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

[George_Pierson]

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.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is also a covert about that. He said the same thing.

“The more I learn, the more I study, the more credible I find it.”

 

[babylonsfalling]

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.

Then you were taught the truth about God and rejected it. Being a good person wouldn’t bring salvation in a case like that any more than in the cases I responded to in my first post.

 

[CMatt25]

Then you were taught the truth about God and rejected it. Being a good person wouldn’t bring salvation in a case like that any more than in the cases I responded to in my first post.

There’s a difference between you believing the faith Ted was taught is the truth and Ted for certain actually rejecting the certain truth. Someone brought up the Bible and ECFs etc. But at best they offer explanations why you have faith and belief in Catholic interpretations and in what you believe is the truth. But ultimately it’s an oxymoron to say faith can truly be proven. That’s why we call it faith. God bless you along your faith journey and peace.

 

[babylonsfalling]

There’s a difference between you believing the faith Ted was taught is the truth and Ted for certain actually rejecting the certain truth. Someone brought up the Bible and ECFs etc. But at best they offer explanations why you have faith and belief in Catholic interpretations and in what you believe is the truth. But ultimately it’s an oxymoron to say faith can truly be proven. That’s why we call it faith. God bless you along your faith journey and peace.

If a person’s been told the truth, and doesn’t believe it, they’ve rejected the truth.

I think there are some who just want to avoid the word reject and replace it with the term, don’t believe. In the end, that won’t work.

 

[CMatt25]

If a person’s been told the truth, and doesn’t believe it, they’ve rejected the truth.

I think there are some who just want to avoid the word reject and replace it with the term, don’t believe. In the end, that won’t work.

I don’t think it’s some wanting to avoid the term “reject”. But rather they might have an understanding that faith and belief in certain interpretations and writings is different than absolutely knowing with 100% certainty the absolute truth. But you believe the Catholic Church holds all revealed truth. That’s your faith and that’s great! God bless you along your faith walk and peace be with you.

 

[TedDC]

If a person’s been told the truth, and doesn’t believe it, they’ve rejected the truth.

I think there are some who just want to avoid the word reject and replace it with the term, don’t believe. In the end, that won’t work.

“Don’t believe” is the correct phrase, because you’ve presented me with no proof that what you believe is in fact the truth.

Let me put it another way: today you tell me about Catholic beliefs, and tomorrow a Mormon tells me about his beliefs. Both of you are absolutely certain that what you believe is the absolute, revealed truth. So If I adopt Catholicism, the Mormon will say I’ve rejected the truth. And if I become a Mormon, you will say the same.

So, unless one of you can present proof, how do I know whether I’ve really chosen the true belief?

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t think it’s some wanting to avoid the term “reject”. But rather they might have an understanding that faith and belief in certain interpretations and writings is different than absolutely knowing with 100% certainty the absolute truth. But you believe the Catholic Church holds all revealed truth. That’s your faith and that’s great! God bless you along your faith walk and peace be with you.

But don’t you see that this is precisely why Christ started the Church, promised to remain with it until the end of time, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth? It is so we can be certain of the truth and live that truth in order to spread the kingdom of God. We are not wandering on our own trying to figure it out. So, do all Catholics know “with 100% certainty the absolute truth”? No. But it is available to all who seek it and ignorance of it is no one’s fault but our own. It subsists with in the Church, the “Pillar of Truth”.

 

[TedDC]

But don’t you see that this is precisely why Christ started the Church, promised to remain with it until the end of time, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth? It is so we can be certain of the truth and live that truth in order to spread the kingdom of God. We are not wandering on our own trying to figure it out. So, do all Catholics know “with 100% certainty the absolute truth”? No. But it is available to all who seek it and ignorance of it is no one’s fault but our own. It subsists with in the Church, the “Pillar of Truth”.

But again, that’s your faith - not proven truth. We don’t know for sure that Jesus was God, we don’t know for sure that he said what the Bible says he said, or did what the Bible says he did. There is no proof. It all, ultimately, comes down to faith. That’s not a bad thing, and it doesn’t diminish the value of anyone’s beliefs. It’s just the way things are.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

“Don’t believe” is the correct phrase, because you’ve presented me with no proof that what you believe is in fact the truth.

Let me put it another way: today you tell me about Catholic beliefs, and tomorrow a Mormon tells me about his beliefs. Both of you are absolutely certain that what you believe is the absolute, revealed truth. So If I adopt Catholicism, the Mormon will say I’ve rejected the truth. And if I become a Mormon, you will say the same.

So, unless one of you can present proof, how do I know whether I’ve really chosen the true belief?

The point of division between the Catholic Church and Mormonism lies in historical reality.

Mormonism is barely 200 years old. The Catholic Church is 2000 years old and stretches directly back to its founder; Jesus of Nazareth also called the Christ.

This is not chronological snobbery. This is not telling truth by a clock.

If the Church has existed for 2000 years, then so has her beliefs. Being a former atheist/agnostic, when I began my search for the spiritual I investigated the different faiths of the East and West. When I turned my mind to Christianity I wanted to know what was the original Christainity(up to that point the only exposure to Christianity was protestantism). So I read the works of those Christians from the late first, second, and third centuires. And the Church that THEY said that they belonged to was the Catholic Church.

This can be proven by those writings that her members produced, many of which are still extant.

If this is the Church that Jesus said that He would “be with them always, to the close of the age.”(Matt 28:20). If this was that Church which Paul said is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”(1 Tim 3:15) & “the fullness of Him who fills all in all”(Eph 1:23).

To argue against this then leads to the dilemma of who Jesus was. Because if these words aren’t true then that would mean that Jesus is a liar. And if Jesus is a liar then that would mean that Jesus is not a good man but a bad man because good men do not lie about who they are.

And I don’t think that’s an argument that you want to make.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

But again, that’s your faith - not proven truth. We don’t know for sure that Jesus was God,

OK then who was He? Jesus Himself said that he was divine. So either He is a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.

we don’t know for sure that he said what the Bible says he said,
or did what the Bible says he did.

So then the apostles were liars? Do liars die for the lies that they are trying to perpetrate? All or nearly all of the apostles, as well as thousands of other disciples, died for the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Saviour of the world.

Either they were deceivers or they were decieved. If they were deceived then your dilemma reverts back to Jesus who apparently was the one who deceived them…

Or then we are to call a liar such Roman historians like Tacitus(no lover of Christianity) who clearly speaks of Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Of Trajan who says the same during the trial of Ignatius of Antioch?

or did what the Bible says he did. There is no proof. It all, ultimately, comes down to faith. That’s not a bad thing, and it doesn’t diminish the value of anyone’s beliefs. It’s just the way things are.

There is no proof??? Then what is obvious is that you have made a proof-claim clearly without examining whether or not your claim is true. You clearlt have assumed the truth of your claim without any proof and then are positing it as fact.

You are doing exactly that which you say we(wrongly) are doing.

 

[CMatt25]

But don’t you see that this is precisely why Christ started the Church, promised to remain with it until the end of time, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth? It is so we can be certain of the truth and live that truth in order to spread the kingdom of God. We are not wandering on our own trying to figure it out. So, do all Catholics know “with 100% certainty the absolute truth”? No. But it is available to all who seek it and ignorance of it is no one’s fault but our own. It subsists with in the Church, the “Pillar of Truth”.

Yes I see that is the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Herself as the Church. .

 

[CMatt25]

But again, that’s your faith - not proven truth. We don’t know for sure that Jesus was God, we don’t know for sure that he said what the Bible says he said, or did what the Bible says he did. There is no proof. It all, ultimately, comes down to faith. That’s not a bad thing, and it doesn’t diminish the value of anyone’s beliefs. It’s just the way things are.

Exactly. It’s just the reality of faith. Peace Ted.

 

[CMatt25]

The point of division between the Catholic Church and Mormonism lies in historical reality.

Mormonism is barely 200 years old. The Catholic Church is 2000 years old and stretches directly back to its founder; Jesus of Nazareth also called the Christ.

This is not chronological snobbery. This is not telling truth by a clock.

If the Church has existed for 2000 years, then so has her beliefs. Being a former atheist/agnostic, when I began my search for the spiritual I investigated the different faiths of the East and West. When I turned my mind to Christianity I wanted to know what was the original Christainity(up to that point the only exposure to Christianity was protestantism). So I read the works of those Christians from the late first, second, and third centuires. And the Church that THEY said that they belonged to was the Catholic Church.

This can be proven by those writings that her members produced, many of which are still extant.

If this is the Church that Jesus said that He would “be with them always, to the close of the age.”(Matt 28:20). If this was that Church which Paul said is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”(1 Tim 3:15) & “the fullness of Him who fills all in all”(Eph 1:23).

To argue against this then leads to the dilemma of who Jesus was. Because if these words aren’t true then that would mean that Jesus is a liar. And if Jesus is a liar then that would mean that Jesus is not a good man but a bad man because good men do not lie about who they are.

And I don’t think that’s an argument that you want to make.

But you must place faith in those writings. And in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of those writings. And folks might have a difference in faith interpretations perhaps. But I don’t see a soul here calling Jesus a liar.

 

[CMatt25]

There is no proof??? Then what is obvious is that you have made a proof-claim clearly without examining whether or not your claim is true. You clearlt have assumed the truth of your claim without any proof and then are positing it as fact.

You are doing exactly that which you say we(wrongly) are doing.

Ted seems to be seeking the ultimate truth but he doesn’t seem to me to be saying his beliefs are infallibly the truth. So he is not doing exactly the same. He simply seems to be saying faith and belief are not proof. I don’t understand why that concept is so difficult for some to grasp. Other than all I can come up with is some just have more of a need to feel they are correct. While others are more accepting of a degree of ambiguity when it comes to our human finite minds and matters of faith and God. God bless you and peace to you.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

But you must place faith in those writings. And in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of those writings. And folks might have a difference in faith interpretations perhaps. But I don’t see a soul here calling Jesus a liar.

No more “faith” than one places in the New York Times or any Scientific Journal. When you read an article you put your faith in the one writing the article. That he knows what he is talking about because you did not witness what he witnessed first-hand nor did you have the opportunity to come to the conclusions that he did based on the data that he observed.

When leaving agnosticism I didn’t approach the Bible or the writings of the ECF’s as infallible or authoritative. I merely approached them as any historian would; that the works themselves are reliable.

What (TedDC) seemed to be suggesting that because a work like the Bible is ancient it must be approached with a radical skepticism. That kind of skepticism calls to question the character of the authors of the works. It assumes first and foremost that the author is lying and that only if the work agrees with the readers expectations can the work be determined by the reader as reliable.

Whereas(TedDC) criticize believers for approaching the Bible with radical acceptance. Both approaches are radical and in their essence un-scientific.

BTW-TedDC essentially called to question the truth of the Bible and the fact that Jesus was divine.

Jesus said He was. Or the Apostles who spread the gospel were liars or were deceived.

So from the mouth of the One who taught the beatitudes and healed people was the same One who said that “before Abraham was I AM”, and that “the Father and I are One.” The One who the Jews wanted to kill because He said that He was “the Son of God, making Himself equal to God.”

So, like I said, either he was a deceiver, or was deceived, or He is Who He said He is; the Lord.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Ted seems to be seeking the ultimate truth but he doesn’t seem to me to be saying his beliefs are infallibly the truth. So he is not doing exactly the same. He simply seems to be saying faith and belief are not proof. I don’t understand why that concept is so difficult for some to grasp. Other than all I can come up with is some just have more of a need to feel they are correct. While others are more accepting of a degree of ambiguity when it comes to our human finite minds and matters of faith and God. God bless you and peace to you.

Ted needs to realize that essentially faith is the beginning of knowledge. You don’t accept a fact unless you believe it to be true. All knowledge requires the assent of faith.

If we all went about in life with such radical skepticism there’s no way we could or would know anything.

Even if he operated on the belief that only what he experiences(sees, hears, touches, tastes, smells) is only that which he will believe that itself assumes the belief that his senses are reliable in conveying reality to him. So even that assumption begins in that realm called “faith”.

 

[CMatt25]

No more “faith” than one places in the New York Times or any Scientific Journal. When you read an article you put your faith in the one writing the article. That he knows what he is talking about because you did not witness what he witnessed first-hand nor did you have the opportunity to come to the conclusions that he did based on the data that he observed.

When leaving agnosticism I didn’t approach the Bible or the writings of the ECF’s as infallible or authoritative. I merely approached them as any historian would; that the works themselves are reliable.

What you(and/or TedDC) seem to be suggesting that because a work like the Bible is ancient it must be approached with a radical skepticism. That kind of skepticism calls to question the character of the authors of the works. It assumes first and foremost that the author is lying and that only if the work agrees with the readers expectations can the work be determined by the reader as reliable.

Whereas you(or TedDC) criticize believers for approaching the Bible with radical acceptance. Both approaches are radical and in their essence un-scientific.

BTW-TedDC essentially called to question the truth of the Bible and the fact that Jesus was divine.

Jesus said He was. Or the Apostles who spread the gospel were liars or were deceived.

So from the mouth of the One who taught the beatitudes and healed people was the same One who said that “before Abraham was I AM”, and that “the Father and I are One.” The One who the Jews wanted to kill because He said that He was “the Son of God, making Himself equal to God.”

So, like I said, either he was a deceiver, or was deceived, or He is Who He said He is; the Lord.

I don’t read the NY Times so I can’t speak for it. But newspapers have been known to make corrections or post retractions.

I also can’t speak for Ted on what you accuse us of. But for my part, I wouldn’t say I approach with radical skepticism. Unless by radical you mean for instance being somewhat open to an understanding of the authors writing to a degree within the framework of the customs of their times. And I do not criticize acceptance in faith. I think it’s great when we, yourself included, have faith. God bless and peace.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I don’t read the NY Times so I can’t speak for it. But newspapers have been known to make corrections or post retractions.

I also can’t speak for Ted on what you accuse us of. But for my part, I wouldn’t say I appoach with radical skepticism. Unless by radical you mean for instance being somewhat open to an understanding of the authors writing to a degree within the framework of the customs of their times. And I do not criticize acceptance in faith. I think it’s great when we, yourself included, have faith. God bless and peace.

Sorry, I tried to edit that little part. I did remove the reference to you. Sometimes my zeal excells while my brains fall aside.

My point is that such works are always generallly reliable.

By “radical” I mean unreasonable to the point of calling into question the character of the author when no such apprehension is warranted.

You read the work and receive the message and facts as the author is trying to convey them. You have a disposition that is open and docile(that is teachable) because you are reading the work to learn something that you did not know beforehand; not to feed your prejudices and/or throw aside because it doesn’t fit your views or values.

That is something that I have a major problem with is this current of relativistic/subjectivistic thinking that pervades our modern times. Subjectivism is a cancer in the modern mind and it needs to be rooted out.

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry, I tried to edit that little part. I did remove the reference to you. Sometimes my zeal excells while my brains fall aside.

Pilgrim, no apology needed. On forums such as this, I think a lot of us can have our zeal excelling our brains once in awhile. Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

But you must place faith in those writings. And in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of those writings. And folks might have a difference in faith interpretations perhaps. But I don’t see a soul here calling Jesus a liar.

Matt, we have history to look at, as well. There is more evidence that Christ is who He claimed to be than there is that Caesar was who he claimed to be - yet, no one questions the existence of Caesar.