Can people choose to be spriritual and live a loving life?

[jmcrae]

You can’t show someone what we believe in writing and just claim that because it’s in writing that it’s true.

Nobody is saying “Just because it’s in writing, it’s true.”

Rather, the fact that it was written and not rejected in the same era when these things happened or are said to have happened - nobody denied it in those days!

Instead, they tried to explain it away. They said (they wrote), “the tomb is empty because somebody stole the body.” (And then they still never found the body.)

Not, “The tomb was never empty.”

They said (they wrote), “The Bishop of Rome holds only primacy of place in a college of Bishops; he is not alone in being infallible.”

Not, “The Bishop of Rome is just some guy mouthin’ off; he is not important at all,” or, “the Bishop of Rome cannot be infallible at all.”

The important thing about what was written is how it was responded to - the people of the time responded with, "Yes, but … " - they never said, “No, that’s absolutely not true.”

 

[Rence]

Ah. I see the source of your confusion.

In the dialogue with Ted he dismissed the Scriptures, the Church, the ECFs as simply “paper”.

I don’t mean to speak for Ted, and he can correct me if I am wrong, but the reason why he dismissed them as “paper” is because it’s just paper to him…a recording of someone else’s beliefs, not his.

I proposed that paper, at least, was better proof than what he had proferred as a source for his knowledge of God, which was, essentially, “I believe it 'cause my feelings tell me it’s true.”

Having something written down, objectively, is not proof of anything, to be sure.

Well, if someone doesn’t believe the words written on the paper, then it’s just as good to that person as “I believe it because my feelings tell me it’s true”.

 

[Rence]

I think you’re arguing a different argument than I am.

Of course the fact that we believe it makes us Catholic.

I am simply proposing that it’s wrong to say that there is no “proof” or “evidence” for certain teachings and that we accept them ONLY on faith. If you believe that we can provide apologia for our beliefs, and that our faith can be defended with reason and our intellect, then we are good to go.

We are simply NOT fideists.

There are simply some things that can’t be proven and are indeed a matter of faith. You can’t use reason and intellect to prove to someone that the Trinity is the Truth. You can’t use reason and intellect to prove to someone that the Eucharist is real. These teachings are a matter of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, if someone doesn’t believe the words written on the paper, then it’s just as good to that person as “I believe it because my feelings tell me it’s true”.

'Tis true, this.

But, again, if one does not use the Scriptures, the Church, the 2000 year history of the unchanging dogma of the Church regarding who God is, what else is there?

Now, to be sure God has implanted the natural law within our reason, and 'tis true that we can know God, at some level, intuitively.

But, knowing the attributes of God…how does one know this? How do we know if God is a god of hate or a God of love? Are there many gods, or just one? Do we love God by loving our neighbors? Does God hate homosexuals, as Fred Phelps proposes? Does God love us?

One can only know these attributes of God through the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

There are simply some things that can’t be proven and are indeed a matter of faith. You can’t use reason and intellect to prove to someone that the Trinity is the Truth. You can’t use reason and intellect to prove to someone that the Eucharist is real. These teachings are a matter of faith.

Again, Rence, we can indeed understand the Trinity and the Eucharist with our intellect, and use it to provide apologia.

Saying, “It’s just true. There’s 3 persons. One God. I believe it. I can’t explain it” is contrary to Scripture.

You can indeed explain the Trinity.

You just can’t explain it completely.

 

[Rence]

'Tis true, this.

But, again, if one does not use the Scriptures, the Church, the 2000 year history of the unchanging dogma of the Church regarding who God is, what else is there?

For someone who has faith in the Chuch, all of the above has an impact on them. But for someone who has no interest in it, I doubt any of the above will have an impact. Especially if they have their heart, mind and spirit bound to another religion.

Now, to be sure God has implanted the natural law within our reason, and 'tis true that we can know God, at some level, intuitively.

But, knowing the attributes of God…how does one know this? How do we know if God is a god of hate or a God of love? Are there many gods, or just one? Do we love God by loving our neighbors? Does God hate homosexuals, as Fred Phelps proposes? Does God love us?

One can only know these attributes of God through the Church.

It’s a matter of faith

 

[Rence]

Again, Rence, we can indeed understand the Trinity and the Eucharist with our intellect, and use it to provide apologia.

Saying, “It’s just true. There’s 3 persons. One God. I believe it. I can’t explain it” is contrary to Scripture.

You can indeed explain the Trinity.

You just can’t explain it completely.

Yet, there is no proof to tell an non-believe that it’s true. Like, 2+2 = 4 and the world (muslim, catholic, jew, jw, lutheran, baptism, atheist) knows it. You put two eggs on the table, add two more and look, there are four eggs now. But the Trinity is something that is not tangible, and you can’t see it either. You can regurgitate what is taught by teachers, and can read from the Scriptures, but that doesn’t prove anything. We have faith in the Trinity and we understand it because of what we’re taught about it and we are blessed by God. But we can’t prove it to someone who doesn’t believe it. On the flipside, my Jewish friend can regurgitate everything I’ve told her about the Trinity and she understands what we believe about the Trinity. But she doesn’t believe it, and therefore since we can’t prove it, it’s not true to her. To her, it’s just something Catholics believe.

 

[PRmerger]

On the flipside, my Jewish friend can regurgitate everything I’ve told her about the Trinity and she understands what we believe about the Trinity. But she doesn’t believe it, and therefore since we can’t prove it, it’s not true to her. To her, it’s just something Catholics believe.

The fact that your Jewish friend would proclaim that “it’s just something Catholics believe” tells me that you’ve done an inadequate job in proclaiming the Truth of the Trinity. No wonder she’s unconvinced.

The dogma of the Trinity is the central dogma of all of Christianity. It’s NOT “just something Catholics believe.”

 

[George_Pierson]

The fact that your Jewish friend would proclaim that “it’s just something Catholics believe” tells me that you’ve done an inadequate job in proclaiming the Truth of the Trinity. No wonder she’s unconvinced.

The dogma of the Trinity is the central dogma of all of Christianity. It’s NOT “just something Catholics believe.”

Holy Trinity
“Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed).

**Foreshadowing of plurality of Persons in OT Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 18:1-5; 9-10; 16 **
Action of Triune Godhead in New Testament Mt 3:16-17; Lk 1:35; 3:21-22
Plurality of Persons as mentioned in New Testament Jn 14:15; 26; 15:26; Acts 1:6-8; Rom 8:9; 1Cor 6:10-11; Eph 4:4-6; 1Pet 1:2; 1Jn 5:6-7; Jude 20:21
Baptism given in name of Trinity Mt 28:19
Blessing given in name of Trinity 2Cor 13:14

 

[CMatt25]

On the one hand, you proclaim that one must follow his conscience. On the other hand, when someone says he is following his conscience, you believe he is wrong.

How does one reconcile this inconsistent paradigm?

I don’t get it.

I know you don’t get it PR. But there is less inconsistency if you emphasize the words “you believe”. Peace be with you.

 

[CMatt25]

Thank you for the reminder Matt, so that we can build up one another

 

[CMatt25]

Do you even know who Fred Phelps is? He wouldn’t “disagree” with you - he would murder you - and he would say that God told him to do it.

Not really. Had never heard of the guy until PRMerger bought his name up. And brought his name up. And brought his name up. All I know from PR is he hates homosexuals and/or believes God hates homosexuals. I really haven’t given enough thought to him to even bother to “google” the guy. I have my own salvation to work out with trembling fear (Phil 2:12) and my own eye specks to deal with (Matt 7:4) before I start overfocusing these eyes at the moment on someone named Fred Phelps. I believe in the end, He will like the rest of us, have to answer to His Creator who will know his heart at that time. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

For us Catholics, it’s a matter of faith, not a matter of “proof” that the words written on the paper are inspired by God and are True. There is no “proof” of the Trinity…the Trinity cannot be proved. There is no “proof” of the Eucharist, the Eucharist can’t be proved. You either believe it or you don’t. After all, the Jews have “proof” that you can see on paper, and so do Muslims. Heck, the JW’s have lots of paper “proof” too.

Isn’t that part of what Jesus meant when he said, “Blessed are those who believe but have not seen…”? We can’t “prove” the teachings of our faith, either in paper, or by oral accounts. The teachings are what we believe and know to be True because of our faith.

It’s a matter of faith

You can reject it as you wish, but it’s true.

Rence, from these words of yours I think you get it! In fact I believe you have proven you do! God bless you in your Catholic faith and peace be with you always.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Rence is correct in saying that a wonderful explaination of something does not mean that will be enough if the explaination is lacking.

 

[PRmerger]

Not really. Had never heard of the guy until PRMerger bought his name up. And brought his name up. And brought his name up.

Yes, I think he and his ilk are a great illustration of why your paradigm is sooooo wrong.

It allows men like Fred to continue to spew their invectives in the name of following the exact paradigm that you espouse. Exact paradigm." Following one’s conscience after praying and meditating and reading the Scriptures."

I have my own salvation to work out with trembling fear (Phil 2:12) and my own eye specks to deal with (Matt 7:4) before I start overfocusing these eyes at the moment on someone named Fred Phelps. I believe in the end, He will like the rest of us, have to answer to His Creator who will know his heart at that time. Peace.

And this makes me

Even if I don’t apply it to myself on a personal level, where Matt could not tell a Fred-like character that he’s wrong for saying something racist against me…

it’s so wrong on* all* levels of social justice.

Men like Fred Phelps, pedophiles, wife beaters, people who keep immigrants locked up in basements, etc etc etc can continue to proclaim their views and wreak havoc on our world and all Matt could say is
-let’s agree to disagree
-I really can’t tell you you’re wrong because, hey, I’ve got a speck in my eye, too



In the end, people like Matt let social injustice flourish because, well, when he dies Fred will have to have a little talk with God and then he’ll see he was wrong. Now, me (as in Matt)? What could I do to make racist homophobes stop? Nothing. I have a speck in my own eye, remember!

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, I think he and his ilk are a great illustration of why your paradigm is sooooo wrong.

It allows men like Fred to continue to spew their invectives in the name of following the exact paradigm that you espouse. Exact paradigm." Following one’s conscience after praying and meditating and reading the Scriptures."

And this makes me

Even if I don’t apply it to myself on a personal level, where Matt could not tell a Fred-like character that he’s wrong for saying something racist against me…

it’s so wrong on* all* levels of social justice.

Men like Fred Phelps, pedophiles, wife beaters, people who keep immigrants locked up in basements, etc etc etc can continue to proclaim their views and wreak havoc on our world and all Matt could say is
-let’s agree to disagree
-I really can’t tell you you’re wrong because, hey, I’ve got a speck in my eye, too



In the end, people like Matt let social injustice flourish because, well, when he dies Fred will have to have a little talk with God and then he’ll see he was wrong. Now, me (as in Matt)? What could I do to make racist homophobes stop? Nothing. I have a speck in my own eye, remember!

PRMerger, I don’t know where you came up with this. I have said I believe Fred Phelps is wrong. And I can say Fred’s wrong because I believe he is. Just as you tell me I’m wrong about any number of things because you believe I am.

Pedophiles, wifebeaters, and immigrants? You know my position on pedophiles or anyone who were to cover up such acts. And I’m the one who supports the right of wives to get out of such a marriage and find true love. Matt would even say the illegal immigrants some speak of deporting are free to openly remain.

But please do not insinuate that I let social injustice of gays and other races flourish.

I rarely get what I would call mad but that comes close to making me

Tell the gay couple in a loving committed relationship whom I support having the right not only to civil unions but to also be united by any faith that chooses to do so, that I support continued injustice against homosexuals to flourish.

Tell my dear Muslim neighbors who have on more than one occasion praised my kindness towards them while they have told me so many have looked at them in contempt since 911 that I allow injustice towards them to flourish.

Those are just some examples by which I lead by my example.

Peace be with you PRMerger.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I know people that believe there’s a God and live their life with kindness and compassion. They may have been raised Catholic or Protestant, but have chosen not to follow those faiths. They have chosen to live a good wholesome life knowing that there is a God, but they are not sure what God is.

They believe that all religions pray to the same God, and it’s a shame that so many wars are based on religion. They choose to not have any religion and choose to be spiritual.

Any thougths? Many good people feel this way.

Belief, kindness, being "good people, and compassion do not mean that a person is forgiven.

If they believe all religions pray to the same God, then they’re rejected what they were taught as Protestants and Catholics. Praying to Baal or Molech does not equal praying to God. If someone who was raised Catholic or Protestant believes that then they’ve rejected what they were taught about the true God.

If they “are not sure what God is” then they surely aren’t seeking the Christian God of forgiveness and redemption because He’s too easy to find. Your post specifically mentioned people that were raised Protestant or Catholic, and those people have already been taught about the Christian God, so they DO know what He is anyway.

If now they are unsure of what God is, then they’ve made a decision to reject God; it’s not like they’re walking around in some cloud of innocent ignorance. Such folk often end up stressing what “good people” they are but they have still rejected God, which would seem to include rejecting all that He offers, including forgiveness and redemption. Being “good people” AFTER you reject God doesn’t equal salvation.

An out of control heroin addict who steals for his heroin, but who believes and accepts God’s forgiveness and tries but fails to overcome his sin would not be a “good person,” but would still be better off than someone who is a “good person” but claims they aren’t “sure what God is” and thereby rejects what they learned as a Catholic or Protestant, along with all that the Christian God offers.

Sorry…I know that’s not what you wanted to hear.

 

[TedDC]

Belief, kindness, being "good people, and compassion do not mean that a person is forgiven.

If they believe all religions pray to the same God, then they’re rejected what they were taught as Protestants and Catholics. Praying to Baal or Molech does not equal praying to God. If someone who was raised Catholic or Protestant believes that then they’ve rejected what they were taught about the true God.

If they “are not sure what God is” then they surely aren’t seeking the Christian God of forgiveness and redemption because He’s too easy to find. Your post specifically mentioned people that were raised Protestant or Catholic, and those people have already been taught about the Christian God, so they DO know what He is anyway.

If now they are unsure of what God is, then they’ve made a decision to reject God; it’s not like they’re walking around in some cloud of innocent ignorance. Such folk often end up stressing what “good people” they are but they have still rejected God, which would seem to include rejecting all that He offers, including forgiveness and redemption. Being “good people” AFTER you reject God doesn’t equal salvation.

An out of control heroin addict who steals for his heroin, but who believes and accepts God’s forgiveness and tries but fails to overcome his sin would not be a “good person,” but would still be better off than someone who is a “good person” but claims they aren’t “sure what God is” and thereby rejects what they learned as a Catholic or Protestant, along with all that the Christian God offers.

Sorry…I know that’s not what you wanted to hear.

You’re mistakenly equating “being taught” with “believing”. It’s one thing to rationalize the abandonment of a faith that you truly believe (for example, because you want to do something that your faith prohibits), but quite another to be told something is “the Truth” and simply not believe it.

In my case, I was taught the Catholic faith but never really believed it. In fact, the more I learn about it, the less credible I find it.

 

[jmcrae]

Not really. Had never heard of the guy until PRMerger bought his name up. And brought his name up. And brought his name up. All I know from PR is he hates homosexuals and/or believes God hates homosexuals. I really haven’t given enough thought to him to even bother to “google” the guy. I have my own salvation to work out with trembling fear (Phil 2:12) and my own eye specks to deal with (Matt 7:4) before I start overfocusing these eyes at the moment on someone named Fred Phelps. I believe in the end, He will like the rest of us, have to answer to His Creator who will know his heart at that time. Peace.

He keeps being brought up because he is reading the Bible, praying to the Holy Spirit, following his conscience, and going around threatening to kill people - and it is obvious to most people, but not to himself, that his religion is very defective. He truly believes in his heart of hearts that God is demanding that everyone who disagrees with him must die.

But if we say that anyone can follow his conscience and everything is fine, even if they disagree with the teachings of the Church, then we have to say that Fred Phelps is fine, too. That no one need inform or develop his conscience in any way, but that he can follow any kind of conscience he wants to, and even if there are piles of dead bodies, it’s still okay - no law or Church precept or doctrine can touch him, because it is his inviolable conscience.

 

[Austringer]

In my case, I was taught the Catholic faith but never really believed it. In fact, the more I learn about it, the less credible I find it.

Funny, I had the exact opposite experience. I was taught the Catholic faith, but very, very poorly (in retrospect). I was an atheist for many years, then “spiritual but not religious”, then finally came home to the Catholic faith after learning more. The more I learn, the more I study, the more credible I find it.