Catholic or Dispair

[Mirdath]

Then he added “I could never take an agnostic seriously. They are essentially elitist cowards”. Though I might not use the terms he did I essentially agree. I appreciate people who take a stand on something. I don’t appreciate the attitude of someone who refuses to commit himself to anything and then makes snide remarks about those who do take a stand.

I am a strong agnostic, not a weak – and those latter I would not call ‘elitist cowards’, but ‘intellectually lazy’. I have made a stand: I hold firmly that God is unknowable.

As for snide remarks, I merely give as I receive. That I happen to be better at sardonicism than most people doesn’t mean anything.

I’ll oppose an Atheist with all my might. But what is a serious person supposed to do with an agnostic?

Treat him or her like any other human being?

beckycmarie:

I wonder if it’s true that the atheist is more likely to change his mind since he is willing to take a stand one way or the other, but that the agnostic is just so comfortable on the fence it’d take a great shove to get him to choose.

It’s not so much that the fence is comfortable as that it is, as far as I have been able to determine, logically impregnable. It would take a great shove indeed, probably one beyond mere human strength. One might consider the apostle Thomas to have been in a similar position – and look what happened to him

 

[AeroChunky]

The reason I started a separate thread was precisely so I wouldn’t appear to be insulting to PM. So, I hesitate to respond. In general however, yes, I do believe there is an insanity involved in making decisions not based upon reason but upon interior pressures, fears, doubts, etc.

Finally, it doesn’t matter if I believe with my whole heart that pigs can fly on the planet Gandorf if I cannot demonstrated it logically what difference does it make? The entire point of the scholastic movement, if this greatest intellectual movement in history can be easily summarized, is this if something is unreasonable it ought not to be an object of faith.

And how can teachings that ruin marriages be demonstrated to be logically correct? That kind of logic is subjective and so your argument is circular.
See, for so many people, like you said, is that these teachings are unreasonable…greatly so, and yes, it should not be an object of faith…it drives them to depression, to the brink of suicide. How can you call these poor souls that struggle with these things insane?

Dawkins, e.g., insists that God does not exist. When asked how then did creation happen he insists that it came from another planet we know that Dawkins is a. A fool; B. insane; or C. a troublemaker not worthy of attention.

Some insist that God loves many competing Churches. When confronted with Christ’s High Priestly prayer (John 17) they respond by insisting that there is a totally invisible Church we know that such people are A. Not serious; B. Insane; C. Running from something; or D. Deeply troubled but in any event does not rightly represent the truth. Jesus prayed that we all may be one even as He and the Father are one.

Some insist that the true Church suddenly appeared many centuries after Christ. That is illogical. One could go on with many examples but I think you get my point.

It’s not about winning or losing discussions. It’s not about the pain that a seeker of truth must endure. It is about seeking the tuth and conforming oneself to it. It is about knowing that there is truth and knowing the truth and letting it set you free.

On the other hand if there is no truth we are either all insane or we have no reason to exist. It really is that simple.

CDL

Your multiple choice options can not effectively be applied to life. Your approach is super black and white…it’s not. Jesus understands that.

No, it’s not about winning or loosing discussions, it’s about people who, with their whole heart followed a faith that lead them to the brink of destruction. If then, they truly believe that this teaching is not true and they turn to follow Jesus as best they can, they are insane?

I’m sorry, you’re credibility just went out the window.

 

[tomarin]

It’s not so much that the fence is comfortable as that it is, as far as I have been able to determine, logically impregnable. It would take a great shove indeed, probably one beyond mere human strength. One might consider the apostle Thomas to have been in a similar position – and look what happened to him

dear mirdath,

i don’t understand the purpose of the skirmishes you are engaging in with gregorypalamas and others on this thread. this is the spirituality subforum – isn’t it reasonable to expect people to make comments about faith and matters of conscience here? what exactly is the nature of your objection to his original post?

also, how can you argue that agnosticism is “logically impregnable” when it amounts to postponing making a decision (until some future date when more information will presumably be available)?

people who believe in something greater than themselves do have a tendency to see the world in terms of stark choices – we feel that’s what sets us apart from the dominant culture of today with its (to us lamentable) emphasis on intellectual and moral relativism.

i would have thought after so much time on these forums you would have figured that out by now. clearly you are someone who prides himself on his open-mindedness – can’t you be open-minded enough to take our beliefs on their own merits rather than passing judgement on them a priori? after all we are for all intents and purposes the beseiged counterculture today whereas what you are expressing is the dominant ideology of modern secularism.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

A personal anecdote about atheists vs. agnostics -

I had two close friends in high school who are still close friends today. One was atheist, the other agnostic.

The atheist eventually came around in college and is now Baptist.

My agnostic friend, 18 years later, is still sitting on the fence agnostic and won’t budge.

I wonder if it’s true that the atheist is more likely to change his mind since he is willing to take a stand one way or the other, but that the agnostic is just so comfortable on the fence it’d take a great shove to get him to choose.

I think you have something there.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I am a strong agnostic, not a weak – and those latter I would not call ‘elitist cowards’, but ‘intellectually lazy’. I have made a stand: I hold firmly that God is unknowable.

As for snide remarks, I merely give as I receive. That I happen to be better at sardonicism than most people doesn’t mean anything.

Treat him or her like any other human being?

It’s not so much that the fence is comfortable as that it is, as far as I have been able to determine, logically impregnable. It would take a great shove indeed, probably one beyond mere human strength. One might consider the apostle Thomas to have been in a similar position – and look what happened to him

There is nothing impregnable about refusing to know…except fear.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

And how can teachings that ruin marriages be demonstrated to be logically correct? That kind of logic is subjective and so your argument is circular.
See, for so many people, like you said, is that these teachings are unreasonable…greatly so, and yes, it should not be an object of faith…it drives them to depression, to the brink of suicide. How can you call these poor souls that struggle with these things insane?

Your multiple choice options can not effectively be applied to life. Your approach is super black and white…it’s not. Jesus understands that.

No, it’s not about winning or loosing discussions, it’s about people who, with their whole heart followed a faith that lead them to the brink of destruction. If then, they truly believe that this teaching is not true and they turn to follow Jesus as best they can, they are insane?

I’m sorry, you’re credibility just went out the window.

I don’t have a clue why pentitent is leaving the Church. I wish it not to be the issue of this thread. That is why I started this one instead of posting over there. Why don’t you go chase my credibility. If you wish to discuss the issues on the other thread go discuss the issues on the other thread. Why do you keep bringing them up here? I can say without reservation that the Church does not destroy marriages. Never has, never will.

CDL

 

[AeroChunky]

I don’t have a clue why pentitent is leaving the Church. I wish it not to be the issue of this thread. That is why I started this one instead of posting over there.

He is not the subject of the thread, but you have to see that there are real life circumstances that people are living through that does not necisarily make them insane.

The subject of the thread is that you label everyone leaving the church as insane.

Why don’t you go chase my credibility.

Hehehe…so are we reduced to insults now? C’mon, this is a debate! One where you insulted a fair chunk of planet earth’s population…

I can say without reservation that the Church does not destroy marriages. Never has, never will.

CDL

Do me a favour…for your own benefit, speak to the people here, with total openess about their situations…specifically to the folks that tried and tired and tried using NFP and failed. For the ones where there is no other outlet.
For the ones that the Church doesn’t make provisions for in their teachings.
Please understnd where they are coming from and then ceom back here and say that withuot reservation.

Untill then, this is your opinion.

 

[Mirdath]

i don’t understand the purpose of the skirmishes you are engaging in with gregorypalamas and others on this thread. this is the spirituality subforum – isn’t it reasonable to expect people to make comments about faith and matters of conscience here? what exactly is the nature of your objection to his original post?

My objection to the original post was that it postulated a dichotomy for everyone in the world which really only applies to CDL. I simply pointed this error out – no more, no less.

also, how can you argue that agnosticism is “logically impregnable” when it amounts to postponing making a decision (until some future date when more information will presumably be available)?

What makes it a decision in the first place? I could no more choose to believe than you could choose to grow worms from your scalp instead of hair. Faith is not a choice, and to say that agnosticism is merely procrastination misses the point entirely. I have no decision to make.

As to its logical soundness, agnosticism at its heart is a negative statement, meaning the burden of proof is on those who claim God does or doesn’t exist. I have lost count of the arguments for God I’ve heard, and not a one of them was sound. That God is unknowable is a statement I hold to be true by way of induction, just as I hold that mallards are not naturally purple.

people who believe in something greater than themselves do have a tendency to see the world in terms of stark choices – we feel that’s what sets us apart from the dominant culture of today with its (to us lamentable) emphasis on intellectual and moral relativism.

And I’m afraid you are wrong to do so. I do not dispute that there are choices one can say are good or evil, but that does not eliminate grey areas in the least.

i would have thought after so much time on these forums you would have figured that out by now. clearly you are someone who prides himself on his open-mindedness – can’t you be open-minded enough to take our beliefs on their own merits rather than passing judgement on them a priori?

How exactly have I not done so? I grew up orthodox-to-a-fault Catholic, have studied Christianity, been completely honest about both what I admire and what I dislike about it, even defended it on occasion. I have seen the merits of your religion, I have seen its uglier or nonsensical points, and I have made my conclusions about it. Am I simply not wishy-washy enough for you? What is your litmus test for ‘open-minded enough’ when it comes to an outsider being able to say something about the truth of Catholicism?

I think you’re wrong. This is not a statement founded in hatred, ignorance, or spite: it is my informed opinion based on years of study and thought. I hold no grudge against Catholicism; mistakes happen.

after all we are for all intents and purposes the beseiged counterculture today whereas what you are expressing is the dominant ideology of modern secularism.

img518.imageshack.us/img518/5984/oppressedkv6wn3.gif

 

[Mirdath]

There is nothing impregnable about refusing to know…except fear.

Who’s refusing? I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

He is not the subject of the thread, but you have to see that there are real life circumstances that people are living through that does not necisarily make them insane.

The subject of the thread is that you label everyone leaving the church as insane.

Hehehe…so are we reduced to insults now? C’mon, this is a debate! One where you insulted a fair chunk of planet earth’s population…

Do me a favour…for your own benefit, speak to the people here, with total openess about their situations…specifically to the folks that tried and tired and tried using NFP and failed. For the ones where there is no other outlet.
For the ones that the Church doesn’t make provisions for in their teachings.
Please understnd where they are coming from and then ceom back here and say that withuot reservation.

Untill then, this is your opinion.

The truth is the truth. There are pastoral considerations but saints are not made by cutting corners and that is what why the Church exists. For crying out loud. I was a pastor for 27 years. I know first hand how difficult it is to lead a holy life.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

My objection to the original post was that it postulated a dichotomy for everyone in the world which really only applies to CDL. I simply pointed this error out – no more, no less.

What makes it a decision in the first place? I could no more choose to believe than you could choose to grow worms from your scalp instead of hair. Faith is not a choice, and to say that agnosticism is merely procrastination misses the point entirely. I have no decision to make.

As to its logical soundness, agnosticism at its heart is a negative statement, meaning the burden of proof is on those who claim God does or doesn’t exist. I have lost count of the arguments for God I’ve heard, and not a one of them was sound. That God is unknowable is a statement I hold to be true by way of induction, just as I hold that mallards are not naturally purple.

And I’m afraid you are wrong to do so. I do not dispute that there are choices one can say are good or evil, but that does not eliminate grey areas in the least.

How exactly have I not done so? I grew up orthodox-to-a-fault Catholic, have studied Christianity, been completely honest about both what I admire and what I dislike about it, even defended it on occasion. I have seen the merits of your religion, I have seen its uglier or nonsensical points, and I have made my conclusions about it. Am I simply not wishy-washy enough for you? What is your litmus test for ‘open-minded enough’ when it comes to an outsider being able to say something about the truth of Catholicism?

I think you’re wrong. This is not a statement founded in hatred, ignorance, or spite: it is my informed opinion based on years of study and thought. I hold no grudge against Catholicism; mistakes happen.

img518.imageshack.us/img518/5984/oppressedkv6wn3.gif

You postulate that truth does not exist. Then you say “See there truth does not exist.” That is not convincing.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Who’s refusing? I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.

Since this is true why do you keep posting?

CDL

 

[Mirdath]

You postulate that truth does not exist. Then you say “See there truth does not exist.” That is not convincing.

Please tell me where I have denied the existence of truth. That I deny that Jesus is ‘Truth’ among other job descriptions does not count: I do not deny the existence of absolute truths, they just weren’t carpenters and preachers.

Since this is true why do you keep posting?

Because, believe it or don’t, I have a genuine interest in understanding things I do not yet. If you’d care to be a little more coherent and charitable, I think we can both come out ahead in this discussion.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Please tell me where I have denied the existence of truth. That I deny that Jesus is ‘Truth’ among other job descriptions does not count: I do not deny the existence of absolute truths, they just weren’t carpenters and preachers.

Because, believe it or don’t, I have a genuine interest in understanding things I do not yet. If you’d care to be a little more coherent and charitable, I think we can both come out ahead in this discussion.

If you are an agnostic how is it that you hold to absolute truth?

CDL

 

[Mirdath]

If you are an agnostic how is it that you hold to absolute truth?

Easily and with style. It’s just that my absolute truths are founded not in a particular conceit of the divine, but in humanity. Haven’t we had this discussion?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Easily and with style. It’s just that my absolute truths are founded not in a particular conceit of the divine, but in humanity. Haven’t we had this discussion?

If so, I’d rather not do it again.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Since I began this thread and it now seems over perhaps it is my prerogative to summarize and end it.

If Catholicism is not true then nothing is true.

It is illogical to assume that nothing is true.

Therefore, Catholicism is true.

A simple syllogism to be true but it does have a certain elegance.

CDL

 

[Mirdath]

‘Elegant’ is not a word I would use to describe it. The syllogism stands if and only if you can prove that Catholicism is the only possible truth. A = A is true, and not Catholicism, so that settles that.

So, in essence, your major premise is banal, nonsensical, and easily dismissed. ‘Elegant’ it is not.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

‘Elegant’ is not a word I would use to describe it. The syllogism stands if and only if you can prove that Catholicism is the only possible truth. A = A is true, and not Catholicism, so that settles that.

So, in essence, your major premise is banal, nonsensical, and easily dismissed. ‘Elegant’ it is not.

Offer a substitute. I’m not interested in dropping into nihilism or claiming not to know things simply so I can taunt those who do.

CDL

 

[tomarin]

Offer a substitute.

let’s see what we have to choose from … there’s hedonism, materialism, and let’s not forget scientism. thanks but no thanks – i’ll stick with christianity.