R
reconman
Guest
No. The definition I gave was from Websters. God obviously bestows grace on some, while others lead lives of sometimes horrible suffering. Grace only applies to heaven.
- Status
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
If you insist on using your own invented definition of grace, then OK. I have already given you the Catholic definition and understanding of grace and examples of how it works. Given that I even provided a Biblical example of grace being that which sustains someone through suffering, I’m a bit perplexed that you’re holding on to that notion. Grace does not apply only to heaven, if it applies to heaven at all.
Oh, heck. I’ll take another shot. This time from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.”
Again, this definition makes clear that grace has NOTHING to do with material possessions or physical health, nor is it something that we receive once we’re in heaven. It is the help God gives us to get to heaven.
Sorry if I seem like a stickler, but I think it’s tremendously important to understand what words mean when you talk about them.
R
reconman
Guest
I’m not. I’m using the dictionary definition.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Funny you should provide that link, as the first 3 definitions given are:
a) unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b) a virtue coming from God
c) a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace
All of which correspond to what I’ve been saying. The definition to which you referred, “a special favor; privilege,” is a completely secular one that has nothing to do with God. The fact that it doesn’t apply to heaven is also illustrated by the example provided with that particular definition: “each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage. - Rudyard Kipling” This is the same sense of grace as we use when we say someone “graced (privileged) us with her presence.” Again, nothing to do with God’s grace.
Of course, God’s grace is a privilege in the sense that he does not owe it to us and yet he gives it to us all the same; each and every one of us. God’s grace is that which allows us to repent and be forgiven of our sins and to pursue holiness.
R
reconman
Guest
It has everything to do with God. Are you implying these favors and privileges do not come from God, simply because you choose the label “secular?”
What then, do I tell someone in horrible suffering, deprived of these “secular” graces, while others are not?
“Hey, be happy, you have grace.”
Is that what I should say? Or should I be honest and say that God does not care who suffers and who does not. Because that is obviously the case.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m just saying that when a Catholic talks about grace, he is not referring to material well being. And of course those material goods come from God: everything that exists comes from God. And it is wrong to say that God does not care. God loves and cares about everyone. That He permits suffering doesn’t mean he doesn’t care. It is worth noting that people who have a strong faith in God often manage to maintain a very positive attitude through unbelievable hardships. Consider the story of a young man who lived through Auschwitz, perhaps the most infamous concentration camp of Nazi Germany:
Stories like this abound. Francis Collins tells a story of treating a poor man in a third world country who was fatally ill. According to Collins, the man’s condition was such that it made him question the existence of God. Yet the man maintained a cheerful attitude, and having not even discussed religion with him, the man said, “You are wondering why God sent you here. He sent you here for me.” Further, prior to this experience, Collins had been an atheist. He became a Christian through witnessing the extraordinary courage and joy that his many impoverished, dying patients exhibited, all because of their faith.
So while many people may reject God in their suffering, there are many who do the opposite. Religious belief in Africa, for example, is exceptionally high. So are mortality rates. Take that for what it’s worth.
G
Gaber
Guest
You’d be a deist.
Conveniently labeling me, albeit incorrectly, doesn’t really address much.
So what are your serious questions?
Who are the Catholic contemplatives whom you have studied, under what light, why, and to what end?
What epistemological tools have you brought to bear to ascertain that ideas and premises going in to that study were useful and productive?
From what standpoint did you study those comtemplatives? Did you distinguish between contemplatives and mystics? Why or why not?
Merton hd a very admirable curiosity and drive to discover God as God. We are not quite of the same school, however.
If you percieve “pseudo-guruism,” what is real Guruism?
And if you think I;m someone who isn’t saying anything, you have some interesting reactions.
I guess then that you assert that everyone’s knowledge of God is already perfect as it stands, and that I have no business encouraging folks to examine the tool which they use to think about God in limited ways, often due to the defalult of having been inculcated in a way that anyone of any religion, or lack of one, has been?
I don’t have a conception of Deity, that being the realm of faith. And I am proposing that that concept that people have as a default of unexamined faith is a barier to more correct apprehension of what actually constitutes Diety. And that that pursuit can be taken to a remarkable, unexpected, and highly blessed end. Not trying that way cannot constitute proof that the way is unproductive, as in every case I know of it has been at least beneficial. And it seems this is historically so.
So what would you consider “higher understanding?” Something that agrees with what you think?
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I didn’t label you. The statement “You’d be a deist,” was a reply to the bolded section of the post to which I was responding. The statement in question is the textbook definition of deism. So if that’s what you believe, you’ve labelled yourself.
My serious question is what are your serious assertions? Having encountered your ideas in numerous threads, it seems to me that you never really offer any perspective; you only offer a rejection of traditional Catholic ideas and a vague prescription of Eastern ideas. For instance, you say to understand what/who one really is, one must turn off the discursive mind. The only way you could possibly know this is to have achieved it, so then what is it that you truly are? What is the practical spiritual usefulness of that practice? What has it changed for you? What did it teach you about God that those who practice traditional Christian forms of prayer and meditation don’t know? How does that make you more attuned to God than the little lady who spends her time praying for others? How does it make you more loving than the nun who takes a vow of poverty and spends her time helping the poor and sick, all while adhering to these “flawed” understandings of God and self, as you describe them? As Jesus taught that the greatest of the commandments was to love God with all your heart, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself, this is the important question about any Christian philosophy: how does it improve your love for God and neighbor? You provide no answers.
As for the contemplatives I’ve studied, there are any number of them as many many of the saints would be considered contemplatives. I’ve studied them under the light of the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, which any orthodox contemplative also adheres to. I’ve done so to enhance my faith and grow in understanding of Christ and the Christian life. However, this is irrelevant and again illustrates your tendency to answer questions with questions.
I’m not the one making broad claims with no support here, so I think I’ll reflect that question back to you: what “epistemological tools” are you using?
Yes, I distinguish between the two, for the reason that they are different, though often coincidental, things. Why do you seem unable to do anything but ask questions?
I agree. That was more of a joke; Merton, despite his fancy for (and misunderstandings of) Buddhism, was an orthodox Catholic.
By pseudo-guruism, I referred to the watered down variety of Eastern mysticism that became popular in the West in the 60s. As a Catholic, I don’t believe there is any “real” guruism.
You’re taking that statement too broadly. Sure, you’re saying a lot of things, but you’re saying nothing of substance in regards to God or personhood, the two topics which I’ve most frequently seen you ostensibly address (as briefly outlined in the questions above.) Why are you unable or unwilling to express what you have learned from the practices you have prescribed? What practical understanding have you gained that we have not? What difference does it make to your life? What do you know about God that the rest of us don’t?
On the contrary, I assert that no human being can have a perfect knowledge of God, neither by traditional means nor the “novel” means that you prescribe. You have no business as a Catholic to be encouraging people to disbelieve in a personal God and dismiss the AUTHENTIC teaching of their faith. Does the name Matthew Fox mean anything to you?
Which brings me back to the point of your statement about there being no personal God. As I already pointed out, that is the textbook definition of deism, and further, the most cursory study of Catholic theology shows it to be completely incompatible with Christianity. God is understood to be love, and love is always personal. Further, God became a man in order to save mankind: that’s personal. He abides with us now in the form of the Holy Spirit which gives us spiritual strength and other gifts. That’s personal. In fact, God is not simply one person, He is three distinct persons existing in a relationship of mutual self-giving love between one another as well as all that He has created: that’s triple personal. If you don’t believe in a personal God, then whatever you believe isn’t Catholicism. Plain and simple. Sorry.
Okay, so since you’ve transcended this “barrier”, what then is your apprehension of what constitutes deity? You are claiming your way is superior, so you should at least be able to articulate some vague sense or intimation of what it is this path has taught you, yet you never do. How is it beneficial if it produces no change in you? Again, all you ever seem to offer are assertions that traditional Catholic practices are flawed and these other concepts you’ve borrowed from Eastern mystical traditions are better, yet you never once show how it is an improvement in the spiritual life of a Catholic. I suspect because to do so would reveal the decidedly unchristian nature of the results, and actually that’s beyond the realm of suspicion now as you kind of showed your hand when you began challenging the notion of a personal God.
I would consider higher understanding something that illumines and informs a person’s faith. Your approach seems to do nothing but create questions and doubts. Examples abound among the saints, contemplatives, mystics, doctors of the Church, etc. All of these were able to communicate their learning to some degree and apply it in their lives to the greater glory of God and the benefit of mankind. What you are advocating is some kind of pantheistic neo-gnosticism that seems to do nothing but turn one’s spirituality totally inward.
R
reconman
Guest
He does not. Otherwise He would not permit suffering. There is no way around it.
Perhaps the saints. I’m no saint.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Actually, there is a way around it, and it’s not new. This topic has been a mainstay of Christian theology for millenia, and it has more than adequately been addressed. William Lane Craig has done some great work on it recently, in a very accessible manner.
In fact, the people who were closest to Jesus (his Apostles) suffered severely. Jesus promised his followers they would face trials and tribulations (i.e. pain and suffering) in this life, but they would be rewarded greatly in the next life.
Read the Beatitudes, or the Gospels in general. Jesus famously said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man (particularly one who lives a life of material comfort) to enter heaven. “The Lord hears the cry of the poor.” So much Scripture is filled with reassurance and compassion for those who suffer. “Why was this man born blind, Lord? Was it his sin or the sin of his parents?” Jesus answers that his affliction is not a punishment, but that the hand of God may be shown through him.
If nothing else, I strongly suggest you watch this video. This man was born with no limbs (no arms or legs) and is a devout Christian. He perfectly illustrates Jesus’ statement about the blind man. This is his testimony:
Nick Vujicic - Fully Living for Jesus Christ
Nor am I. But not only saints lean on God in times of difficulty and suffering.
R
reconman
Guest
Like I said, saints.
And He ignores it.
This makes no sense to me. No sane parent would willingly allow their children to suffer.
G
Gaber
Guest
Wow. Lng post, Part 1 of reply:
Yep. see what you mean. Sorry. And yes, that is one of the several lables someone might off hand stick on someone like that.
My assertions, which are ascertainable by reading them as I’ve stated in many posts, are, in short, the following: Consciousness is fundcamental. What you are conscious ofconstitutes your experience. What you are awares if as Consciousness itself, as “I” constitutes your Real experience. In other words, what changes, personality, eg, exists as an object in awreness but is not ultimatly Real as it has a substrate, and taht substrate is the proper study of spirituality. That is so because that is the direction in which the actuality of Man being created in the image and likeness of God can be found. this is expereincible by inquiry and/or Grace.
I am, as you are, as everyone is, primarily Conscious awrareness and only secondarliy a “person.” This is experieencible through inquiry and or Grace.
One discovers that what ordinarliy appears to be the human is something far greater and deeper. On that footing, which is far more stable than acquired institutioalized and debatable dogma, one can proceed in praye, contemplation, and adoration with much greater insight, appreciation, and motivation.
My perception of what actually constitutes being human as distinct from intellectualizations about that. It made me awrae of what is a largely unexperienced factor in human awareness, one that if expereinced, would radically change one’s interpretation of scripture, as it would add a dimension of understanding that is not otherwise available. It has an effect similar to catching on to how to view one of those “magic pictures” that look like static, but popinto 3D when you see it correctly.
It is not som much what we know as how we know it. In all honesty, most people of any faith, including ours, are in it by default of birth and critically unexamined habit. The expereince of pure awareness puts faith out of the opicture and introduces a factor of expereinceable Reality that makes Scripture come alive as a living experience and therefoe more interpretable from the stamndpoiint from which it was given. It also allows the discenment os what is dross in those pages, in our Bible or any.
There can be nothing but admiration for the sincerity of the little lady or anyone who is devoted. But that may not be sufficient for some. For many there are questions about God and the Nature of Being that are not so simply answered byu formulaic or conversational prayer, or especially by prayer of petition, unless that last leads to an exhaustion of mind athat allows actuall vision beyond it. In other words, such practica as I advocate is an entery to the largest room in the Universe, the room for improvement, and does it in a more dimensional way than simple discursive paryer would allow.
I don’t know the state of that nun. If you means Mother Teresa,when she and her entourage spent a week with my Mentor, there can be no doubt that she did a great service of love. And I cannot ascertain her spiritual state, that is not my job. But good work can be done from compulsion, fear, or a host of other motivateors, including the love of God and fellow man, and from compassion, wheere she seemed to operate from. But there is a factor of perception of what constitutes need that is not adequately addressed by ordinary faith restricted to discursive or discusible motivations. Also, seeing past the picture of the world’s presentation of serving suggestions puts things in another metaphysical perspective. But you kind of have to be there to see that. (post #632)
When you see no essential difference between what you ignorantly call God and your neighbor, how can you do other than Love? Jesus was one of the Ones who taught this, of course.
Yes, that is why the majority of my posts, as you having read them would know, are rather blatent statements. And to be true to your assesment, how did you acquire your identificatioon with those orthodox dogmas and teachings? What actually in experience do they really mean beyond your personal and absolutley correct understanding of them, and given that they were transimited to you in the pristine nature of their original intention with no occlusion or flaw? And how is acquired book learning superior to direct perception?
Again, what support do you have? Beleif in books? Sme good epistemological tools might be, for starters, a study of epistemology itself. How do you knoe you know what you think you know? The discipline of Genersl Semantics is useful. Korzybski’s structual differential is another. Wilber’s diliniatoin of the 4 quadrants of experience and the nine fulcrums of awareness is another. Alll the various works available on criticism and critical thinking, the works on the nature of translation, meaning, collections, cultural origins, linguistics, witnessing, history, etc, etc, can be brought to bear. but most useful in the last analysis is the work of those who have gone before, both Catholic and non.
Yes, and why wouldn’t I? you are not bad at that yourself, yes? Asking questions incessantly yeilds penetration of the superficial presentations of the mind. I don’t accept the common serving suggestons that seem to be adequate for most. Inquiry seems to be a useful tool in the pusuit of Reality.
G
Gaber
Guest
Part 2
Actually, more common Ground thatn you think. You just can’t see it yet because of your dinkum thinkum.
Wow! We ahve common ground!
Actually, more common Ground thatn you think. You just can’t see it yet because of your dinkum thinkum.Of course not. You/we have Jesus and the Pope. And yet you state it as a matter of belief, that which needs to be got past, whether one sees that need or not. Eventually it is inevitable.
Why don’t you ask some questions of yourself and discover for yourself? Truth, as such, is unstateable and can only be poiinted to. But when known, it can be reasoned from and recognized by others who know it. To thers it is just hoakum. That is just how it is. But the door to inquiry is always open to everyone, Few choose to take it, however. The man who said “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroyu ouyur world,” spoke accurately. Even the Bible says "All will be made new in the twinklinng of an eye. It is true!
Assert away. Ad no, that name means nothing to me. In the Catholic tradition I feel aligned with such as St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Asisi, meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, and Bernadette Roberts. Especially the last.
The Church as an institution has to do what id does as a way of surviving as an institution. An institution cannot know God peronally or impersonally. It can only present what it as an institution claims as an interpretation of its lineage of story. Individuals withing that institution can have some hope od discovering for themselves what the meaning is that initiated that story. No need to be sorry, or to make bones about whether I’m Catholic or not. Is God a baptized Catholic? You tell me. Beleive what yo will. Just know that it is a belief, a faith, as distinct from knowledge. And if it works for you, that is wonderful, isn’t it?
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I have done a significant amount of questioning and discovering. Belief cannot be “gotten past.” Acceptance of anything requires a certain amount of faith, in at least as much as one must take on faith that their perception of their experience is accurate, or that the experience itself is real or what it seems to be. Reason does indeed play a vital part in affirming our experiences, but it does not render them factual beyond doubt. As I believe I’ve mentioned before, my spiritual path in life has not been limited to traditional Christianity; not by a long stretch. My inquisitive nature has brought me all across the board from Buddhism to Hinduism to various types of Shamanism, whether South or Native American, to more modern “psychedelic” philosophies, etc., etc.Part 2
Wow! We ahve common ground!
Of course not. You/we have Jesus and the Pope. And yet you state it as a matter of belief, that which needs to be got past, whether one sees that need or not. Eventually it is inevitable. Why don’t you ask some questions of yourself and discover for yourself? Truth, as such, is unstateable and can only be poiinted to. But when known, it can be reasoned from and recognized by others who know it. To thers it is just hoakum. That is just how it is. But the door to inquiry is always open to everyone, Few choose to take it, however. The man who said “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroyu ouyur world,” spoke accurately. Even the Bible says "All will be made new in the twinklinng of an eye. It is true!
After reading your last reply, I agree that we have more common ground than might be thought at first sight. However, there are still some areas where I disagree with you.
So you reject the claim that the “institution” of the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and given the gift of the Holy Spirit to lead it into the fullness of truth about the relationship between God and man? This is an essential element of Catholic faith.
When you say that “individuals within that institution can have some hope of discovering for themselves what the meaning is that initiated that story,” you ignore the teaching of Scripture that says such things are not meant for individual interpretation. Or do you suppose yourself a higher authority on matters of God than Scripture and the Church?
“Is God a baptized Catholic?” This is a silly question and a red herring if ever I’ve heard one. The question is did God specifically give us the Catholic Church for the purpose of complete revelation of Himself to all of mankind? You seem to think that knowledge of God is some kind of goal to be individually achieved rather than a gift to be collectively received.
You only add yourself to a long line of people who proclaim to have some “better” vision or understanding of God. What makes your experience/knowledge any more valid than theirs, which most certainly vary by wide degrees? There is a transcendent wisdom in the Biblical teaching that tells us not to put stock in our own wisdom. Humans are prone to error, misinterpretation of individual experiences and self-affirming revelation.
Reason, separated from individual experience, can objectively examine all of the teachings and historical claims of the Church and see if they correspond to observable reality. In my experience, doing so inevitably produces a coherent result. Moreso than any other system I have studied or devised of my own intellect. The unchanging and far reaching nature of these teachings constitute, for me, a considerable body of evidence for the authenticity of the divine origin of Catholic doctrine. After much deliberation, prayer, research, reflection and meditation I have attained the “knowledge”, as you are wont to call it, that the Catholic Church and all the things she teaches are truth.
G
Gaber
Guest
Of course you do, and rightfully so. It is just that despite your rangings afeild the beyoond belief hasn’t clicked for you And that isn’t a matter of argument, but of discovery. And of course belief in the sense of working hypothesis is definitly a part of intellection. But it is not an end initself, as teleology demonstrates. All I am saying is that once the conversation in your head can be stopped, even for an instant, and you notice what is there in the absenced of the chatter, there is a different understanding as to the nature of mentality. And the understanding can be deepened by several means, some more useful than others.I have done a significant amount of questioning and discovering. Belief cannot be “gotten past.” Acceptance of anything requires a certain amount of faith, in at least as much as one must take on faith that their perception of their experience is accurate, or that the experience itself is real or what it seems to be. Reason does indeed play a vital part in affirming our experiences, but it does not render them factual beyond doubt. As I believe I’ve mentioned before, my spiritual path in life has not been limited to traditional Christianity; not by a long stretch. My inquisitive nature has brought me all across the board from Buddhism to Hinduism to various types of Shamanism, whether South or Native American, to more modern “psychedelic” philosophies, etc., etc.
After reading your last reply, I agree that we have more common ground than might be thought at first sight. However, there are still some areas where I disagree with you.
Rligion may be about faith; there are so many of themeven within a religion. God, however, knows nothing of faith or belief. That is human in limitation. As for the Church as an institution, I have another perspective on Peter’s commisson. And I wasn’t there to witness it personally. But ask any self respecting psychic or intuitive, and they will tell you that any reception of however pristinely clear “message” is necessarily colored by the mind set and knowledge of the recipient.
So even if the leadership of the Holy Spirit is fact, as it likey is but in another sense, it is still in the hands of interpreterts. and not one of those, in my opoinion, held a candle to Jesus of actually got what He was/is saying. And the institution of the Church is largely extrapolation on the remarkable carcity of Words from the Master.
So given that through prayer or better you are no less guided by the Holy Spirit thatn a consensus vote of men with an agenda of saving face and other parts, as well as the ostensible work of the Church, why so invested in a beleif? How well or deeply have yu investigated the Church as a phenomenon as distinct from its threats of damnation for disbeleif? Likey much more thatn others, but I’ll bet you left some parts out.
What other kind of interpretation is there? Some can look as alike as dots on a page. **…**But even if those were identical which they are not, the very fact of their position makes them different and leads them to different ends.
Am I a greater authority than the Church or Scriptures? Hand them to me on a plate and we will see if they even exist as other than a concept agreed to by people wishing an agreement for the purpose of self verification. You are proponing the adoption of a third party idea,however good and useful, by abdicationg your prerogative of introspection on the asis of being created in the image and likeness of God just as much as anyone else, and especially more than a group. So while it is true that “if two or three are gathered together in my Name, I AM in thier midst,” that can have a completleyh other meaning discoverable by trusting in the Love of God and the revelations of Silence. A yes, once arrived at, there can be an entirley different consensus as to what happened. How many ways are there of saying “the world will change in the twiinkiling of an eye?” I know many.
Of course it is a silly question. It is a device for making a point about inclusivity. And maybe He did give us the Church, but in a way that many would say has been tortured out of recogintion by so many means as to render it more of an obstruction than a path to salvation, whatever that path actually means in practice.
You can’t conceive as a goal what you already have as Nature poiinted to by being made in His image and likeness. What can be done is the disciplineing of the mind to prepare ti to receive grace. And you wight do that alongside other folks, and even with somewhat matching ways. But ultimately is it the group who wholesale and identically recieves Insight? Is that wht you think?
Sorry, I didn’t add myself. the rug being pulled out from under every smidge of what I beleived constituted being human was not done at my bidding. I oonly can have no other analysis for what happened. It happens to coincide with what is by my reconing the oldest and most consistent discription of relationship to God that has been arrived at by ucountably many of any faith or lack of it and in spite of any condition or circumstance. It is predicated on the structure of man as created in the Image and Likeness of God, to put it in somewhat accurate terms that sort of match your beliefs, perhaps.
I’ve done that, and applied a large number of disciplines to that study, and arrive at a rather different position, due simply and primarily to the additon of a factor ignored in the common subject/object menatlity of such studies. Your conclusion is far from inevitable save as a personal one. And that is excellent, right, and useful for you. Your conclusion does not require itself to be universal and impunalbly complete truth from other standpoints. The unchanging and far reaching nature of these teachings constitute, for me, a considerable body of evidence for the authenticity of the divine origin of Catholic doctrine. After much deliberation, prayer, research, reflection and meditation I have attained the “knowledge”, as you are wont to call it, that the Catholic Church and all the things she teaches are truth. The “for me” statement makes this a semantically more correct statement than many on here. Mine are “for me” as well, but they are from a different perspective that is not personal in the sense of haveing been arrived at by manipulating human faculties. It was given, and the meaning found to be congruent with someting very ancient, which from that standpoiint, even the Teachings of Jesus match, despite what has been extrapolated from them by whatever intention.
And they are truth, however thickly veiled. I have seen only one contemporary Catholic author who has exquisitily and beautifully parsed out the journey of transformation in conformance with Church teaching. And that author is haveing a time with a lot of reacitvity, despite her astounding briliance. I have only seen one other work like it in contemporary times in English, a notably difficult tongue in which to describe such things. but ultimately, there is nothing that doesn’t have Devine oigin. We just as a group don’t yet see how. And therein lies adventure!
T
tonyrey
Guest
And you are far from being the only one! There are thousands of conflicting Christian sects inspired by private revelations…I have done a significant amount of questioning and discovering. Belief cannot be “gotten past.” Acceptance of anything requires a certain amount of faith, in at least as much as one must take on faith that their perception of their experience is accurate, or that the experience itself is real or what it seems to be. Reason does indeed play a vital part in affirming our experiences, but it does not render them factual beyond doubt. As I believe I’ve mentioned before, my spiritual path in life has not been limited to traditional Christianity; not by a long stretch. My inquisitive nature has brought me all across the board from Buddhism to Hinduism to various types of Shamanism, whether South or Native American, to more modern “psychedelic” philosophies, etc., etc.
After reading your last reply, I agree that we have more common ground than might be thought at first sight. However, there are still some areas where I disagree with you.
So you reject the claim that the “institution” of the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and given the gift of the Holy Spirit to lead it into the fullness of truth about the relationship between God and man? This is an essential element of Catholic faith.
When you say that “individuals within that institution can have some hope of discovering for themselves what the meaning is that initiated that story,” you ignore the teaching of Scripture that says such things are not meant for individual interpretation. Or do you suppose yourself a higher authority on matters of God than Scripture and the Church?
“Is God a baptized Catholic?” This is a silly question and a red herring if ever I’ve heard one. The question is did God specifically give us the Catholic Church for the purpose of complete revelation of Himself to all of mankind? You seem to think that knowledge of God is some kind of goal to be individually achieved rather than a gift to be collectively received.
You only add yourself to a long line of people who proclaim to have some “better” vision or understanding of God. What makes your experience/knowledge any more valid than theirs, which most certainly vary by wide degrees? There is a transcendent wisdom in the Biblical teaching that tells us not to put stock in our own wisdom. Humans are prone to error, misinterpretation of individual experiences and self-affirming revelation.
Reason, separated from individual experience, can objectively examine all of the teachings and historical claims of the Church and see if they correspond to observable reality. In my experience, doing so inevitably produces a coherent result. Moreso than any other system I have studied or devised of my own intellect. The unchanging and far reaching nature of these teachings constitute, for me, a considerable body of evidence for the authenticity of the divine origin of Catholic doctrine. After much deliberation, prayer, research, reflection and meditation I have attained the “knowledge”, as you are wont to call it, that the Catholic Church and all the things she teaches are truth.
G
Gaber
Guest
I don’t understand: how is Fakename one of thousands of conflicting Christian sects?
C
CaseyDeAnn
Guest
I apologize in advance if anyone has already written something similar to this, but I don’t feel like taking the time to read each comment.A comment by a poster on another thread got me thinking about something.
If God doesn’t force Himself on those that reject Him, or those who simply say there’s not enough evidence to make any kind of belief in Him possible, how can Christians then claim that the good that atheists do, can only be done by the Grace of God
If that is true, then God is indeed forcing Himself on those that do not believe in Him because He is imbuing them with a Grace they neither asked for, nor want.
I do a certain amount of good in my local community. I use the success I’ve had to inspire young girls to go into business. I fund certain things for children who otherwise wouldn’t be able to affort them, because I believe in the importance of building a firm foundation for the future of all children, and I see education as a cornerstone to this.
According to the above, the only reason I am doing any of this, is because of the Grace from a God I do not believe exists
How can that be?
And how can this God then ever condemn me for not believing in Him, when it doesn’t make any difference anyhow, He’ll just go right on and make me do good and fill me with Grace, whether I want it or not
I don’t believe in the devil either. But to be fair, that must mean even though I don’t believe in him either, anything not so good that I do (I’m not perfect) must be influenced by him, even though I don’t care for him, and don’t believe he exists!
My body and mind is just like a football field to these guys, playing me off one against the other
I don’t get it.
Sarah x
I think that good works are done for various reasons: self-gain, grace, for the sake of righteousness, due to conscientiousness, etc. Like Kant asserted, many “good” acts have no moral worth if they are not done for the sake of duty. Now here is when the atheist must ponder what “good” actually is, what it stems from, and whether it’s objective or only relative. God has given us consciences and rationality to act justly and charitably; therefore, even if grace is theoretically taken out of the picture, there is no way to separate God from morality. He is still the source from which all good acts of moral worth stem. It is only because of Him that we can reason at all. So in this way, no one “can be good without God.” No one can be anything without God! You may reject His grace, but you cannot reject what He has already given you: in this case, a powerful mind. Grace is more of perfecting the soul, I believe. And questions on grace can be tricky; I’m not knowledgeable enough to make it sound black and white for anyone.
C
CaseyDeAnn
Guest
I also wanted to add that I don’t believe atheists reject God completely. I think that was my point. It’s not possible; God may be a “concept” that you have “rationally” chosen to reject, but, again, it’s not all so black and white, especially when it comes to metaphysics. We can’t even understand how He influences us. I believe He is with you in so many ways, despite that you don’t believe in Him as a concept.A comment by a poster on another thread got me thinking about something.
If God doesn’t force Himself on those that reject Him, or those who simply say there’s not enough evidence to make any kind of belief in Him possible, how can Christians then claim that the good that atheists do, can only be done by the Grace of God
If that is true, then God is indeed forcing Himself on those that do not believe in Him because He is imbuing them with a Grace they neither asked for, nor want.
I do a certain amount of good in my local community. I use the success I’ve had to inspire young girls to go into business. I fund certain things for children who otherwise wouldn’t be able to affort them, because I believe in the importance of building a firm foundation for the future of all children, and I see education as a cornerstone to this.
According to the above, the only reason I am doing any of this, is because of the Grace from a God I do not believe exists
How can that be?
And how can this God then ever condemn me for not believing in Him, when it doesn’t make any difference anyhow, He’ll just go right on and make me do good and fill me with Grace, whether I want it or not
I don’t believe in the devil either. But to be fair, that must mean even though I don’t believe in him either, anything not so good that I do (I’m not perfect
My body and mind is just like a football field to these guys, playing me off one against the other
I don’t get it.
Sarah x
F
fred_conty
Guest
“how can Christians then claim that the good that atheists do, can only be done by the Grace of God?” asked by Atheistgirl.
“For the performance of a moraly good action, Sanctifying grace is not required.” (de fide)
“The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action.” (Sent. certa.)
“The actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action.” (Sent. certa.)
These references are found on pages 234-5 in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott.
This answers your question, but this dosen’t explain the catholic ideas of why grace is so necessary.
The big question to me from what you asked is, “why do good works if there is no God?”
I have never understood that. The basis for good is non existent.
Just a few thoughts.
“For the performance of a moraly good action, Sanctifying grace is not required.” (de fide)
“The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action.” (Sent. certa.)
“The actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action.” (Sent. certa.)
These references are found on pages 234-5 in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott.
This answers your question, but this dosen’t explain the catholic ideas of why grace is so necessary.
The big question to me from what you asked is, “why do good works if there is no God?”
I have never understood that. The basis for good is non existent.
Just a few thoughts.
- Status