D
davidv
Guest
What makes you think the statements of dogma and doctrine that are proposed by the Church for belief have undergone any less “scrutiny” and “attacks”?
- Status
A
ateista
Guest
When and where? And were those “attacks” based on actual data, or already existing interpretations only? The point is that the method of constant and unrelenting scrutiny in science is based on facts and facts only.
The dogmas and doctrines of any religion are not based on new discoveries and facts. And those dogmas are not simply “proposed” by the Church, they are presented as ultimate “truths”, which cannot be questioned on penalty of heresy and maybe even excommunication.
Sure there are differences in opinion. But neither side can support their views based on facts.
D
davidv
Guest
The first occurred at the time of the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem. It seems to me that there had to have been a pretty heated debate on whether or not one needed to be circumcised or not. And then a decision was made that was consistent withe the teaching of Jesus. Though out history Councils have been called to resolve difficulties that arose. Sometimes, as in the case of Arianism, most of the bishop were teaching a falsehood. Why wouldn’t you call that an “attack”?
So what would you consider as valid “facts” when the topic of discussion, by it very nature, is dealing with the immaterial? Was Jesus’ presence in history a fact? Were His teachings facts? So how is that this “method of constant and unrelenting scrutiny” is only applicable to science?
A
ateista
Guest
No, I do not deny the validity of disagreements. There are disagreements today, quite a lot of them. Abortion, divorce, ordination of women, contraception, homosexuality, etc… the list is long. But the method of decision making is still authoritarian, it is not based on new discoveries, only a different interpretation of the same text.
Fact is something that can be examined by anyone. In other words: raw data.
And God is not necessarily “immaterial”, he could choose to reveal himself (again?) if he wanted. You just reiterated my question: “how come that God never makes public appearances, hold town-hall meetings, answer questions?”. (And please do not say that such an appearance would infringe on our freedom to choose whether to accept or reject God - because it would not. We would have full “disclosure” - so to speak, so we could make a more informed decision.)
If you believe what Jesus said: “whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go the Father”, then why does a simple, humble, respectful “request” to answer a few questions - in person - always met with silence?
Jesus did not “qualify” his promise, he did not say “whatever I find a worthy request, God will fulfill it”. It was an unqualified promise, wasn’t it? Why doesn’t he keep his promise?
Who knows? There is no evidence that there was a historical Jesus, who perfomed miracles, who came back from the dead…
It should not be, but it is.
O
OTavern
Guest
The principal reason for the difference is that scientific truths are claims of “fact” and testable by factual data, whereas religious claims are not statements about factual reality but of “absolute” and eternal reality. As such, it is in the very nature of that reality that it is not subject to human revision.
A “Divine” plan for humanity is just that. It originates with God and not human beings, so it is not in the “jurisdiction” of human beings to question it. Certainly, you can “choose” to ignore it or deny it applies to you, but if it actually is of “divine” origin you cannot make a claim that it is subject to human approval. On what basis? That humans know more than God?
That would be like, not just claiming that laws of physics are “discoverable,” but that they are also subject to revision based upon human caprice, aspiration or the supreme nature of human intellect.
The fact that God has “revealed” divine truths to us has taken care of the “discovery” aspect, but we are still obliged, because they are truths to understand and apply them to our lives. The debate may be about how or when they apply, but certainly not about “if” they apply, given that God has “ordained” them.
It is exactly for this reason that one ought not be so quick to dismiss claims about God’s existence and will for humanity. The implications are of utmost importance. I would leave no “stone unturned” looking at my own competence and motives before even thinking about questioning what the burden of “revealed” doctrine holds true.
You are claiming that factual data is necessary to prove what God has ordained, but what would this data look like? What does factual data look like to prove ethical claims?
Moral law is likewise “obligatory.” We cannot just claim, “I don’t have the ‘factual’ proof that murder is wrong, so I refuse to believe it is. Sure people around me claim it is, but I need proof.” No matter how forcefully others will argue that it ends life, is evil, etc., if you don’t accept that there is a moral “nature” to this kind of claim, that is of a type different from factual claims, you could still hold that ending a life cannot ever be proven to be “factually” wrong.
No such proof exists. It is purely a category error.
You go to Africa and stand in the middle of the savanna. A lion comes up to you and devours you despite all your protests that it is wrong, the lion is acting immorally, etc. You are forgetting, however, that the lion is “being” a lion and not subject to your “human” system of behaviour. Same with God – God is being God. He has full rights to BE God merely because He IS God. Just as the lion is not subject to your standards of existence – the lion won’t listen to you anyway.
As Vox Day says in The Irrational Atheist:
I am as arrogant as anyone (and more than most, I’m told), but on the day when I meet my Maker, the Creator Lord of the universe, I fully intend to set new speed records in performing a full proskynesis complete with averted eyes. It’s not so much the biblical confidence that “every knee shall bow” that makes me skeptical about this theoretical atheist machismo in the face of the Almighty, it’s the part about how even the demons believe . . . and tremble. I don’t know what it takes to make a powerful fallen angel shake with terror just thinking about it, but I have a feeling that neither Richard Dawkins nor Bertrand Russell will be wagging their fingers at God and criticizing Him for insufficient evidence on the day their disbelief is conclusively destroyed.
All atheistic posturing aside, you are only a man after all and not God. How can you possibly hold God to account for all He is and does? That seems, not only the height of arrogance, but just utterly foolish, akin to the man standing up in protest against the lion’s behaviour as he is getting ripped apart and devoured.
Well God didn’t “prove” to me that He exists, you might claim. Perhaps not, but do you really think the lion will sit down with you and explain his intentions, just because you think he ought to? The burden is on you to make yourself enlightened about lion “behaviour.”
I am sure you will take great comfort in the fact that after being devoured you can sit in the lion’s stomach commiserating with anyone else so foolish as to stand up to the lion’s miscreant behaviour. The rest of us “cowards” will stand back and remain completely puzzled by your senseless behaviour, even if in your mind you are convinced that it was the “heroic” thing to do since lions are such “immoral” beasts.
I apologize beforehand that I will not stand “with you” before God shaking my finger, I just don’t have that much confidence in my ability to know all the particulars of what it takes to “be God.” I know myself and my limitations.
A
ateista
Guest
Is there such a thing as decency, justice, right or wrong - objectively? Or are these terms defined by God at his whim? Whatever God does is by definition - good? If that is your view, then there is nothing to talk about.
Translation: “might makes right”. He, whoever weilds the bigger hammer, is the boss, whose every command, whim must be followed, because if you don’t, there comes the retribution. Yes, there is such an “ethical” system - organized crime uses it extensively. I would have thought that God should be a tad above such methods. But you say otherwise. Too bad…
Well, good for you. I am different. If it ever comes to that, I will at least have an opportunity to speak my mind and will use the same arguments I use here. If God wishes to punish honesty, so be it. If there is no objective decency, honor, benevolence, justice - applicable to God; if these terms are defined by God, we are all in bad shape anyhow.
So maybe there will be consolation in hell.
But you keep forgetting something. I am not demanding, I am asking. According to the Bible and Jesus you believe in, I am actually encouraged to ask. Jesus promised it. He said: "whatever you ask in my name… ". Was that just another “metaphor” without substance?
O
OTavern
Guest
No, my point here is that you are holding God accountable “to your standards,” which “you” claim are the ultimate and objective ones, then judging God by those standards. Before making such a claim that you really know what “objective” is, ask yourself whether it is at least possible that there might be standards that are “beyond” yours and even more “objective” if you could see from the point of view of “absolute” knowledge.
Your error is that you believe yourself eminently capable of judging “every” standard, even the most absolute ones without entertaining the possibility that you don’t grasp it “all” that your judgements might not be the “objective” ones, but only “yours” after all.
The fact that you think you are capable of “judging God” belies your unquestioning trust in yourself as the bearer of the absolute standard. At least consider that you might be missing something crucial without even being aware that you are. You seem to just completely ignore this possibility. Ignorance of the “law” is not an excuse even in systems of human justice.
I have no doubt there are objective standards and that God holds Himself to a standard much higher than He holds us. I wonder whether we can afford to just sit back and resolutely claim that ours are those objective standards and apply them holus bolus to every other being in existence. What I believe to be “honesty” or “benevolence” may turn out to be a complete sham when faced with absolute goodness, I just haven’t realized it.
You are relying on your definition of decency, honor, justice, etc and believing that in your hands you are safe, but in the hands of God - all knowing, all loving, etc. that He is, we are then in “bad shape.” Isn’t that the same as saying ateista is the “standard” for defining those terms and God should not be trusted?
For me to claim that my sense of honesty or benevolence is the “objective” standard of honesty or benevolence seems just arrogant of me and precludes any “growth” in that direction because I assume I have “made it,” I “AM” the standard. Are you sure of this?
I now set the rules of “the game” and believe I can hold even God accountable to my understanding because I have attained the absolute and objective one. Are you sure you are capable of making such a claim? Should all of us trust ateista for his knowledge of the “good” and his “justice” in acting for our welfare beyond every other possibility?
Perhaps you will be completely blind-sided by God’s goodness and the things that you thought were important turn out to be minor by comparison to the things you were completely blind to. Will you be just as vociferous in your apology and humility as you are in your critique?
I have no idea how God will judge me, I have a deep sense of when I do wrong or mess up, but I remain open to the possibility that there lurks inside me evil that I am completely blind to. It is not God that tries to “fool” me, my biggest enemies consistently turn out to be self-deception and a self-congratulatory smugness.
Knowing this much about myself I have to cringe when I hear someone holding God to account. Of course I also remain open to the possibility that I am a complete reprobate and you are at the pinnacle of virtue. In this case, accept my profound apology… I am but a worm after all.
A
ateista
Guest
I have no idea what are you talking about. The very concept of “standards” is something that applies to everyone. That what a “standard” is. They are not “mine” - in any sense of the word. If something does not apply to a segment of the beings, it is not a “standard” any more.
What is “justice”? Not to hold someone fully accountable, who does not have full information. Not to punish or reward someone disproportionately. There is nothing extravagant about these. If God’s standards are different, he never bothered to tell us.
This concept I deny. Besides, it is not really true. People are held accountable for what they “should reasonably” know. But they are not held accountable for what they cannot know. Even homicide is excused when the person could reasonably claim that he was not aware of the consequences of his act.
Why should I “trust” God, if he never speaks to me (or anyone else)? Trust must be earned. And one more time: the definitions of honor, decency, justice are not mine.
Very unlikely. Because my “complaints” are not based on personal “mistreatment”. They are not based on emotions, they are based on the available standards and their logical corollaries.
No, I will not. Since God never gave me assurances of his existence, or the standards I should have followed, it is his fault and his only.
I don’t hold God accountable for anything. If and when it turns out that you were right in everything your said, and God does indeed exist, then I will voice my questions to him. He can do a few things then. He may engage in a friendly conversation and explain his reasons. Or he can simply wipe my memory and knowledge. Or he can send me to hell.
That is the fundamental problem. I do not see myself as a worm and do not view others as worms. I try to live up the highest possible standards available to me, and sure enough, sometimes I fail. I try to be a good person. According to the “judgment” of my friends and acquintances, I am doing pretty well. And that is enough for me.
O
OTavern
Guest
No one is disputing that “standards” exist. I am not talking about “rules of decency” but human standards of “virtue.” Virtues like “honesty,” “generosity” or “courage” are not so black and white, nor as attainable as you seem to imply.
Take courage or justice as examples. I can live a comfortable existence watching all kinds of dreadful events in the world around me, content in the belief that I am basically a “brave” and “just” soul because I believe I do not directly create the circumstances of injustice or iniquity around me. Yet, I do nothing to ameliorate the circumstances which contribute to injustice, because the “standard” I hold regarding my own decent behaviour is to “mind my own business.”
My standard for justice might even be a negatively phrased “don’t act unjustly,” thereby completely absolving myself of responsibility for actually making the world a more “just” place, even when my lifestyle contributes directly or indirectly to unjust circumstances for others.
Global warming is a scathing consequence of our moral condition, all of us are responsible for the potentially dire effects of our lifestyles, yet few of us view ourselves as culpable because we are all being quite “reasonable” with regard to the “standards” or demands we hold each other to.
A
ateista
Guest
You certainly seemed to do exactly that when you insinuated that “justice”, “honor” etc… are my definitions. Which they are most emphatically not.
I did not speak about “virtue”. This part of the conversation came about when you started to talk about “atheistic posturing”, and about holding God “responsible”.
About keeping his promise. “Honesty” is not esoteric, it simply means: keep your promise. God did not have to promise to fulfill our questions, if we ask him in the name of Jesus. It was a “promise” freely given. What is so absurd about asking why this and such promises are broken?
Justice is not complicated. What is just about wholscale demise of every living living creature, most of which are definitely “innocent” of any wrongdoing? (I am talking about the animals, of course).
You can use this excuse, because you lack the knowledge and the wherewithal to change it. God cannot. The level of responsibility is directly proportional to the power one wields. At the top there are no excuses. As I said many times before, the sign on God’s desk should say: “The buck stops here”.
God does not need to inconvenience himself to fix any problem. All he needs to do is “will it”. Is that too much to ask? However, that is not what I am after. Maybe there is a good reason to allow all that misery, pain etc to linger on in this existence. I doubt it, but maybe there is.
My question is different. God promised, unconditionally that he will fulfill all our requests, if we ask in the name of Jesus. There was no precondition, just a straightforward promise. And I do not ask for miracles, for lottery jackpots, or personal favors. Just a little sign that the teachings of Christianity are more than wishful thinking. A sign which will satisfy a skeptical mind. Is that such a big deal?
I have asked you and others, why God does not keep this promise. There is no answer. The question is either pretended to be “in bad taste” like “atheistic posturing”, or ignored altogether.
O
OTavern
Guest
Let me try a different angle on this.
Suppose, just to humour me, and for the sake of discussion, that the “being” you think yourself to be is not merely “you” but is populated by all “spiritual” beings in your “proximal” field of view, including the “ground” of Being – God.
Anyone becoming aware of this new “fact” of their existence would be compelled to completely overhaul their “ethical” perspective. If, in fact, each individual is not merely one “self” but a panoply of beings and Being and is responsible for the good of the “whole,” the ethical demand upon each of us would be far greater than mere pragmatic self-interest. In fact, since self does not exist per se, but is actually “the whole enchilada” that “former self” would be faced with having to re-orient themselves to a “wider” ethical view in order to “be ethical.”
Up to the point of this realization, I as “one” could live in a contented state of solitude, happy in the fact that “my” thoughts and emotions are “mine alone” and do not affect anyone else, so I am being ethical when I “mind my own business” and “do not injure others.” But what if you or I, as such, do not exist, but are in fact “all?”
Former, seemingly “ethical” behaviours, that were considered so because of their “external” implications or limitations, may not have the same standing because of the newly understood “internal details.”
You might claim that if this is the case,** then Christianity is not merely illogical, but absolutely insane,** that anyone who really thought their internal world was that densely populated is completely dotty. Perhaps, but that sense may be a fear reaction, the “initial shock” of just such an awareness.
What if on further “composed investigation” it became very apparent that the internal world is as dimensional as the external one, and that “others” are indeed present “to us” internally and that this awareness is just as “shocking” a revelation to them – one they have a difficult time admitting because it means having to “deal with” others at this “intimate” level – i.e., to be known by others as I know myself.
Humans tend to “mutually avoid” each other at this level because it makes life less complicated. A “public” face gets put on because we can then mutually “stand-off” and tolerate each other in a less morally demanding universe. We can all “be self-absorbed” and still “get along,” so to speak.
What if awareness of God is intrinsically connected to an awareness of exactly this state of “universality” – that “finding God” is precisely a change in “perspective,” of allowing this “invasive” awareness that “I” am actually “all?” That God knows me as I know myself and the possibility exists for also knowing God in this way; not “seeing” an external manifestation as you are asking for, but “knowing” Him as you “are known” to yourself.
By constantly bringing it to your attention that, “you are not alone” is God’s way of saying, “I am here!” God cannot be faulted for not “showing you Himself” because He is there “all the time.” “I AM WHO AM,” He says at every instance from “the depths” of your awareness.
What if God is not “an object” in our field of view, but “the eye” that makes the whole view possible? And you can only come to “realize” His presence by allowing Him to refocus your conscious “awareness” to an “unlimited” depth of field. He cannot be blamed because you obstinately wish to hold onto a restricted “self” oriented conception of reality instead of allowing His “wider view” to take hold in your “being.”
You see God by letting go of all the limitations of “self.” It is “up to you” in a very real sense, because it depends on your “assent.” This is what God is offering. He is the “light” that enlightens all men, that shines in the darkness of our “being.” “No one has ever seen God; it is only the Son, who is nearest to the Father’s heart, who has made Him known.” (John 1:18)
As Jesus said to Thomas,
To “see” externally does not entail that one also “knows” or “understands” the message of the Gospel. The message is inherently one of a change of “Being.” Unless a man is “born” from above…
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The Bible says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.
A
ateista
Guest
D
davidv
Guest
Please explain why I should not take this as a bait and switch answer. You contend that the Church’s statements of dogma and doctrine are not subject to scrutiny. I gave you a clear example demonstating the inaccuracy of that position. Now you impune the decision making process. Which is it?
The plain fact is that God did make public appearances in the person of Jesus Christ. You have chosen, based on what I am not sure, to discount any and all eye witness accounts of these appearances. What aspect of the Catholic teachings are not fully disclosed? And, this is the really scary part for me, my words to you, to the extent my will is joined to Christ’s, may be the only material presence of God you may encounter. As a member of the Body of Christ, the Church, I am, in my small way, God’s hands, feet and mouth until He returns.
I believe Him, as He said it. I also know that I am imperfect and can ask for the wrong things or ask for the wrong reasons. God, through the prophets, has said that He is not to be found in the thunder or the lighting, but in the wispering of the wind. So, we often aren’t quiet enough to hear. We also also have a tendency to reject any answer we don’ t like.
I do. Why? Because I trust the shepherds and teachers that Christ left in charge to guide, protect and instruct us while He was gone.
See above
You have not demonstrated that it is. (not subject to scrutiny)
A
ateista
Guest
No, that is not a fact. It is something you and many others believe in. A fact is not subject to “beliefs”. Its significance of course would be.
Beside the point. The promise was not conditional.
There is nothing ambiguous about it.
Sorry, your trust isn’t applicable to me. If the Bible is correct, then a promise was made and broken. That is the plain truth.
Maybe you use the word “scrutiny” in a different way than I do. To me the freedom to question includes that even the most fundamental assumptions can be examined without fear of repercussions.
D
davidv
Guest
I still don’t understand how you dismiss the eye witness accounts. How are these not factual? They were certainly verifiable while the events where transpiring.
It is only unconditional if you take the verse out of the context of the whole Bible. This is an unacceptable interpretation.
I didn’t say it did. You asked “Who knows?” You made a private interpretation of one verse, out of context, and you expect me to believe that this is “the plain truth”. Not so.
What makes you think this hasn’t happened?
A
ateista
Guest
The whole story is an unverified description of something that allegedly happened - the supposed eye-witness testimony included. There is no way to verify if they actually happened, is there?
Oh, no. That will not wash. I know that it is the usual “cop-out” when something “unpleasant” deduction is reached. But here we do not talk about “parables” which could be interpreted different ways.
Nothing could be more straightforward than this:
You are, of course, free to say that it is just another allegory. But don’t be surprised if you will not be taken seriously. This kind of “explaining away” is the worst possible way to treat a difficult subject.
The phrase “of the whole Bible” is especially problematic. We all know (or should know) that pretty much whatever you want to “prove” based upon the Bible - or its exact opposite - you can search diligently enough and find a few passages what will support your position.
The solution to this problem is not referring to some authority, rather the honest acceptance that the Bible is a not a factual history book, just a collection of stories written by humans.
M
marymol
Guest
Since being much philosophically inclined , coming in here with some trepidation …noted that one of the points being discussed here is something that I too had to struggle with …and glad to have found some of the richness in our Lord’s words …
" Whatever you ask in my Name …"
It is a prayer that is answered , in the most amazing , miraculous way …at every altar …at every Holy Mass, when in an act of astounding humility and love , The Word becomes flesh again , in the bread and wine …out of love …to be with the children … … and at every confessional, where the dead are raised back to life , restored to dignity and freedom , from the bondage of guilt and shame and slavery to the evil one …and at every baptism …where human persons become reborn as God’s children …
There is the priest …standing Persona Christi …in The Name of The Lord Jesus …
And heaven comes down …or we are lifetd up… to be in the Presence …along with the host of angels …to join in the most profound act any human being is able to do , this side of heaven …
But , that too takes the supreme gift of faith …
There is the risen Lord, in the Garden …mistaken as a gardener …by Mary Magdalene !
Whatever …once those heavenly gifts are seen for what they are …what else would human beings ask for …in the Name …standing in His place …as He did …’ Father, let Thy will be done …’ …Thy Kingdom come …deliver us from evil …of wanting to be our own gods …
May He be praised , for ever and ever !
" Whatever you ask in my Name …"
It is a prayer that is answered , in the most amazing , miraculous way …at every altar …at every Holy Mass, when in an act of astounding humility and love , The Word becomes flesh again , in the bread and wine …out of love …to be with the children … … and at every confessional, where the dead are raised back to life , restored to dignity and freedom , from the bondage of guilt and shame and slavery to the evil one …and at every baptism …where human persons become reborn as God’s children …
There is the priest …standing Persona Christi …in The Name of The Lord Jesus …
And heaven comes down …or we are lifetd up… to be in the Presence …along with the host of angels …to join in the most profound act any human being is able to do , this side of heaven …
But , that too takes the supreme gift of faith …
There is the risen Lord, in the Garden …mistaken as a gardener …by Mary Magdalene !
Whatever …once those heavenly gifts are seen for what they are …what else would human beings ask for …in the Name …standing in His place …as He did …’ Father, let Thy will be done …’ …Thy Kingdom come …deliver us from evil …of wanting to be our own gods …
May He be praised , for ever and ever !
M
marymol
Guest
M
marymol
Guest
P.S - Correction - meant to say , in the first sentence - ’ not much philosophically inclined …’ .
Well…thanks , as always , for putitng up with the usual errors of spelling and grammer too
Well…thanks , as always , for putitng up with the usual errors of spelling and grammer too
- Status