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

[CMatt25]

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.

Right while keeping in mind some of that history and its interpretation was written by the Catholic Church. And some might argue perhaps to bolster Her claims. So it still comes down to placing faith in those writings. May God truly always bless you jmcrae and peace always be you along your journey with Him.

 

[babylonsfalling]

“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 passage which the anti God crowd hates most…
Romans 1
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

You already have your proof and have chosen to reject and deny…trying to tell yourself that it’s not good enough in some way. That might make you feel better in your current carnal existence but not in your eternal, spiritual existence. In the end it won’t do any good to insist it was the job of some guy on the internet to “proof” God to you. Word games with “proof”, “disbelief” and “rejection” won’t work either. Your heart isn’t open to God and your brain is trying too hard to disbelieve.

If you’re Catholic then the Church taught you everything you needed to know about God and they taught it REPETITIVELY AND REDUNDANTLY.

 

[jmcrae]

Right while keeping in mind some of that history and its interpretation was written by the Catholic Church. And some might argue perhaps to bolster Her claims. So it still comes down to placing faith in those writings. May God truly always bless you jmcrae and peace always be you along your journey with Him.

We “put faith in writings” every day - and not all of them are God-breathed. Don’t you read the weather forecast in the morning, to know whether to carry your umbrella, or not?

It’s okay to believe things that were written by honest people who are telling what they know - like the Bible, and like the Early Fathers.

 

[CMatt25]

We “put faith in writings” every day - and not all of them are God-breathed. Don’t you read the weather forecast in the morning, to know whether to carry your umbrella, or not?

It’s okay to believe things that were written by honest people who are telling what they know - like the Bible, and like the Early Fathers.

jm, where I live the rainy season is approaching so I will be keeping one umbrella in the house and another in the car regardless of the forecast. But of course it’s okay to believe what you believe. You should know me by now. I’m all about the word believe. :yup: God bless you. Peace.

 

[babylonsfalling]

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.

Oh we definitely know that Jesus was and still IS God.

The idea that someone who has rejected the truth, projects HIS rejection onto other people is ridiculous. Christians are fully aware of what they know about God.

 

[TedDC]

Oh we definitely know that Jesus was and still IS God.

The idea that someone who has rejected the truth, projects HIS rejection onto other people is ridiculous. Christians are fully aware of what they know about God.

I ask again: how do you “definitely know”?

 

[jmcrae]

I ask again: how do you “definitely know”?

The same way that you know anything else - by the fact that reliable people whom you can safely trust have told you so.

I assume you believe that the world is round - why do you believe that? After all, you have never personally gone into outer space to look at it from a distance; you probably have also not personally circumnavigated it with survey equipment and measuring devices - rather, you believe that other people have done this, and that they are speaking the truth when they tell you that the world is round.

We can believe the Gospel for the same reason - reliable people saw Jesus rise from the dead, and experienced Him as God, and have passed the message down to us via the Church and the Scriptures.

 

[CMatt25]

I ask again: how do you “definitely know”?

Ted, you seem to be having difficulty getting an answer. I think it’s because folks place faith in whatever writings they place their faith in. But then “definite” and “faith” when you get right down to it don’t quite mix. It would be like asking me how do I definitely know there is a God. Because I have faith in a Creator.

 

[CMatt25]

The same way that you know anything else - by the fact that reliable people whom you can safely trust have told you so.

I assume you believe that the world is round - why do you believe that? After all, you have never personally gone into outer space to look at it from a distance; you probably have also not personally circumnavigated it with survey equipment and measuring devices - rather, you believe that other people have done this, and that they are speaking the truth when they tell you that the world is round.

We can believe the Gospel for the same reason - reliable people saw Jesus rise from the dead, and experienced Him as God, and have passed the message down to us via the Church and the Scriptures.

So again it just comes down to believing in the reliabilty of certain people or writings. I think that was somewhat Ted’s point. It’s what one chooses to believe and place their faith in.

 

[jmcrae]

So again it just comes down to believing in the reliabilty of certain people or writings. I think that was somewhat Ted’s point. It’s what one chooses to believe and place their faith in.

My point is, it is no different than anything else. If you believe what your name is, then you are taking the word of your parents, and the written document that is your birth certificate.

How else are we to know anything at all, except by means of the written record and the things that people tell us?

What extra thing does the Gospel need, to make itself credible, when everything else we know, we know in the same way that we know the Gospel?

 

[TedDC]

My point is, it is no different than anything else. If you believe what your name is, then you are taking the word of your parents, and the written document that is your birth certificate.

How else are we to know anything at all, except by means of the written record and the things that people tell us?

What extra thing does the Gospel need, to make itself credible, when everything else we know, we know in the same way that we know the Gospel?

You’re ignoring the fact that the claims made in the Gospel are far more extraordinary than someone’s name, or the election results, or the weather forecast. It’s entirely reasonable to demand a much higher level of proof for the claim that God walked the earth as a man 2,000 years ago, that He worked miracles, and that He rose from the dead.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I ask again: how do you “definitely know”?

His presence lives strong within my being and unlike you I choose NOT to reject the natural inborn knowledge of God mentioned in Romans 1.

You choose otherwise and then try to rationalize your rejection with assertions that someone on the web can’t prove Him according to your criteria…the criteria of someone who’s already rejected Him.

Nobody here is going to do a better job of teaching you about God than the Catholic Church did. If you rejected Him after learning what they taught you, then you can reject Him again after hearing whatever some Catholic here on this site might tell you.

That fact that you need to be here everyday making an ongoing show of your rejection in front of believers SHOULD tell you something about yourself though, if you ever become capable of critical self analysis. The truth of Romans 1 (that inborn knowledge of God) still lives in your conflicted heart and it’s not going away. Your rejection is obviously not working for you or you’d have accepted your rejection and moved on by now, you wouldn’t be trying to rationalize it into something else, and there would be no word games of trying to redefine rejection into lack of proof and you’d not be making a daily argument about it with Catholics. What you’re doing here is no different than an atheist who’s unable to stay off Christian message boards.

Just because you choose to ignore your obviously conflicted behavior doesn’t mean that it goes unnoticed by others. Fortunately for you however, MOST people just grow out of this behavior in the same way a child outgrows some phase he’s going through. Some take longer than others. The odds are very good that you’ll give up the God-fit and be back in church where you belong. At that point, you’re inner conflict will end.

And on a brighter note, those who return to God after a period of rejection often make more admirable Christians than those who never left God.

 

[babylonsfalling]

You’re ignoring the fact that the claims made in the Gospel are far more extraordinary than someone’s name, or the election results, or the weather forecast. It’s entirely reasonable to demand a much higher level of proof for the claim that God walked the earth as a man 2,000 years ago, that He worked miracles, and that He rose from the dead.

Who says it’s far more extraordinary?!

I’ve never met anyone who thinks the idea of God walking earth as man, doing miracles, and being above death is too extraordinary for God. Most people I know presume those abilities are part of being God.

Those who have rejected God might believe those things are too grandiose but that’s only because of their rejection of God. They have limited their perspective to carnality and mortality so for them only, it’s too grandiose but not for most people

For those who don’t reject God, those things are only too grandiose for man too accomplish on His own. It’s not too grandiose for those who let God into their lives.

You shouldn’t apply your smaller, carnal perspective onto others. Most people have the bigger picture in mind.

 

[CMatt25]

His presence lives strong within my being and unlike you I choose NOT to reject the natural inborn knowledge of God mentioned in Romans 1.

You choose otherwise and then try to rationalize your rejection with assertions that someone on the web can’t prove Him according to your criteria…the criteria of someone who’s already rejected Him.

Nobody here is going to do a better job of teaching you about God than the Catholic Church did. If you rejected Him after learning what they taught you, then you can reject Him again after hearing whatever some Catholic here on this site might tell you.

That fact that you need to be here everyday making an ongoing show of your rejection in front of believers SHOULD tell you something about yourself though, if you ever become capable of critical self analysis. The truth of Romans 1 (that inborn knowledge of God) still lives in your conflicted heart and it’s not going away. Your rejection is obviously not working for you or you’d have accepted your rejection and moved on by now, you wouldn’t be trying to rationalize it into something else, and there would be no word games of trying to redefine rejection into lack of proof and you’d not be making a daily argument about it with Catholics. What you’re doing here is no different than an atheist who’s unable to stay off Christian message boards.

Just because you choose to ignore your obviously conflicted behavior doesn’t mean that it goes unnoticed by others. Fortunately for you however, MOST people just grow out of this behavior in the same way a child outgrows some phase he’s going through. Some take longer than others. The odds are very good that you’ll give up the God-fit and be back in church where you belong. At that point, you’re inner conflict will end.

And on a brighter note, those who return to God after a period of rejection often make more admirable Christians than those who never left God.

Babylonsfalling, while I understand your zeal Ted did say, “My Catholic education helped develop my beliefs, and I spend a good deal of time thinking and meditating on questions of faith and morals in an attempt to learn what God wants me to do. In fact I’ve become much more serious about that since leaving the Catholic Church; perhaps realizing that the Church doesn’t have all the answers led me to appreciate my own responsibility for seeking them.”

So I’m not sure he has chosen to reject God. He instead as I read his posts seems to be on a spiritual journey to seek Him and the ultimate truth.

I hope most do not grow out of this behavior as a child grows out of a phase. As I am reminded of what Jesus taught about remaining humble as a child.

Peace be with you and Ted and all of us who seek. God bless!

 

[guanophore]

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

Actually, it is not, Matt. It is how God has defined His One Body, the Church. He did this in His instructions to His Apostles, and they handed this to the Church. She did not invent it of herself, but was charged with preserving that which was deposited to her from God. To imply that she made this up about herself, though is one method of denying the work of God when He created her, and to avoid the responsiblity of being obedient to her. One can say to oneself, “the Chruch has no real authority from God, so I don’t have to be responsible for what she says”.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Not entirely, Matt… While their contents do relate to matters of faith, they have undergone the same textual research and scientific investigation as have other non-religious works to validate their authenticity. Even a non-believer can accept these things without any faith, just science.

Yes, people do have differences in interpretation, which is why there are so many ecclesial communities. Jesus taught the Apostles how to understand the Scriptures, and they taught this method to their disciples, who passed it on to faithful men, who could teach others also. People who depart from the Apostolic method derive many strange interpretations that would be unrecognizeable even to those who wrote the documents.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree with you that some people have more tolerance for ambiguity than others.

However, in your case, and perhaps in Ted’s, it is not a matter of ambiguity. You are constantly saying in your posts that you do not have 100% certainty with regard to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. When challenged as to why you would not accept the teachings with 75% confidence that they are from God, you have no answer for that. So it is not really tolerance for ambiguity that you have, but a self appointed freedom to pick and choose which parts of the faith you would like to accept based on which moral behaviors you prefer to espouse (or reject). You reject the Teachings of the Catholic Church based on the same rationale that Ted does (no one can “prove” to you that they are from God). This position enables you to disobey what you have been taught, and claim that your “conscience” prevents you from doing so.

 

[guanophore]

So again it just comes down to believing in the reliabilty of certain people or writings. I think that was somewhat Ted’s point. It’s what one chooses to believe and place their faith in.

Indeed. It is the foundation for relativism.

In such an approach, there is no place for God having divinely revealed Himself to mankind in any manner (through the conscience, the saints to whom He appeared, or the writings which He inspired). It all boils down to ones Self, what one chooses to believe for himself.

This way, one can excuse oneself of any obligation to obey, because one can just say “oh, that is a matter of faith, and I don’t have 100% certainty that it came from God, and therefore, I cannot accept it as true”. It is a masterful and convenient method of cafeteria Catholicism, CMatt, and one in which one can dupe oneself into thinking that one is right with God based upon their conscientious objections with impugnity.

Persons who do this will one day face their Maker, who will say "why do you call me “Lord, Lord”, and do not the things that I say?.

 

[rikkk1958]

The OP is asking spirituality and goodness but may lack devotion, who unlike us follows the Catholic Religion to become saved. This question sometimes makes me contemplate how salvation can be awarded to these people. I believe that some are really sincere in loving their neighbors with all due respect and even charitable for a good cause.

The two greatest commandments says that this person is following the second, but how he defines the first may give him a problem. Loving God with all your might is what Catholicism is all about which is “obedience” to the Word and of course does the second also. If God wants us to follow His instructions then we must obey. How difficult can it be to a person to accept the truth and be obedient?

However, if the person was not aware of the Way and the Truth, then it is all up to God to be the judge. Most religions worship God, but ignoring the Lord’s instructions when He came and walked with the flesh as the Son, God spoke clearly on how we should be in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. To be in union with Him, all must partake with His Body and Blood for all to have Life.

 

[CMatt25]

Indeed. It is the foundation for relativism.

Guan, the above was your response to “It just comes down to believing in the reliabilty of certain people or writings… It’s what one chooses to believe and place their faith in.”

This is the foundation not only of relativism but of faith. You as a Catholic for instance choose to place your faith in the reliability of the faith and beliefs and writings of ECFs for instance and in the Church’s interpretation of them.