Biblical Truth

[irenaeus1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irenaeus1 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
We have already covered this… I’m not talking about those who bet their lives on something that they sincerely believe to be true but were nonetheless believing in a falsehood. I am speaking of those who were witnesses of the risen Christ. I’m speaking of those who knew him when he was alive, yet fearlessly professed that he had been raised from the dead. You believe that all these people got it wrong the same way? Also, eventually, the information HAS to come to others via second hand, third hand, and so forth for those who were not physically present when these event happened. And so by your definition, this must necessarily be dismissed as untrustworthy. All I am presenting here is how you set up a structure that could never satisfy you because you frame all the arguments such that your criteria could never be met.

There are the facts of one’s experience as perceived through the five senses.
Then there are the interpretive beliefs of what those experiences mean, what their significance is, what their ramifications are, etc.

These are entirely different things.
We have already covered this.

And so what you are claiming is that they can never be in agreement; i.e., no one can ever interpret their beliefs correctly through one’s own experience? The a person’s experience and the resulting belief about that experience can never be in alignment? Again, why are God’s hands tied in this?

 

[irenaeus1]

OK, I didn’t really fully answer that specifically. (I do not identify myself as a Hindu).
Yes, I believe if God could become incarnate once, He could do so an infinite number of times.
I’m not going to limit God in this area.

Then why do you limit God’s ability to communicate his divine revelation to men?

 

[irenaeus1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irenaeus1 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I didn’t believe that I did put words in your mouth, which is why I said it was implied. Your only other option is that they were all (100% of them) deceived to believe the same false event, and I didn’t think that that was what you were proposing. But perhaps this is what you are saying since, according to you, second hand information is not trustworthy. Which makes me wonder if you even believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States, after all, you cannot know this first-hand.

There are the facts of one’s experience as perceived through the five senses.
Then there are the interpretive beliefs of what those experiences mean, what their significance is, what their ramifications are, etc.

These are entirely different things.
We have already covered this.

So you don’t believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States because you are not receiving this information first-hand AND because those who were eye-witnesses of the facts of their own experience that he was the first President of the United States is an entirely different thing than the interpretative belief that he was indeed the first President of the United States. Now I get it… sheesh.

 

[irenaeus1]

Please see post #79 again.
In it I responded to you about this question explicitly: “I don’t claim infallibility for myself anymore than I accept those claims by any other human past or present - regardless of their title.”
In post #92 you quoted me - repeating my response in its entirety.
My response in post #99 also included this sentence.

So after reading my telling you explicitly that “I don’t claim infallibility for myself anymore than I accept those claims by any other human past or present - regardless of their title.” for the 5th time now,
where do you get this “you didn’t even admit the possibility” of being wrong from?

Then let’s try it this way… How do you know that you are not wrong?

 

[irenaeus1]

You don’t seem to comprehend the possibility that Divine communication happens in something other than human language form.

You don’t seem to recall that you have already dismissed this as well since in whatever manner the communication may come, there is no way of knowing whether it is coming from another supernatural being other than God Himself, remember?

 

[irenaeus1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irenaeus1 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Do you know this to be infallibly true, or could you have misinterpreted some direct communication that may or may not have come from God Himself?

For the 6th time now: “I don’t claim infallibility for myself anymore than I accept those claims by any other human past or present - regardless of their title.”

So you could have misinterpreted some direct communication that may or may not have come from God Himself. Remember these are your criteria.

 

[anon5216]

Now wait a minute. You stated earlier that “When God wants to infallibly communicate, I believe God does it directly.” Please give me an example of this that doesn’t infringe upon one of your own criteria so that we can quit talking in circles.

That’s a belief, not a doctrinal claim.

As to how it relates to my posting stating: “Then we agree that it is completely foolish to assume supernatural communications or experiences automatically are proof of God being the source of said communications or experiences?”

God communicating directly - without the medium of vague and unreliable human language - has nothing to do with human tendency to imagine they are receiving communication from God.
Hence my statement about the foolishness of assuming such things just because one thinks they are miraculous.

 

[anon5216]

…
anon5216;5515252:

There are the facts of one’s experience as perceived through the five senses.
Then there are the interpretive beliefs of what those experiences mean, what their significance is, what their ramifications are, etc.

These are entirely different things.
We have already covered this.

And so what you are claiming is that they can never be in agreement; i.e., no one can ever interpret their beliefs correctly through one’s own experience? The a person’s experience and the resulting belief about that experience can never be in alignment? Again, why are God’s hands tied in this?

How does saying two things are independent require that they can never be in agreement?
You keep jumbling things together and don’t seem to be able to discern clearly in areas where you are heavily invested in a fixed belief system and encounter a concept not readily accepted within it.

Again, why do you insist saying “a person’s sensory experience and resulting beliefs about that experience being independent of each other, means they can never be in alignment”?
It’s as if you think the entire foundation of your belief system would crumble if you were to acknowledge that reality.

How does any of this mean “God’s hands are tied”?

 

[anon5216]

Then why do you limit God’s ability to communicate his divine revelation to men?

So does that mean you accept Hinduism, Shamanism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Animism, Shaivism etc., etc. as possible instances of God’s unlimited ability to communicate His Divine Revelation to men?

 

[anon5216]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irenaeus1 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I didn’t believe that I did put words in your mouth, which is why I said it was implied. Your only other option is that they were all (100% of them) deceived to believe the same false event, and I didn’t think that that was what you were proposing. But perhaps this is what you are saying since, according to you, second hand information is not trustworthy. Which makes me wonder if you even believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States, after all, you cannot know this first-hand.
anon5216;5515252:

There are the facts of one’s experience as perceived through the five senses.
Then there are the interpretive beliefs of what those experiences mean, what their significance is, what their ramifications are, etc.

These are entirely different things.
We have already covered this.

So you don’t believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States because you are not receiving this information first-hand AND because those who were eye-witnesses of the facts of their own experience that he was the first President of the United States is an entirely different thing than the interpretative belief that he was indeed the first President of the United States. Now I get it… sheesh.

Your example has nothing whatsoever to do with the quote you claim to be responding to.
If you really don’t understand the difference between objective observation via the five senses and subjective interpretation of that information, then please figure it out offline.
This is entirely unproductive. “sheesh” as you say.

 

[anon5216]

Then let’s try it this way… How do you know that you are not wrong?

Give it a rest already. For the 7th time now, I do not claim infallibility.

How do you know your beliefs are “not wrong”?
Are you claiming infallibility of your beliefs? (And don’t just abdicate responsibility to the CC and their infallible claims - you’re still responsible for choosing to believe them, and your choice is fallible - is it not?).

 

[anon5216]

You don’t seem to recall that you have already dismissed this as well since in whatever manner the communication may come, there is no way of knowing whether it is coming from another supernatural being other than God Himself, remember?

What is so challenging to understand about the Communicator being different from the “communicatee” and therefore introducing the very real possibility of the “communicatee” mistaking, misinterpreting, making up, hallucinating, etc., etc. (in addition to “getting it right”)?

The universe isn’t just monochromatic black and white.
Life’s lessons, not to mention spiritual ones, are not just simplistic true/false questions or “multiple guess” where all the incorrect guesses are blatantly obvious.
Perhaps your educational background didn’t provide enough challenging essay questions that couldn’t be answered with single sentence rote memorizations.

 

[anon5216]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irenaeus1 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Do you know this to be infallibly true, or could you have misinterpreted some direct communication that may or may not have come from God Himself?
anon5216;5515259:

For the 6th (8th) time now: “I don’t claim infallibility for myself anymore than I accept those claims by any other human past or present - regardless of their title.”

So you could have misinterpreted some direct communication that may or may not have come from God Himself. Remember these are your criteria.

Please explain how you come to assume that I have ever made the claim anywhere on these forums of having received “direct communication from God Himself”.

There is a very old joke about the word “assume” (it has to do with separating out the syllables: "when you assume …).

I don’t think this discussion is any longer going anywhere productive and I doubt if anyone else who might be reading thinks so either.

I’ll just close with saying that even though I may vigorously question the validity of much of CC doctrine and don’t see Catholicism as being a productive spiritual path for me personally,
I definitely do believe Catholicism can be a very productive spiritual path for many people. I believe that Padre Pio is a recent example of just that.

If your spiritual home is in the Catholic Church, then most definitely stay there - but don’t stop digging into your faith - don’t ever assume you understand everything or believe everything required by God.
Even saints like Padre Pio thought they were just beginners on the spiritual path.

 

[irenaeus1]

That’s a belief, not a doctrinal claim.

As to how it relates to my posting stating: “Then we agree that it is completely foolish to assume supernatural communications or experiences automatically are proof of God being the source of said communications or experiences?”

God communicating directly - without the medium of vague and unreliable human language - has nothing to do with human tendency to imagine they are receiving communication from God.
Hence my statement about the foolishness of assuming such things just because one thinks they are miraculous.

Why are you so evasive in your responses? Nuancing your statement that it’s a belief and not a doctrinal statement does not preclude one from providing an example of what you mean. If God can communicate directly, how is this done, and when it happens, how do you know that it is from God and not some other supernatural being who is not Himself God?

 

[irenaeus1]

anon5216 -

This only seems unproductive because of your evasive responses. To state for the umpteenth time that you do not claim infallibility for yourself should not preclude you from rewording a response to confirm understanding; after all, you are the one who keeps promoting the issue that God cannot somehow reliably communicate in human language due to its vagueness, so certainly this would apply from human to human, right? You stick to talking points as a politician who fears if he strays from a carefully formulated phrase, he will get caught in his argument.
The point being here is that you appear to limit God’s ability to faithfully communicate to man (English is not that vague that you cannot figure out what is meant by “God’s hands are tied”). You say that second-hand accounts are not trustworthy. Heck, you even claim that eye-witness accounts are untrustworthy, and therefore, their observance of facts through the experience of the senses and their belief based on their experience in those sense cannot be assumed to be the same. Yes, I know… you claim that you never meant that they could not be in agreement, yet this only begs the question of why you brought up this point in the first place since I never claimed that the two were identical. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who was willing to die for what they believed AND who had first-hand knowledge of the said events with which they were placing their faith, than not to.
It is also unproductive in that you posit a scenario with such criteria that no one could ever make a case – not even for you. Let’s review them: God cannot communicate to man through human language because human language is vague. God can only communicate to man “directly” through non-human language. But you never explained how God ensures that his direct communication is not lost on the receiver. You say that I cannot appeal to the infallibility of the Catholic Church since my choice to believe in what was communicated is itself fallible. Same here – namely, you cannot appeal to the infallibility of God communicating “directly” since your choice to believe in what was communicated is itself a fallible choice. You also never gave an example of what you mean by God communicating “directly.” And if you receive a “direct” communication from God (however this may occur), how does one know that it came from God, and not from some other supernatural being who is not God Himself? And even if you gave an example of how God communicated to you directly and God somehow protected you from misinterpreting the communication, you could not me trusted as a reliable source of this communication because to whomever you told this would be receiving this information second-hand. Is this an accurate summary?