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

[PRmerger]

CCC 1782 has this to say about it. "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

And long before that was written, the Apostle Paul had this to say. Rom 14:13, “Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” 19, “Let us then pursue what leads to peace and to building up one another.”

PR, let us not place a block in the way of one pursuing God. Peace.

So it is our conscience, then, that is the canon?

If so, then how does one claim that Fred Phelps, who is clearly following his conscience, is wrong?

(BTW, did you know that Scripture** commands** us to judge, Matt? But we must, of course, judge rightly.)

 

[CMatt25]

So it is our conscience, then, that is the canon?

If so, then how does one claim that Fred Phelps, who is clearly following his conscience, is wrong?

Well not solely PR without hearing what one discerns to be God’s voice deep from within.

One can claim this by believing in good conscience from our understanding of God’s voice that Fred is. Ted already told you he believes Fred is.

Fred probably believes you, Ted, and I are wrong. We’ll find out who is correct and what matters soon enough. In the meantime what we have is faith and is why it is called faith. That’s just the reality of life on earth.

I truly do not know nor can I comprehend why you have such difficulty with this. It is beyond my finite mind to I guess. Peace to you my friend.

 

[George_Pierson]

If you mean a named, organized religion - then the answer is “none”.

That does not really answer my question. Someone could just come to the conclusion that you belong to a disorganized one.

 

[TedDC]

That does not really answer my question. Someone could just come to the conclusion that you belong to a disorganized one.

You’re right - I never thought about DISorganized religion

But really, all I can honestly say is that I don’t subscribe to any one established set of doctrines and dogmas. I’m not convinced that a single faith has all of the answers.

And in fact it’s not that important to me. I’m comfortable with a degree of ambiguity in matters of theology; I’m much more focused on figuring out the right things to do here in this life, and trying to do them.

 

[George_Pierson]

You’re right - I never thought about DISorganized religion

But really, all I can honestly say is that I don’t subscribe to any one established set of doctrines and dogmas. I’m not convinced that a single faith has all of the answers.

And in fact it’s not that important to me. I’m comfortable with a degree of ambiguity in matters of theology; I’m much more focused on figuring out the right things to do here in this life, and trying to do them.

So, God does not have all of the answers?

 

[PRmerger]

Well not solely PR without hearing what one discerns to be God’s voice deep from within.

One can claim this by believing in good conscience from our understanding of God’s voice that Fred is. Ted already told you he believes Fred is.

That Fred is…what. Wrong? For following his conscience?

I truly do not know nor can I comprehend why you have such difficulty with this. It is beyond my finite mind to I guess. Peace to you my friend.

I have such difficulty understanding the inconsistency, Matt.

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.

 

[TedDC]

So, God does not have all of the answers?

I expect that He does, but He hasn’t shared them with me!

 

[George_Pierson]

I expect that He does, but He hasn’t shared them with me!

Yes he has, but you chose to leave the church and do what you wante instead which is why you call yourself a former Catholic who does not wnat anything to do with organised religion.

 

[Rence]

CCC 1782 has this to say about it. "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

And long before that was written, the Apostle Paul had this to say. Rom 14:13, “Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” 19, “Let us then pursue what leads to peace and to building up one another.”

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

 

[TedDC]

Yes he has, but you chose to leave the church and do what you wante instead which is why you call yourself a former Catholic who does not wnat anything to do with organised religion.

What proof do you have that God has shared the answers with you?

 

[George_Pierson]

What proof do you have that God has shared the answers with you?

The Bible, the Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, Saints, Martyrs, Doctors of the Church, et cetera.

scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/AD_MAIOREM_DEI_GLORIAM

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible, the Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, Saints, Martyrs, Doctors of the Church, et cetera.

scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/AD_MAIOREM_DEI_GLORIAM

Indeed.

And without the above, then one is left with the Almighty Self as the arbiter of God. What results, then, is, sadly, a creation of a god that is in one’s own image and likeness, rather than what is truly God.

And, then that leaves one open to, by necessity and by intellectual honesty, allowing the likes of Fred Phelps to proclaim their odious image of god and one cannot argue against Fred. He’s too smart for that.

 

[jmcrae]

Oh my PRMerger. After a discussion with this guy Phelps you seem so enamored with, when he throws it into my face, that is when I might then agree to disagree. Which is what I propose we do.

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.

 

[TedDC]

The Bible, the Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, Saints, Martyrs, Doctors of the Church, et cetera.

scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/AD_MAIOREM_DEI_GLORIAM

Those are just words on paper, evidencing the beliefs of others. They are not proof of anything except the faith of the people who wrote them.

If you find comfort in adopting their beliefs, and they lead you to do good in this world, then I’m very glad for you. In fact I think you’ve made an excellent choice; Christianity has overwhelmingly been a beneficial force in the world. You don’t have to prove that what you believe is the truth; you have chosen to believe it, and that’s fine. But on the other hand, if you insist that your faith is correct and everyone else’s is wrong, or worse, that people who don’t share your beliefs are somehow of lesser moral stature or otherwise less favored by God, then you will be expected to prove the truth of what you believe.

And so far, all you’ve shown me is…paper.

 

[PRmerger]

And so far, all you’ve shown me is…paper.

And yet, in providing any kind of apologia for your criterion for your beliefs, all you’ve shown us is…“it’s what I feel God says.”

At least you can see paper, if one is looking for “proof” and empiricism.

 

[Rence]

And yet, in providing any kind of apologia for your criterion for your beliefs, all you’ve shown us is…“it’s what I feel God says.”

At least you can see paper, if one is looking for “proof” and empiricism.

It’s all about “it’s what I feel God says” regardless of whether it’s written on paper or not. 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.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s all about “it’s what I feel God says” regardless of whether it’s written on paper or not. 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.

This is not entirely true. Catholicism actually reject fideism. And I reject the prospect that “you either believe it or you don’t” mentality.

The Catholic position is, as articulated by St. Augustine: fides quaerens intellectum. Faith seeking understanding. We use both faith and reason. Faith is informed by the intellect.

In fact, the Scriptures command that we love God with our entire heart, strength, soul and MIND. Faith is loving God with our heart and soul; Reason is how we love God with our MIND.

Thus, while we cannot understand everything about the Trinity, we certainly can defend it as a dogma. And while there is indeed much faith required to believe in the Eucharist, it, too, can be defended with a **“reason **for the hope that I have.”

 

[Rence]

This is not entirely true. Catholicism actually reject fideism. And I reject the prospect that “you either believe it or you don’t” mentality.

You can reject it as you wish, but it’s true. The fact that we believe it, makes us Catholic. NonCatholics don’t believe it, otherwise, they’d be Catholic too.

The Catholic position is, as articulated by St. Augustine: fides quaerens intellectum. Faith seeking understanding. We use both faith and reason. Faith is informed by the intellect.

In fact, the Scriptures command that we love God with our entire heart, strength, soul and MIND. Faith is loving God with our heart and soul; Reason is how we love God with our MIND.

Thus, while we cannot understand everything about the Trinity, we certainly can defend it as a dogma. And while there is indeed much faith required to believe in the Eucharist, it, too, can be defended with a **“reason **for the hope that I have.”

Hey, I agree with you on the above. But our faith leads us to believe the Truth. It’s not something we can prove. You can’t show someone what we believe in writing and just claim that because it’s in writing that it’s true. Anything can be shown on writing regardless of it’s true or false. We believe that it’s True because our faith helps us to do so, not because it’s in writing. The fact that it is in writing means that we Catholics have our beliefs and teachings in writing…just like the Jews have their beliefs in writing, and the Muslims have their beliefs in writing, etc…But while you can physically show the writings of our Church to a non-Catholic and say, “hey look, it’s true, see, it’s in writing”, that’s not going to mean anything to them, and nor will it make them believe it’s true… that’s all I’m saying.

 

[PRmerger]

You can reject it as you wish, but it’s true. The fact that we believe it, makes us Catholic. NonCatholics don’t believe it, otherwise, they’d be Catholic too.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, I agree with you on the above. But our faith leads us to believe the Truth. It’s not something we can prove. You can’t show someone what we believe in writing and just claim that because it’s in writing that it’s true. Anything can be shown on writing regardless of it’s true or false. We believe that it’s True because our faith helps us to do so, not because it’s in writing. The fact that it is in writing means that we Catholics have our beliefs and teachings in writing…just like the Jews have their beliefs in writing, and the Muslims have their beliefs in writing, etc…But while you can physically show the writings of our Church to a non-Catholic and say, “hey look, it’s true, see, it’s in writing”, that’s not going to mean anything to them, and nor will it make them believe it’s true… that’s all I’m saying.

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 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.