Can John Edwards speak to the dead?

[JMJ_Theresa]

Actually, faith and reason are not in conflict. Faith is superior to reason because it is higher knowledge revealed by God. However, the same God who reveals truth also has given us reason to understand the revealed truth. No evidence in the scientific world can contradict faith. Indeed, natural law reveals God, not contradicts. For example, the natural world tells us that God is an orderly Being.

As far as supernatural phenomen, remember that God is the creator who can step outside natural laws. Science itself is only able to describe natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena. Theology is the realm of the supernatural. By limiting yourself to only scientific reason, you are only getting half the picture.

Faith is a gift from God. All it requires is your obedience and submission. It is however, a gift that seeks understanding. The more you search and read and think on doctrine, the greater your faith.

The two books, A Case for Christ * andA Case For Faith * might be helpful for you.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Sparetherod:

However, since faith and reason, at least my reason, are always in conflict, how do you decide which has credibility?

That’s a whole lotta conflict! Even your sensory (name removed by moderator)ut has at times deceived you, so you take even that (name removed by moderator)ut on faith. You have faith because you expect wysiwyg. But then a chair collapses because of a weak leg and you may feel shocked, because you had put your faith in your belief the chair would support you.

Faith and reason are complements that help us work through life. We don’t test the structural strength of every chair that looms before us before grabbing a seat. The Faith, the supernatural virtue, is the logical extension of natural faith when we look to our hearts.

Why the Catholic faith? My heart loves Christ. The sacrifice at Calvary is the only solution ever proposed that could wholly reconcile an infinitely good God with me, a sinner. God admits no evil soif there were hope for me and God loves me, he would need something extraordinary to reconcile me to Him. I praise God for this.

After that conclusion as I delve more deeply into the Catholic faith it continues to make sense, to deepen my understanding of Him and the universe. Sometimes it is l he sensation of discovery, not proposition or legality. The revealed truth echoes something already there in my heart and reason points to a moral underpinning for humans based on humility–professed by the Church.

Well, you wanted thoughts, so I rambled on a bit

 

[Sparetherod]

Actually, faith and reason are not in conflict. Faith is superior to reason because it is higher knowledge revealed by God.

To the contrary, faith requires abandoning reason, at least reason that is based on evidence. Can you give me any “higher knowledge” that is demonstatively true and not already obvious. Germs can cause disease, that’s one. But, it comes from science, not revelation.

No evidence in the scientific world can contradict faith.

Faith based beliefs are constantly contradicted by science, and then the beliefs are simply dropped…flat earth, punishments with disease, genesis story, etc. At least they’re dropped by reasonable people. This is why we trust antibiotics more than prayer. As soon as faith makes some claim as to how the world works, it can be tested. Studies that show prayer has no statistical effect on disease course should make a reasonable person give up prayer for this purpose, right?

Indeed, natural law reveals God, not contradicts.

I’m afraid natural laws simply show that any god is irrelevant, since there is no interaction.

As far as supernatural phenomen, remember that God is the creator who can step outside natural laws.

Indeed, he must be happy staying outside.

Faith is a gift from God. All it requires is your obedience and submission. It is however, a gift that seeks understanding. The more you search and read and think on doctrine, the greater your faith.

If you really think about it, faith in dogma merely requires that you give up thinking for yourself. We can disagree as to whether this is really a virtue. Hope to get more posts, JMJ.

That’s a whole lotta conflict! Even your sensory (name removed by moderator)ut has at times deceived you, so you take even that (name removed by moderator)ut on faith. You have faith because you expect wysiwyg. But then a chair collapses because of a weak leg and you may feel shocked, because you had put your faith in your belief the chair would support you.

I don’t think you really want to put your faith on equal footing with everyday assumptions that can turn out to be wrong. Otherwise, are you willing to give up faith in prayer which was proved useless, at least in a medical setting.

We don’t test the structural strength of every chair that looms before us before grabbing a seat.

Reason tells us this would be a waste of time. If 50% of chairs collapsed, I would.

The Faith, the supernatural virtue, is the logical extension of natural faith when we look to our hearts.

I’m afraid we can’t agree on a premise here, so logic doesn’t apply.

Why the Catholic faith? My heart loves Christ. The sacrifice at Calvary is the only solution ever proposed that could wholly reconcile an infinitely good God with me, a sinner. God admits no evil soif there were hope for me and God loves me, he would need something extraordinary to reconcile me to Him. I praise God for this.

I have no personal problem with this as your worldview. At least this part doesn’t foster the spread of AIDS in the world. My belief in unicorns should not affect you, either.

After that conclusion as I delve more deeply into the Catholic faith it continues to make sense, to deepen my understanding of Him and the universe.

And what about the universe would be new to us?

Well, you wanted thoughts, so I rambled on a bit

Thanks, Michael, I hope I’ve stimulated a few thoughts.

 

[Adonis33]

Dredgemate:

The guy’s a Carnie!! check out this web site and see how it’s done.

skepticreport.com/psychics/jvplkl.htm

I went through it - reminds me of the South Park episode that dealt with Edwards.

 

[Anonymous_1]

sparetherod…

do you think God would create us with this amazing ability to reason…to reflect and think critically and partake in reality and truth…only to ask us to abandon it to follow Him in blind faith…

I would havea hard time in belieivng in such a God. This gift of intellect that God has given us enables us to discover Him, and delight in Him and Truth.

Id like to chat sometime if you would be interested…

my e mail is liqwidstyx@yahoo.com

God has enabled us to inquire into scientific curiosity. God has enabled us to discover cures and invent the technology to treat disease. In fact, this knowledge and truth that enables us to enquire into scientific things is pre-existing. It would exist whether or not we did.

You refer time and again to the folly of prayer.There are instances where God acts in a singular way upon the natural world, this is called a miracle. They happen. Believe it.

Ok heres a correlation for you. Approximatley 2000 years ago there was a guy named Jesus. He was like no man who ever came before him, or to come since. The truth and wisdom he spoke caused many people to come to him. He claimed to be the Son of the One who created everything.

Now, imagine a man who says such a thing: you would think he was a madman, or even worse a liar responsible for the disillusionment of many. But what if He was telling the truth? What if He corroborated His claims by doing some wild stuff like healing peoples lives, their ailments and maladies? What if you saw Him do this? Would you believe then that He was indeed who He said?

It seems that this is the case with this Man from Nazareth, Jesus. Even though He said some remarkable things about Himself, they were not empty boasts. Something about Jesus caused at least some people to believe what He said tot he point that they were willing to die for Him.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” This is a very familiar excerpt taken from Abraham Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg originally recited November 19, 1863.how do we know that Mr. Lincoln said these words, or anything even remotely similar? How could one possibly know that there was even a man named Abraham Lincoln? The person of Abraham Lincoln is not a matter of scientific study but rather a determination that is historical in nature. Simply, we accept these things as fact on the basis that we have reasonable evidence from historical documents that states who he was, what he said and what he did. In order to evaluate the person of Jesus Christ, and investigate the evidence that supports the claims of Christianity one must also use this same criterion

Anyway bro, my point is this. 2000 years ago there was a man named Jesus called the Christ. Peoples live were dramatically and unmistakingly changed having come in contact with Him. Let me tell you, 2000 years later He is still changing lives. How could He possibly do this unless He is who He says He is, and He is risen as the scriptures say?!

I said miracles happen. By the grace and mercy of God the Father through Jesus Christ, I have not had to use a drug for 2 years and 17 days. There was a time brother, when despite my best intentions, and my greatest will power I could not put two days together. A miracle indeed. Open your mind bro. E-Mail me if your interested. Ill pray for ya.
~One

 

[tomaskovarik]

carol marie:

John Edwards does not speak to the dead. Have you ever watched him in action? It’s a joke… he makes it all up as he goes along. It goes something like this:

John Edwards: I’m seeing a man… a man who’s name begins with the letter “J”… Jim… John… Jeff ???

Woman says, “My Uncle’s name was Jerry??”

“Yes… Jerry… that’s it… and he died of… something to do with his… stomach? heart? lungs?”

“Actually Unlce Jerry died in a boating accident.”

“Yes… that’s right… a boating accident… he got water in his lungs. He’s telling me somethig about music… did he play in a band? He’s showing me music…”

"Well… he did like country music… I don’t think he played in a band though… "

“Well he wants me to tell you that he liked country music… yes I’m getting that…”

Blah blah blah blah. I could do his job.

Excellent!!!
I always wondered how he did it, but this is it. I can almost see his face as I read your sentences. I wish you could write more on this!!! Plus, it is funny as well
Tomas

 

[ProudArmyWife]

Oops - I want to update - sure Edwards can speak to the dead. Communion of Saints? His problem is that they are speaking back about “weird” things such as “remember I liked country music”.

 

[nobody]

Sparetherod:

However, since faith and reason, at least my reason, are always in conflict, how do you decide which has credibility?

Your reason and whose faith?

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” - Pope John Paul II

 

[mlchance]

AndyF:

From an atheist standpoint this is illogical, since first, an atheist does not believe in God and restricts himself to the empirical…

Just a quick aside: This is not true. Atheists ignore inconvenient data – empirical or otherwise – that don’t conform to their a priori assumptions. As Martin Buber observed, the truth of revealed religion is empirically verifiable by anyone willing to live within that revelation.

Oh, and John Edwards is a fraud. He uses a technique called cold reading; regarding reflexology curing kidney problems, correlation does not prove cause and effect; and there are no alien visitors to convince of anything.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[wcknight]

Sparetherod:

.

Faith based beliefs are constantly contradicted by science, and then the beliefs are simply dropped…flat earth, punishments with disease, genesis story, etc. At least they’re dropped by reasonable people. This is why we trust antibiotics more than prayer. As soon as faith makes some claim as to how the world works, it can be tested. Studies that show prayer has no statistical effect on disease course should make a reasonable person give up prayer for this purpose, right?

I’m afraid natural laws simply show that any god is irrelevant, since there is no interaction.

Indeed, he must be happy staying outside.

If you really think about it, faith in dogma merely requires that you give up thinking for yourself. We can disagree as to whether this is really a virtue. Hope to get more posts, JMJ.

I don’t think you really want to put your faith on equal footing with everyday assumptions that can turn out to be wrong. Otherwise, are you willing to give up faith in prayer which was proved useless, at least in a medical setting.

.

Actually studies have shown that prayer DOES statistically have an effect on the rates of healing and cures.

While it may be true that not all prayers are answered in the way that we may wish. Faith does have a dramatic effect on a lot of outcomes.

Take for example a sports team, any coach will tell you that a team or player who believes up front that the opponent is unbeatable knows that they have lost even before they begin.

Doctors have known for years that patients who have a positive outlook on an operatoion have a much higher rate of survival than patients who have negative feelings or dread.

Patients who are depressed or fearful have a much higher mortality rate than folks who believe that they will survive.

And, as far as God having any sort of intervention with humanity, I think just about any believer in any faith will tell you that He indeed have a huge impact on their lives and the lives of everyone they know. BUT on a purely objective level, all the interactions that we believe He has had with humans, you as atheists disregard as mere conincidence, explainable events or scientifically proveable as having some other source or cause.

And the really ludricrous thing is that even the scientifically unexplainable you will say is simply a freak of nature. For example the cloak of Juan Diego in Mexico has been examined by scientists and shown to be over 300 years old (around the 1500s), yet the pigments composing the image contains elements not available until only recently and the image is so detailed that not even today’s technology can not reproduce it (the image of Juan Diego is reflected in the Madonna’s eye, visible only by microscope).

There is evidence throughout the world of God’s interaction with humans, BUT you simply chose to ignore it. No one can open your eyes but yourself, so if you choose to keep your eyes shut you will never find it. We will gladly listen to your arguments and reasoning, but the question is, do you really want to know the truth and are you open minded enough to accept the Truth ?

 

[AndyF]

Mark:

Thanks for the post.

They don’t ignore logic, and being here is illogical from their standpoint of finite time and existance.

You are saying some items of inconvenient data are intellectual evidence and reasoning?. This is why the reasoning of causality, moral obligation and justice can hold no ground against their argument. Only until these people can make use of reasoning and intellect can they hope to come to realize any religion. For instance beauty in music cannot be obtained from the empirical, but must be perceived in the mind. Even with this barrier passed, Faith calls for bridging natural reason and the belief in mysteries.

As Martin Buber observed, the truth of revealed religion is empirically verifiable by anyone willing to live within that revelation.

The revealed Religion of the true Church requires the belief of the Devine Mysteries as well as many other cumpulsory requirements of the Faith needing the bypassing of natural reason.

Who’s Martin Buber?

John Edwards

He makes use of the belief of some, which is that it’s permissible to attempt communication or invoke the dead for assistance. His mission is the same as ours, and that is to point out the risks of doing so. By this omission and intent to carry this show through, he implies his approval by his acts. Having an unlimited audience of viewers, including possible children, compounds the sin.

Andy

 

[mlchance]

AndyF:

They don’t ignore logic…

Maybe so, but as G. K. Chesteron observed, an insane man isn’t illogical; instead, he is nothing but logical. Check my signature for further insight.

AndyF:

You are saying some items of inconvenient data are intellectual evidence and reasoning?

Quite so. This is not to say, however, that all of Christianity is immediately accessible to reason (since to say that would require stripping Christianity of all Mystery).

AndyF:

For instance beauty in music cannot be obtained from the empirical, but must be perceived in the mind.

That is a point many would argue against. Check, if you’ve not, Thomas Dubay’s The Evidential Power of Beauty. It is a wonderful book.

AndyF:

The revealed Religion of the true Church requires the belief of the Devine Mysteries as well as many other cumpulsory requirements of the Faith needing the bypassing of natural reason.

Not bypassing, but instead supplementing. Consider the Trinity. It is a Divine Mystery. It cannot fully be understood or explained. Nevertheless, there is not a single point of the doctrine of the Trinity that is contrary to reason.

AndyF:

Who’s Martin Buber?

A most remarkable Jewish philosopher and theologian.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AndyF]

Mark:

That is a point many would argue against. Check, if you’ve not, Thomas Dubay’s The Evidential Power of Beauty. It is a wonderful book.

The late Msgr. F.J. Sheen, and Frs Rumble and Carty agree in their book Radio Replies. They describe how a dog could hear the same music or see a painting but not appreciate their beauty because they are perceived in man’s mind not through the senses. They go one to conclude reason can detect sufficient evidence to detect the existance of God.

Andy

 

[Sparetherod]

The late Msgr. F.J. Sheen, and Frs Rumble and Carty agree in their book Radio Replies. They describe how a dog could hear the same music or see a painting but not appreciate their beauty because they are perceived in man’s mind not through the senses. They go one to conclude reason can detect sufficient evidence to detect the existance of God.

Does anyone see where this is a logical conclusion?

Consider the Trinity. It is a Divine Mystery. It cannot fully be understood or explained. Nevertheless, there is not a single point of the doctrine of the Trinity that is contrary to reason.

If the Trinity is reasonable, then it is within our understanding. Tell me about the part of the Trinity that IS within your understanding as compared to what?

You are saying some items of inconvenient data are intellectual evidence and reasoning?. This is why the reasoning of causality, moral obligation and justice can hold no ground against their argument. Only until these people can make use of reasoning and intellect can they hope to come to realize any religion.

You’re saying that if I could only reason, I could accept any religion?

Actually studies have shown that prayer DOES statistically have an effect on the rates of healing and cures.

While it may be true that not all prayers are answered in the way that we may wish. Faith does have a dramatic effect on a lot of outcomes.

A large Mayo clinic study on prayer and cardiac outcomes showed no statistical benefit.(As would, I suspect, a prospective study on the prayers of amputees.) Some smaller studies have shown mixed results for things like pain and mental outlook. All studies are seriously flawed however, because how do you really control for who is praying for who?
You say faith has a dramatic effect on outcomes, but what you really mean is mental health and attitude, right? After all, what the studies show is that an optimistic atheist might do better than a depressed believer.

And, as far as God having any sort of intervention with humanity, I think just about any believer in any faith will tell you that He indeed have a huge impact on their lives and the lives of everyone they know.

And does this mean that any believer in any faith has the right god? I suspect most Catholics wouldn’t agree. But isn’t it interesting that so many think Allah brings this same feeling. Any deeply held belief will have an impact on the believer. I suspect if you thought you were a total failure or you had just won the lottery, you might alter your behavior somewhat. It says nothing about whether these beliefs are true.

And the really ludricrous thing is that even the scientifically unexplainable you will say is simply a freak of nature. For example the cloak of Juan Diego in Mexico has been examined by scientists and shown to be over 300 years old (around the 1500s), yet the pigments composing the image contains elements not available until only recently and the image is so detailed that not even today’s technology can not reproduce it (the image of Juan Diego is reflected in the Madonna’s eye, visible only by microscope).

You know, being someone who accepts only natural explanations for things, I will not be surprised when the “mystery” here is explained. You, on the other hand, will go rushing off to find the next true miracle which is “proof” of your faith. If you train yourself to say “not yet scientifically explainable”, you will save yourself a lot of disappointment. Gaps in scientific understanding are not proof of the supernatural. “God of the gaps” is a phrase you should know, if you don’t already.

There is evidence throughout the world of God’s interaction with humans, BUT you simply chose to ignore it.

I’m afraid I simply haven’t seen it, and you haven’t proved it. UFO abductees accuse me of the same thing.

Atheists ignore inconvenient data – empirical or otherwise – that don’t conform to their a priori assumptions. As Martin Buber observed, the truth of revealed religion is empirically verifiable by anyone willing to live within that revelation.

I love this appeal to whacky authorities who are trying hard to justify their own irrational beliefs. Remember, smart people become very good at defending bad ideas. This says, that if I really believe my refrigerator talks to me, it will.

Thanks guys, I’ll go for now. Sorry I’ve mixed up a few posts, but I’m trying to skim through for comment.

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

Hi, I’ve been thinking how to reply to some of your objections to the existence of a God. I think we are speaking from two different worldviews. Catholics accept Divine Revelation as a higher truth, explore, ponder and learn about that revelation. From this study, natural evidence is looked at from this light. None of the natural evidence contradicts the revelation. Atheists look at the natural evidence then try to deduce revelation from it. It is much harder this way especially if you close your mind. You are working backwards.

I think that those who find God from nature first must be open to higher philosophies. Creation is an example. The mere fact of creation could lead one to look for a Creator. Another possibility is the innate desire that exists in every man’s heart for God. In every Culture, there is a search for God. He has planted that desire in our hearts. Atheists are in fact a contradiction of the norm.

I have found that some atheists who insist that Christians are superstitious and weakminded because of our faith insist on one system of truth because of their own limitations. Have you explored philosophy and theology. Art and music? If you only system of truth and discovery is “seeing is believing,” you are limiting your mind. Actually, in some respects, empirical science is a lesser discipline because it doesn’t touch higher reasoning.

Catholic Christianity is the most beautiful, reasonable, practical and complete explanation for life. I think to trully understand it, you must approach it from the same way that we do. Learn the doctrine well, then examine the world from that worldview.

I hope that your presence on this forum is a legitimate attempt to understand and not an exercise in demeaning our Theology to make yourself feel superior. I hope that in your heart, you desire to be convinced that you are wrong. That is what I hope for you. Many people go through life shutting down that part of them that hungers for God. I pray that God will fan that flame of small hunger to bring you to His banquet table.

 

[mlchance]

Sparetherod:

I love this appeal to whacky authorities who are trying hard to justify their own irrational beliefs.

This just demonstrates my point. In the final wash, all an atheist can advance to support his position is ad hominem and question begging.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AndyF]

Sparetherod:

Does anyone see where this is a logical conclusion?

I’ll leave your dispute concerning De Fide dogma with the Holy See and the living subjects here quoted. While we are discussing logic, lets take another for example. It is illogical to assume one is still Catholic while adhering to only some of it’s precepts. Being Catholic equates to total submission to Authority/Christ.

The Trinity is reasonable, then it is within our understanding. Tell me about the part of the Trinity that IS within your understanding as compared to what?

Three devine personalities in one nature. All three are equally God, equally eternal and powerful. Christ taught it both implicitly and explicitly telling his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost. If what is mysterious about it makes it a barrier for him to bring it to light, why would he bother. Since he would not do/say anything for nothing, then the mysterious and unexplainable is also to be accepted.

No man can explain fully the Trinity. The finite mind cannot fully comprehend an infinite being. Even if God did condescend to explain the doctrine fully to us, we would lack the capacity necessary to comprehend it. But we can reason that there are things we do not know, but things all the same. It is a revealed mystery to be accepted as true merely because God teaches it.

Radio Replies.

“The idea of intellectual generation is not foreign to us, for we a ourselves speak of our own thoughts as concepts and offspring of our intelligence. There is no contradiction in the doctrine. We do not speak of one devine nature, yet three devine natures, nor of three devine persons, yet one devine person. We speak of one Devine Nature, yet three Divine Persons, nature, and personality being quite different aspects or our consideration. It is have if we viewed numerical distinction, as in the addition of 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, yet when dealing with Nature in which all three Devine Persons share, that fusion which results in unity by multiplication of the same three figures 1X1X1= 1. Yet whilst the absence of conradiction is clear, the full significance of the tri-une nature of God is beyond the limited capacity of the human mind.”

You’re saying that if I could only reason, I could accept any religion?

If you did not set up exclusive barriers to your reasoning you could.

A large Mayo clinic study on prayer and cardiac outcomes showed no statistical benefit…

God is not subject to our test, nor is He subject to our clipboard predictability of Him. If we are temporaly mystified in the workings of the Father, then that is what it should be. It is sufficient that when we warrant further knowledge, we will obtain it.

You say faith has a dramatic effect on outcomes, but what you really mean is mental health and attitude, right?

I recall one case that comes to mind. It had nothing to do with health, but a mystery for sure. A grade school child was continuousy marked by a matronly sturn teacher with an attitude. The child could not grasp the multiplication table. The teacher took delight in setting him up for an example. He was sent to the blackboard to multiply a number of 4 digits by one of 3. Terrified at the strapping he knew would come as usual, he asked God for help, and he just started to write numbers at random without thinking as he knew it was useless to even try. He put the chalk down, expecting to be ear-wrenched or strapped, but quietly, and a little embarrassed asked him to sit down. A moment of silence has the teacher and class looked at the blackboard in disbelief.

That child was me, and it took me a few moments to absorb what had happened. What is anyone to do. Should I slight God and say, this is impossible and unreasonable, or should I acknowledge the gift? Should I have expected God to make a dramatic entrance, complete with cameras to capture the event? What about pure chance, I mean what are the odds, one in a trillion? Ok, so I beat the odds, but then we have one more element don’t we. The odds are mutliplied one more time as I could have NOT asked for help and gained the same result. There is much more beyond reason that goes on in this world. I have absolutely nothing to gain by telling a lie here.

(Part II)

 

[AndyF]

After all, what the studies show is that an optimistic atheist might do better than a depressed believer.

In this life the sun will shine, but that is not what concerns them in this Me society we live in. It’s the afterlife that is a thorn in their side.

I suppose it’s sort of like playing the one armed bandit. No cares, personal morality being the catch phrase, whatever one may conceive, everyone having his own. Rape,steal,murder, the only concern is beating encaceration/execution before extinction. Beget children for fodder of this temporal life system in it’s tax system and his physical contribution. Personally, reason suggests, (there’s that word again), I have everything to gain if there is an afterlife and I benefit mankind with a morality fit for it as a bonus, and everything to lose if I get it wrong.

I would like to answer all the questions here, but this posting limit is really a bother.

Andy

 

[Sparetherod]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparetherod
I love this appeal to whacky authorities who are trying hard to justify their own irrational beliefs.

This just demonstrates my point. In the final wash, all an atheist can advance to support his position is ad hominem and question begging.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark, In all that I have written, “whacky” is about the only thing I have said that might be considered an ad hominem attack. It is otherwise the ideas I am disagreeing with. As for question begging, if I said I worshiped the god of thunder, wouldn’t you have a question or two? I’m only hoping that you begin to ask your own questions. As in “If I’m so sure Edwards is a fraud, how can I be sure Moses wasn’t?” JMJ says:

I hope that your presence on this forum is a legitimate attempt to understand and not an exercise in demeaning our Theology to make yourself feel superior. I hope that in your heart, you desire to be convinced that you are wrong. That is what I hope for you.

I sincerely accept your attempt to give me something you feel is valuable. I think you are probably kind and generous, which is why I am not here to antagonize you. But on the other hand, don’t you feel a little superior to me, and a few billion people who are not Catholic. (I’m an ex-Catholic by the way…wanted to be a priest when I was twelve).

I’ve been thinking how to reply to some of your objections to the existence of a God. I think we are speaking from two different worldviews. Catholics accept Divine Revelation as a higher truth, explore, ponder and learn about that revelation.

It’s not really so much the existence of a god that I object to…it is the claims of those who feel they have found him and know what he wants, such as the abolition of condoms in the third world. Is this the higher Truth you are talking about? So far I haven’t been given any examples.

The mere fact of creation could lead one to look for a Creator. Another possibility is the innate desire that exists in every man’s heart for God. In every Culture, there is a search for God.

Indeed, and every culture seems to find one that works for them. It is that tendency of the human mind to attribute cause and intention to all the things we can’t control. Did God cause the tsunami or not. There is an inconsistant tendency to let him off the hook for things we would attribute to a wrathful killer. Early man knew full well that the gods were killers too.Why else would they fear and sacrifice to them? We now know about plate tectonics and God becomes irrelevant, which is really my whole point. It would logically be a sin to try and subvert God’s purpose by setting up tsunami warning stations wouldn’t it?

Have you explored philosophy and theology. Art and music? If you only system of truth and discovery is “seeing is believing,” you are limiting your mind. Actually, in some respects, empirical science is a lesser discipline because it doesn’t touch higher reasoning.

I have explored for many years, and found that the natural universe is far more interesting and awsome than a god who obsesses over who I sleep with. Our religions are only an aspect of our cultures that have evolved over time, throwing out certain aspects that don’t seem to sit well, but always preying on our fear of death and suffering, and our longing for nirvana.

Catholic Christianity is the most beautiful, reasonable, practical and complete explanation for life. I think to trully understand it, you must approach it from the same way that we do

I grant that this is how you see the world… but only because you have had it instilled in you since before you could see dissonance with the real world that it causes. Imagine putting any of the world’s “holy books” in front of a nonbeliever who understands the scientific method, and ask them to pronounce any one of them true. I suppose there are many Muslems who think that if you would just read the Koran, you would “see” the truth. Yet, you probably are immune to that…you are an atheist when it comes to their god…as I am. I just use the same reasoning to reject your god as well.

Learn the doctrine well, then examine the world from that worldview.

I see no point. I’m sure you are not tempted to spend a great deal of time on Nepalese doctrines either. You have found your truth, I have found mine. Your truth creates such an “us vs them” that the world will remain in turmoil for the forseeable future. That is why I am interested in this site. Not to win an argument. And not to convert you…that would only happen in your own mind, in your own time. I only want to prompt people to see the “real” big picture. And that is when we reject reason for faith, we cannot be convinced by evidence, and hence, discourse stops, and we burn witches, fly planes into buildings, or delight in hurricanes destroying wicked cities.

 

[Sparetherod]

No man can explain fully the Trinity. The finite mind cannot fully comprehend an infinite being. Even if God did condescend to explain the doctrine fully to us, we would lack the capacity necessary to comprehend it. But we can reason that there are things we do not know, but things all the same. It is a revealed mystery to be accepted as true merely because God teaches it

Now I understand.

God is not subject to our test, nor is He subject to our clipboard predictability of Him. If we are temporaly mystified in the workings of the Father, then that is what it should be.

Convenient, isn’t it?

That child was me, and it took me a few moments to absorb what had happened. What is anyone to do. Should I slight God and say, this is impossible and unreasonable, or should I acknowledge the gift?

Amazing. Do you think this ever happened to a Muslem child?

I suppose it’s sort of like playing the one armed bandit. No cares, personal morality being the catch phrase, whatever one may conceive, everyone having his own. Rape,steal,murder, the only concern is beating encaceration/execution before extinction.

Indeed if you need your religion to keep you out of prison…keep it, by all means.

Quote:
You’re saying that if I could only reason, I could accept any religion?

If you did not set up exclusive barriers to your reasoning you could.

So any religion is reasonable?