all live forever in bliss. But choosing to believe that is a far cry from believing it.

Your measure of “reason” is based on physical evidence only. You cast out the evidence of the history of the “people of Abraham”. It is not a matter of the rules of “grammar” or the laws of science. These can point to, or be used as tools in understanding Who God is, but they are incomplete in themselves. We rely on faith, which trusts. We accept that God is a Spirit being, who exists outside our world, but also inside, since He sustains the live He created. But He also warns that there is a condition to those whom He will sustain after our carnal death. Faith, hope, and Love is the condition. To those who seek Truth after the flesh and blood only, will receive the inevitable death of the flesh and blood. To those who seek the Truth of the Spirit, He will grant life with Himself, through Jesus, who made His flesh and blood purely obedient to the Spirit.

If you know Jesus, you know the Spirit. If you reject Jesus, you reject the Spirit. His greatest moral Teaching is in my signature below.

I have you, AnlytcPhil, to thank for inspiring me to place it there. And also to thank for struggling to answer your concern. And I found that to define and understand who God is, we have to understand His people first. When I see this, it gives more meaning to His great commandments. And also to trust in His Body and Blood as the Covenant we participate in while we wait to know Him face to face.

 

[eddie_too]

the person who posts under the screen name AnlytcPhil appears to me to be nothing more than an internet troll.

nothing personal, just based on my observations and reading of his/her posts. there is nothing in them that indicate he/she wants to enter in to a serious intellectual discussion.

 

[Picky_Picky]

the person who posts under the screen name AnlytcPhil appears to me to be nothing more than an internet troll.

nothing personal, just based on my observations and reading of his/her posts. there is nothing in them that indicate he/she wants to enter in to a serious intellectual discussion.

I disagree. The poster is putting a quite coherent argument. There is, however, no point of contact, it seems to me, between the protagonists, and the conversation will, I think, go nowhere and should be abandoned.

 

[rcwitness]

I disagree. The poster is putting a quite coherent argument. There is, however, no point of contact, it seems to me, between the protagonists, and the conversation will, I think, go nowhere and should be abandoned.

Who are the protagonists?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Who are the protagonists?

The two who have been arguing past each other here for some time.

 

[rcwitness]

The two who have been arguing past each other here for some time.

Perhaps we are. But my points have direct relation to the question. The problem is that the question is Spiritual, but demanding a carnal answer. One cannot be given, except for the testimony of the Covenants and the Bodily Person of Jesus Christ. To deny these as defining God, is to “play dumb” and remain in a fallen state of mankind. If you want to know the answer, it is there, if you don’t want the answer, don’t ask the question.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Perhaps we are. But my points have direct relation to the question. The problem is that the question is Spiritual, but demanding a carnal answer. One cannot be given, except for the test among of the Covenants and the Bodily Person of Jesus Christ. To deny these as defining God, is to “play dumb” and remain in a fallen state of mankind. If you want to know the answer, it is there, if you don’t want the answer, don’t ask the question.

So you have been saying.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

eddie too>>the person who posts under the screen name AnlytcPhil appears to me to be nothing more than an internet troll.<<

No I’m not an internet troll. Trolling is no fun. I’m serious. I envy your ability to believe that people can live forever in bliss. I can’t believe that, but it’s not at all because I wouldn’t like to. I certainly would love to believe that.

eddie too>>nothing personal, just based on my observations and reading of his/her posts. there is nothing in them that indicate he/she wants to enter in to a serious intellectual discussion.<<

I certainly do want to enter into a serious intellectual discussion. My screen name “AnlytcPhil” stands for “analytic philosophy”. My name isn’t “Phil”. I am into analytic philosophy. Most everybody into philosophy is into serious intellectual discussions. I’m no exception. I’m not here expecting to get converted to Catholicism or even to Christianity, although it would be nice if I could believe that people can live forever in bliss after they die. I’m curious to know how you are able to believe that. It seems impossible to me.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m curious to know how you are able to believe that. It seems impossible to me.

Millions of people believe in the Gospel. It’s definitely not impossible.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

Perhaps we are. But my points have direct relation to the question. The problem is that the question is Spiritual, but demanding a carnal answer. One cannot be given, except for the testimony of the Covenants and the Bodily Person of Jesus Christ. To deny these as defining God, is to “play dumb” and remain in a fallen state of mankind. If you want to know the answer, it is there, if you don’t want the answer, don’t ask the question.

I don’t doubt that you consider what you write as fitting the definition of the word “definition”. However, all I can do is look at the words you type, which contain words like “spiritual”, and the result is the same as if you had typed “abcd efgh ijkl mnop qrstu vwxyz”. That’s no joke! I am not playing dumb. When I read what you write, I am no more informed than I was before I read it.

Now I understand about Jesus. I imagine Jesus as the good man we see in the paintings, and the dead man you show on your crucifixes. I can imagine him doing the things mentioned in the Bible. I can imagine him being cruelly crucified on a cross. But I don’t understand “dying for the sins of man”. Why do you think he had to die because people do immoral things? Don’t you say it was because Eve ate a piece of fruit that she was not supposed to eat, and therefore we all inherited the trait that caused her to do that “terrible act”? I don’t want to be rude, or to violate your sensitivities, but that does seem preposterous to me. I am curious as to why that doesn’t seem preposterous to you too.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness>>But I told you. And probably nothing new for you, since you are a member of a Christian Church. You are aware of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. This is the definition of **who ** we call “God”. The Testimony of the Covenants.

Yes I am aware of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. I don’t reject them. They may be partially or totally meaningful, partially true or totally true, or partially false. I cannot jump to conclusions.

This is what you are rejecting<<

No, I’m not rejecting anything.

Your measure of “reason” is based on physical evidence only.<<

I know of nothing else, but I’m open for you to tell me whatever other kind of evidence you may be speaking of.

You cast out the evidence of the history of the “people of Abraham”.<<

No I don’t. You’re making up stuff about me.

We rely on faith, which trusts.<<

Isn’t that wanting it to be true, wishing that it is true so hard that you believe (or believe that you believe) and feel emotionally that it is true? Father Rolheiser says:

God is ineffable, unimaginable, and beyond conception and language…Inside us there is something the mystics call “dark knowledge”, namely, an inchoate, intuitive, gut-sense within which we know and understand beyond what we can picture and give words to.<<

Trouble is, I don’t know how to have anything called “dark knowledge” or “gut sense”. What is that?

We accept that God is a Spirit being, who exists outside our world<<

I read what you have written, but I am unable to get any information from it.

If you know Jesus, you know the Spirit. If you reject Jesus, you reject the Spirit. His greatest moral Teaching is in my signature below.<<

I don’t reject Jesus, and certainly not the moral teachings attributed to him.

I have you, AnlytcPhil, to thank for inspiring me to place it there. And also to thank for struggling to answer your concern<<

I am curious as to how you can believe (or believe that you believe) whatever you claim to believe. The one thing I hope you can learn from me is that not being able to believe something is NOT rejecting it!

 

[rcwitness]

Yes I am aware of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. I don’t reject them. They may be partially or totally meaningful, partially true or totally true, or partially false. I cannot jump to conclusions.

Then you have what you need to come to Jesus with faith that gives life everlasting. You jump to conclusions. Your’s happens to be based on flesh and blood only. This will not lead to knowing that Jesus IS God. He is the Person who created your body mind and soul. He is the Truth that your flesh and blood, alone, cannot know. He calls to your soul, not just your mind and body. He first loves you, so you will love God and neighbor.

 

[jcrichton]

the person who posts under the screen name AnlytcPhil appears to me to be nothing more than an internet troll.

nothing personal, just based on my observations and reading of his/her posts. there is nothing in them that indicate he/she wants to enter in to a serious intellectual discussion.

Hi, Eddie!

…I would not label that person as such since he/she is engaged… the problem is that the engagement is with himself… he is trying to define what is real based on his own qualifying criteria… as those scientists who labored with the super collider to determine that reality is not reality but that reality is determined by those subatomic particles that they discovered when they got sidetracked from engineering the “emergence” of life… yeah, it’s high gibberish but they call it science/intellect.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

Hi, Eddie!

…I would not label that person as such since he/she is engaged… the problem is that the engagement is with himself… he is trying to define what is real based on his own qualifying criteria… as those scientists who labored with the super collider to determine that reality is not reality but that reality is determined by those subatomic particles that they discovered when they got sidetracked from engineering the “emergence” of life… yeah, it’s high gibberish but they call it science/intellect.

Maran atha!

Angel

The thing is, is that I believe this “theological noncognativism” to be a learned mentality. I don’t think it springs from original and natural thought. The rejection comes first, then this attempt to justify the rejection. It seems like a very clever device to dismiss conscience and the testimony of Israel, the Church and Scripture. But it is actually “playing dumb” to what was initially rejected and continues to convict.

 

[jcrichton]

The thing is, is that I believe this “theological noncognativism” to be a learned mentality. I don’t think it springs from original and natural thought. The rejection comes first, then this attempt to justify the rejection. It seems like a very clever device to dismiss conscience and the testimony of Israel, the Church and Scripture. But it is actually “playing dumb” to what was initially rejected and continues to convict.

Hi, RC!

I concur with you.

In my exchange I have come to the same conclusion… Revelation is there regardless of man’s affirmation or rejection of it. God has made Himself Known to man right from within and through nature. Yet, it is man’s will (cognizant and determined ability to accept/reject) that affects what he embraces/rejects. The Church calls it “conscience.” She Teaches that we must act not against our conscience… the problem lies in the fact that man’s conscience is not always formed by the Divine but by the mundane.

Error breeds error.

Remove God from man and you have “super” man–but, as we know, the flesh is weak and prompt to fall.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AnlytcPhil]

I may not stay in here much longer, but before I go, there is one thing I’d like to find out about Catholics. I think that the Jesuits, including your Holy Father Pope Francis, all say “God is ineffable”. [Correct me if I’m wrong about that]. I am of the impression that what that means is that you believe that if you take anything that you have ever thought of or imagined, then what that thought is or was of – is not or was not a thought of anything – or even a thought of part of anything – that you would label “God”.

I think I might need to clear something up. I’m not talking about imagining Jesus, for everybody can imagine Jesus. I’m talking about “God the Father”, or “The Holy Spirit (Ghost)”. I have to make that distinction because I don’t know whether Catholics use the speaking mode “God is 1 holy entity made up of 3 persons” or the speaking mode “There are 3 holy entities and ‘God’ is one of them”.

I do want to know if you Catholics subscribe fully to St. Augustine’s quote which I copied and pasted earlier. With apologies, I’ll copy and paste it here again in case you don’t want to bother looking up past posts. (I hope reposting is not against the forum rules.) But I would appreciate your answer. Here’s the quote:

***What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

—St. Augustine***

Is that what you say? I don’t think all Protestants would say they agree with the above quote. I know atheists don’t for they think “God” stands for the bearded man that Michelangelo painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Thanks in advance for letting me know your answer.

 

[rcwitness]

I may not stay in here much longer, but before I go, there is one thing I’d like to find out about Catholics. I think that the Jesuits, including your Holy Father Pope Francis, all say “God is ineffable”. [Correct me if I’m wrong about that]. I am of the impression that what that means is that you believe that if you take anything that you have ever thought of or imagined, then what that thought is or was of – is not or was not a thought of anything – or even a thought of part of anything – that you would label “God”.

I think I might need to clear something up. I’m not talking about imagining Jesus, for everybody can imagine Jesus. I’m talking about “God the Father”, or “The Holy Spirit (Ghost)”. I have to make that distinction because I don’t know whether Catholics use the speaking mode “God is 1 holy entity made up of 3 persons” or the speaking mode “There are 3 holy entities and ‘God’ is one of them”.

I do want to know if you Catholics subscribe fully to St. Augustine’s quote which I copied and pasted earlier. With apologies, I’ll copy and paste it here again in case you don’t want to bother looking up past posts. (I hope reposting is not against the forum rules.) But I would appreciate your answer. Here’s the quote:

***What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

—St. Augustine***

Is that what you say? I don’t think all Protestants would say they agree with the above quote. I know atheists don’t for they think “God” stands for the bearded man that Michelangelo painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Thanks in advance for letting me know your answer.

I’m not sure about your questions about Pope Francis’s use of the term “ineffable”, but this is what the term means:
incapable of being expressed in words
This is in line with what St Augustine was saying, but not exactly. St Augustine was saying we can’t even understand God, to be able to critique Him, or analyze Him. He is bigger/greater than our minds and capacity of comprehension. It’s like the concept of eternity. We know what it means, but we can’t understand it. All we can understand is time. We relate to time. We can understand God’s will, and plan, and desires, since He revealed it to us through Divine Revelation and faith. But we cannot understand Him. God is like a spring that perpetually flows, and is its own source.

Creation had a beginning, but He is outside of time. So Catholicism accepts many things as “mystery”. We know they are Truths, and good, and from God, but we can’t understand them fully. We can grow in the knowledge we have of them, but there is no end to that knowledge. We could learn forever, the depths of God.

 

[AnlytcPhil]

rcwitness:>>St Augustine was saying we can’t even understand God, to be able to critique Him, or analyze Him. He is bigger/greater than our minds and capacity of comprehension.<<

Then do you believe that you have ever conjured up a thought in your head, or imagined, something that you would label “God”?

rcwitness:>>It’s like the concept of eternity. We know what it means, but we can’t understand it.<<

Does “eternity” refer to a concept? How do you know that it’s not that we can only speak of some process that we can’t think of any reason why it would ever cease to occur, and then we say the words “That process will go on eternally”. But even if we say those words, we still haven’t thought of anything to label “eternity”.

rcwitness:>>All we can understand is time. We relate to time.<<

Actually, I don’t know of anything we call “time”. I know how to look at my watch and say “Wow! It’s 20 till eight, so I’d better hurry if I’m to get to my destination by 8 o’clock”. But that’s just looking at a clock and saying those words. Maybe we just do the activity of timing events by looking at a clock when an event starts, and again when it ends, Then we subtract the readings and say the words “This number is the time the event took”. Maybe achieving numbers from the process of timing is just a convenient activity that we do, and doing that gives scientists a convenient sequence of numbers to calculate with. How can you know there’s anything more to our time-talk than that?

rcwitness:>>He [God] is outside of time.<<

I really can’t think of any way to make any sense out of those words.

rcwitness:>>So Catholicism accepts many things as “mystery”.<<

How are you able to know the difference between grammatically correct sentences that speak of things which you cannot imagine, and grammatically correct sentences that don’t refer to anything at all?

 

[rcwitness]

Then do you believe that you have ever conjured up a thought in your head, or imagined, something that you would label “God”?

Sure. The imagination is a good thing. Only, when it comes to God, or something that is believed to exist apart from our imagination, it’s just a speculation of what He might be like. I don’t use my imagination to for my beliefs about God. The “label” God, is the Person we have been revealed of through conscience, the Jewish Nation, Jesus Christ, and His Church and their Scripture. Our Spiritual sight, faith, is how we recognize Him through these people.

Does “eternity” refer to a concept? How do you know that it’s not that we can only speak of some process that we can’t think of any reason why it would ever cease to occur, and then we say the words “That process will go on eternally”. But even if we say those words, we still haven’t thought of anything to label “eternity”.

Eternity is the mysterious timelessness.

Actually, I don’t know of anything we call “time”. I know how to look at my watch and say “Wow! It’s 20 till eight, so I’d better hurry if I’m to get to my destination by 8 o’clock”. But that’s just looking at a clock and saying those words. Maybe we just do the activity of timing events by looking at a clock when an event starts, and again when it ends, Then we subtract the readings and say the words “This number is the time the event took”. Maybe achieving numbers from the process of timing is just a convenient activity that we do, and doing that gives scientists a convenient sequence of numbers to calculate with. How can you know there’s anything more to our time-talk than that?

Kinda loosing me here. Time is what we know. It the measurement of elapsement. Lol, I know that’s not a word.

rcwitness:>>He [God] is outside of time.<<

I really can’t think of any way to make any sense out of those words.

Cuz it’s a mystery.

How are you able to know the difference between grammatically correct sentences that speak of things which you cannot imagine, and grammatically correct sentences that don’t refer to anything at all?

You can imagine of what might be. But if you are imagining something that you claim exists, then you are deceiving yourself. I am not imagining God exists. I believe the testimony, that you adamantly reject.

Then, I can imagine something that I could create, or influence. I could possibly make it happen (in reality), or fail to make it happen (in reality). No one can change reality by imagination, you can just create something out of reality.