Atheist bored at work. Feel free to ask questions

[CatholicGearSolid]

sorry to be out of subject but:

You should seriously think about leaving the “New age”.
You cannot be a Christian AND believe in this kind of stuff, and here’s why:

The New-Age is indeed spiritually linked, but it is linked to Satan, and Satan only.
You probably heard voices, dead relatives, “friendly spirits”, had “visions”, I don’t know.
But if you did, they were not from who you believe they were, they were evil, and trying to deceive you.

God never intended to talk to people that way, and especially not through diabolical means.
If you do not believe me, you should! Seek a priest, ask for help, and most of all, cease what you’re doing.
If you don’t, these entities will not only make your life difficult, but they will also affect your close entourage.

Just a friendly advice from a Christian who KNOWS about that stuff.
God bless.

 

[Tarsier]

Thomas Aquinas is known for this quote

One with faith no explanation is necessary, one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

This really doesn’t sound like something Aquinas would have said/written, and in trying to find documentation that he did, I see the same quote attributed to several other people. Can anyone point me to the source for this?

I think it demonstrably untrue, as it would take the testimony of one convert who was convinced by an explanation to prove it false, and there are books and websites that put the numbers of such converts in the thousands. I’d be one myself, and would have lost a little respect for Aquinas if, after penning such a deeply explored work as the Summa, he dismissed the firsthand experience of so many with a platitude like the above.

 

[Kerrie]

I have left the ‘New Age’ , I am seeking a Priest’s help, thank you

 

[CatholicGearSolid]

@Russell_SA
@misstherese

God also cannot force us to love Him. He gave us free will to love Him if we wish; essentially to love God is to do His will and to follow His laws.

Well said, and I’d like to bring some more on the subject,
which could make it easier to understand:

I often see God’s visual “absence” like this:
If he was visible, all powerful and seen by all, would everyone then follow the laws he set for his world in order to follow him in the next, even better life? Of course, only an suicidal maniac wouldn’t want that…
Sadly, many would not truly love him, disagreeing with his commandments and play along to be rewarded.

Do you enjoy being surrounded by two-faced “friends”? Neither does God.
This explains why those who truly desire to love him will seek him, even though they don’t always see him.
These people have faith, the faith Jesus asked us to have in order to eventually get to him. And once you make the first sincere steps, God reaches out, and you see more of his doings in your own life, without doubt.

Just my perspective.
God bless you mate : )

 

[CatholicGearSolid]

Awesome!
May God protect you.

Cheers

 

[BoomerangToo]

Russel might be such a hard-headed person or not. I’ll admit I haven’t read the whole thread. However, I do know that whether he is stubbornly closed to reason (and from what I’ve read, he doesn’t appear to be) or not, asking him to pray to a God he doesn’t believe in and ask for belief sounds a bit absurd. At least it does to me when the Mormon boys ask me to do the same.

It’s not absurd at all. Lots of people have done exactly that. Remember in the gospels when a man with a sick son said to Jesus, “I believe! Help me with my unbelief!” Talk about conflicted! He’s trying to believe, yet he still needs help with his unbelief. All I’m saying is that God will help the unbeliever who is genuinely seeking, but you have to want to believe. If you aren’t seriously seeking, and just want to argue, I doubt your questions about God will be answered. You have to soften yourself a little and say, “There might be a god. I’ll try to find him”, rather than the all-too-common challenge that no human can meet: “prove it!”

I’m glad that you were able to reason that there is a God. Unfortunately, a lot of atheists are not willing to do the footwork, as their minds are made up. They just want to talk. They don’t want to listen. Their whole agenda is to make religion look as foolish as possible. I’m not referring to the OP here, but there are lots of atheists like this.

 

[MountCarmel]

Russell - Do you believe in a dimension/state/reality that is referred to as infinity/eternity? If so, how do you justify our physical and temporal existence?
Do you believe the Steven Hawking assertion that “Because there is a law of gravity, that things/stuff can in effect self create”? If so, then please firstly explain how ‘Laws’ can ever exist without there also being stuff that such laws effect - IMHO ‘laws’ and that which those laws affect, are essential sides of the same coin - that one cannot exist without the other.

I have many more questions, but those will do for now.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

For the op and all non believers,

Do you get offended at being called heathen, atheist, or pagan?

Is so, why?

 

[Tarsier]

It’s not absurd at all. Lots of people have done exactly that. Remember in the gospels when a man with a sick son said to Jesus, “I believe! Help me with my unbelief!” Talk about conflicted! He’s trying to believe, yet he still needs help with his unbelief. All I’m saying is that God will help the unbeliever who is genuinely seeking, but you have to want to believe. If you aren’t seriously seeking, and just want to argue, I doubt your questions about God will be answered. You have to soften yourself a little and say, “There might be a god. I’ll try to find him”, rather than the all-too-common challenge that no human can meet: “prove it!”

I’m glad that you were able to reason that there is a God. Unfortunately, a lot of atheists are not willing to do the footwork, as their minds are made up. They just want to talk. They don’t want to listen. Their whole agenda is to make religion look as foolish as possible. I’m not referring to the OP here, but there are lots of atheists like this.

Thanks for the clarification. I hope you appreciate that your last post didn’t say “a lot of atheists”, but rather, that there is no convincing proof “to an atheist”, lumping all non-believers into one generalization. I notice Russell also asked you not to generalize in such a way early in the thread.

I also assumed you were talking about Russel, despite your clarification here, as your post to him also said he needed to “put away his pride”, stop “haunting discussion boards” and quit “daring believers to prove it”. It might be that Russell is a troll, plain obtuse, or even looking to convert believers from what he sees as a harmful distraction from reality. Frankly, unless he gets out of line, I would suggest that be between Russell and the moderators. As it is, I don’t see that he is out of line (again, I’ve not read the whole thread). His original post didn’t even indicate he was seeking Christianity or part of the way there, but that he was putting himself out as a specimen for believers on here to probe and dissect, as he invited that other posters could ask him questions while he was “bored at work”.

That’s the difference in the examples you provided, such as the man in the gospels who believed but wanted help with his unbelief. If Russell is in a place where he has no inclination at all toward belief (as I am with the Mormon scriptures), I am saying it is absurd for him to pray for belief. I’m not claiming it is absurd for any seeker, especially one who is inclined toward belief. Note carefully the way I presented it.

I think your clarification helped to establish those differences. Russell is asking for a philosophical discussion, and I’d suggest individuals either provide it for him or ignore the thread. But I don’t think that dismissing a search for reason and implying the poster is a troll (e.g. “haunting”, “daring”) is helpful.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Thomas Aquinas is known for this quote

One with faith no explanation is necessary, one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

This really doesn’t sound like something Aquinas would have said/written, and in trying to find documentation that he did, I see the same quote attributed to several other people. Can anyone point me to the source for this?

I think it demonstrably untrue, as it would take the testimony of one convert who was convinced by an explanation to prove it false, and there are books and websites that put the numbers of such converts in the thousands. I’d be one myself, and would have lost a little respect for Aquinas if, after penning such a deeply explored work as the Summa, he dismissed the firsthand experience of so many with a platitude like the above.

As often happens, quotes over time sometimes become paraphrases / rephrased that say the same thing

“But what of evolution—the theory regarding the growth and development of plants, animals, and human beings from earlier and more primitive organisms? Must one who accepts this theory reject the concept of God? Not at all. While a substantial body of evidence has been amassed by scientists in support of evolution, an equally substantial body of evidence is still required to remove the issue completely from the realm of theory, especially as far as the evolution of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is concerned. But even if all the questions are answered, and all the hypotheses are proved, no explanation will make sense unless room is left for the existence of a Creator who got everything started.”

From the Summa Ch:2 https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/GODIS.HTM

Thus

But even if all the questions are answered, and all the hypotheses are proved, no explanation will make sense unless room is left for the existence of a Creator who got everything started

becomes rephrased

One with faith no explanation is necessary, one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

And in context, we see what Aquinas means by faith / belief = in the Creator who got everything atarted

 

[Tarsier]

But even if all the questions are answered, and all the hypotheses are proved, no explanation will make sense unless room is left for the existence of a Creator who got everything started

becomes rephrased

One with faith no explanation is necessary, one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

And in context, we see what Aquinas means by faith / belief = in the Creator who got everything atarted

I don’t see anywhere in Aquinas’s actual words, including the quoted context (thank you) where he makes a generalization that those without faith will never accept explanations and those with faith will never ask for them. In fact, he affirms that evolution could be proven (“all the questions are answered, and all the hypotheses are proved”) and we would still have a greater question to grapple with - the question of origin.

He is basically saying that evolution doesn’t disprove God, and believers and atheists alike can believe in it, provided sufficient evidence.

No comment from him about stubbornness from atheists or blind faith from believers with regard to belief in God.

If this is the closest that exists, I’d suggest it is time for that paraphrase to be retired or attributed to someone else.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

But even if all the questions are answered, and all the hypotheses are proved, no explanation will make sense unless room is left for the existence of a Creator who got everything started

becomes rephrased

One with faith no explanation is necessary, one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

And in context, we see what Aquinas means by faith / belief = in the Creator who got everything atarted

I don’t see anywhere in Aquinas’s actual words, including the quoted context (thank you) where he makes a generalization that those without faith will never accept explanations and those with faith will never ask for them. In fact, he affirms that evolution could be proven (“all the questions are answered, and all the hypotheses are proved”) and we would still have a greater question to grapple with - the question of origin.

He is basically saying that evolution doesn’t disprove God, and believers and atheists alike can believe in it, provided sufficient evidence.

No comment from him about stubbornness from atheists or blind faith from believers with regard to belief in God.

If this is the closest that exists, I’d suggest it is time for that paraphrase to be retired or attributed to someone else.

The source of the quote was requested. Since I was the one to give the quote, and I’ve used it many times, as a result, I’ve been asked many years ago where exactly in Aquinas writings did the quote come from. The quote I gave from the Summa was where I thought it came from. That’s the answer I’ve always given when asked.

I think Aquinas made a marvelous point.

 

[PickyPicky]

It’s not a quote from Aquinas, I fear, but from Hayes et al. Aquinas would have to have been centuries ahead of his time to make that quote.

 

[Tarsier]

I think [Tarsier’s edit: Hayes, Hayes and Drummey] made a marvelous point.

Me too. It just wasn’t the point you were making.

EDIT: Wait, what you quoted was not even from Aquinas (as PickyPicky already pointed out - I just spotted his post) . I thought the wording looked suspicious, but it took me a bit to dig it up. I thought maybe it was a modern “translation” (as if that is necessary) of Aquinas to make him accessible. You are quoting from this commentary on Aquinas.

So, you have a quote has nothing to do with the one you originally cited, in a commentary on Aquinas by a totally different set of guys writing centuries later.

Look, I’m all about seeing the atheist and the believers reason it out, but let’s do it with a little academic and logical integrity. Again, it’s probably time to retire the “Aquinas quote”, which isn’t an Aquinas quote and really doesn’t do any service to this discussion with Russell.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

For the op and all non believers,

Do you get offended at being called heathen, atheist, or pagan?

Is so, why?

Heathen - I think the term feels so old-fashioned that I can’t get riled up by it. It’s like if I were called a whippersnapper.
Atheist - No, it’s the most clearcut way to signify one’s non-belief.
Pagan - The only thing I don’t like about the term is that its two meanings tend to get conflated. Pagan can mean any non-Christian, which for me would be accurate. It can also mean the follower of the Pagan religions, which for would not be accurate.

The only real terms that would possibly offend me would be ones doubting my morality (e.g. immoral). I don’t enjoy the connotation that a lack of belief as a default leads to a lack of morals.

 

[Greenfields]

Hi Mike,I had asked before but didn’t receive an answer .I think it’s great you give your time here and are
easy going and willing to answer.
My questions are do you think all people are equal,and why are you on Catholic Answers?
Thanks .

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hi Mike,I had asked before but didn’t receive an answer .I think it’s great you give your time here and are
easy going and willing to answer.
My questions are do you think all people are equal,and why are you on Catholic Answers?
Thanks .

Hopefully I’m not stepping on Russell’s figurative toes too much. As far as whether all people are equal or not, I’m curious in what context you mean “equal”. I think we should treat each other equally. Everyone has an equal set of basic rights which we should honor and respect. When you say “equal” how specifically do you mean it?

As far as why I’m here. Well I’ve come to Catholic Answers… for answers that are Catholic. I have questions on various theological matters. Because the responses I see tend to raise further questions, a forum format where there is a back and forth dissecting the various questions and implications is better than a book, tract, or sermon. For example, take this thread. I want to dig deeper on the matter than what’s been written thus far, and I’m hoping that discussion continues.

 

[Greenfields]

Thanks for getting back
Well ,I guess by equel I mean of importance.Equal isn’t a word i would dissect really.
And the answers from here?Why do you need answers if you believe you have them all?
Another question I did ask Russel was ,and I can ask you,is …isn’t there a part of you that never feels
really complete,a feeling of longing and whistfulness for something you can’t quite put your finger on?
I realised the other day, the more I love God the more the longing to know Him …I will never be satisfied
where my spiritual life is at and i won’t be until I get to heaven.And it’s beautiful .
I could never imagine not having a spiritual life,it’s just so much of who I am …sometimes I try
to think what it would be like and there’s such a dead end feel about it ,I wish I had the words to describe it.
Funny ,I was going to sign off ‘God bless’ as I do all the time

 

[PickyPicky]

Are you perhaps referring to Sehnsucht, what Lewis described as

That unnameable something, desire for which pierces us like a rapier at the smell of bonfire, the sound of wild ducks flying overhead, the title of The Well at the World’s End, the opening lines of Kubla Khan, the morning cobwebs in late summer, or the noise of falling waves.

… because if you are, then I know just what you are talking about (though the existence of that emotion/sensation doesn’t stop me being atheist!)

 

[Greenfields]

No ,I’m referring to what Ive felt all my life even when I was little.A longing for more
than all those wonders .Ive traveled ,living in strange places,
and worked with nature all my life .
How many of you guys are there?! Why are you all here?
What’s your goal?