God gave us Reason, not Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter AgnosTheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not concerned with doctrine. I do have faith in God that God will sort it all out. I think all the little details of doctrine and religion are ultimately human creations and count for very little except to those in power or who are concerned with authority. If we are Christian, Muslim Jewish or whatever, if we follow the 2 great commandments as highlighted by Jesus we will be fine…
Reason concludes that this cannot be correct! This is the whole point of WHY God had to come down here Himself! If your position was true, then there was no need to appear ‘Live and In Person’ since we already had the Commandments, and the prophets (like Mohammed and Joseph Smith) will explain the rest!

Reason also concludes ONLY one of your “Top 3” must be the correct one because they all say different things about God, albeit they share some common aspects of belief. The arguments within Christianity, Islam or Judaism about their own specific doctrines in detail is slightly different than what you are suggesting, but they all mean squat if your premise or faith is incorrect anyway!

The other alternative is that ALL of them are worthless, which is the natural extension of the slope you suggest, because we also share common aspects with almost all the other faith beliefs, including the ones who do not believe in God.
Reason doesn’t allow us to conclude that IF there is a God, that God is necessarily benevolent (loving)!!! Reason can’t even get us that far in religious matters. Heck, drawing on experience, we are almost forced to conclude the opposite. My belief in a loving God is pure faith and pure hope!!!
St Paul has obviously not convinced you. We HOPE for our salvation, but our belief and faith is not left to chance, but to absolute fact! That is what the epistles are continuously reinforcing! If The Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is worthless. It does not say, *if we do not believe that The Christ rose from the dead…etc. *

Our faith is not based on hope that these things happened, but BECAUSE IT DID HAPPEN! Doubt, places these things in the hands of men, as it were, because the suggestion is 'what if they were lying or wrong? By extension, Did Jesus Christ even exist?

So we must reason it out with evidence and the overwhelming evidence is that Jesus Christ existed. (A different argument, granted) But, having found that He did, destroys Judaism! If He is God, this destroys Islam and all other pretenders to the title!

You are right that some aspects of our understanding of revelation requires a fair amount of faith. Our creeds teach us WHAT to believe from those who were either there or closest to the events. They tell us that He Is God!! Blasphemous if not true!

If you do not believe Jesus Christ Is God, then you cannot be Christian. Therein lies the ‘required faith element’ of our understanding.

But if you believe that He Is God, then you NEED to be Catholic, because that is The Church He Established. The evidence of that is not only clear in Scriptures, which He authenticated by quoting it, but through PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which traces all the way back to Him. The only Christian church that can do that is Catholicism.

Once you’ve settled that He is God, then the understanding that He cannot lie should take care of the rest; *"…and the gates of Hades shall not overcome it (My Church)" * meaning no human can lead it astray or cause it to fall.
Why not honestly state that you are informing them of where you BELIEVE the truth to lie since you can’t prove you are right? That would be more genuine and honest and might even engender more respect for you position and belief system!
God bless.
We should not be seeking to ‘engender more respect for our position’ but to tell The Truth as revealed. Catholicism is not about us, but for all humanity! “We” did not start or own it. We do not ‘care’ about temporal gains, but for eternal salvation

God is the Final Adjudicator of who is saved and who is not. But from all that we know of Him, it is obvious that He did not leave a lottery behind and make it a gamble to achieve salvation.

Please forgive the tone if it sounds like I am questioning your Christianity, Peregrino. I am not! I am simply trying to formulate a reply to the above with the limitations of words at my command. Sorry.

:cool:
 
Please forgive the tone if it sounds like I am questioning your Christianity, Peregrino. I am not! I am simply trying to formulate a reply to the above with the limitations of words at my command. Sorry. :cool:
No need to apologize!! I appreciate your amicability and concern for engaging in friendly dialogue. You have done a great job expressing your position and challenging mine. I question my “Christianity” along with everyone else’s! lol!!
Reason concludes that this cannot be correct! This is the whole point of WHY God had to come down here Himself! If your position was true, then there was no need to appear ‘Live and In Person’ since we already had the Commandments, and the prophets (like Mohammed and Joseph Smith) will explain the rest!
To a Christian this reasoning is sound, given Christian faith. However, people of Jewish faith would disagree. For a Jew, they have the commandments until the Messiah comes; sins against God can be forgiven by only God, sins against men can be forgiven only by men. They don’t need Jesus as God “live and in person”. For Jews,Jesus didn’t fulfill the messianic prophecies of the OT and there was no requirement that the Messiah be anything other than a man, a true “Son of God.” That phrase which Christian assume means divinity, was not used in that fashion; it was more an expression that the person receiving the title did God’s will.
Reason also concludes ONLY one of your “Top 3” must be the correct one because they all say different things about God, albeit they share some common aspects of belief. The arguments within Christianity, Islam or Judaism about their own specific doctrines in detail is slightly different than what you are suggesting, but they all mean squat if your premise or faith is incorrect anyway!
I didn’t intend to list those three as a “top three”; it was just easier to lsit them because they all share a somewhat common notion of God. I meant to include every possible faith.
The other alternative is that ALL of them are worthless, which is the natural extension of the slope you suggest, because we also share common aspects with almost all the other faith beliefs, including the ones who do not believe in God.
Agreed.
If The Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is worthless…Our faith is not based on hope that these things happened, but BECAUSE IT DID HAPPEN!
I will ask rhetorically, why is our faith worthless if the ressurection is not “true”? That Jesus did exist, I think the historical record is pretty convincing.
You are right that some aspects of our understanding of revelation requires a fair amount of faith. Our creeds teach us WHAT to believe from those who were either there or closest to the events. They tell us that He Is God!! Blasphemous if not true!
Our creeds were developed a good distance temporally from the actual events. I agree that blasphemy is the logical conclusion if they are false.
If you do not believe Jesus Christ Is God, then you cannot be Christian. Therein lies the ‘required faith element’ of our understanding.

But if you believe that He Is God, then you NEED to be Catholic, because that is The Church He Established. The evidence of that is not only clear in Scriptures, which He authenticated by quoting it, but through PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which traces all the way back to Him. The only Christian church that can do that is Catholicism.
On the first count, there are a good number of modern scholars who would contend that Jesus didn’t consider himself to be God or divine. Hypothetically, if Jesus didn’t consider himself to be God, can his follows still be considered Christian?

If we believe that Jesus is God, I personally do not believe that it necessarily follows that the Roman Catholic Church be considered the “Church” established by God. Given the gospel accounts, it is fairly clear to me that Jesus didn’t intend to “throw down” Judaism or change Jewish practice in any way shape or form.
 
To a Christian this reasoning is sound, given Christian faith.

However, people of Jewish faith would disagree. For a Jew, they have the commandments until the Messiah comes; sins against God can be forgiven by only God, sins against men can be forgiven only by men. They don’t need Jesus as God “live and in person”. .
The problem though is that He did come! It’s a simple matter then of deciding whether He is Who He said He IS!
For Jews,Jesus didn’t fulfill the messianic prophecies of the OT and there was no requirement that the Messiah be anything other than a man, a true “Son of God.” That phrase which Christian assume means divinity, was not used in that fashion; it was more an expression that the person receiving the title did God’s will.
Firstly, HONEST examinations of the Messianic prophecies shows that they are indeed fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but it has a catch! Firstly, you must believe that He is who He says He IS. Without that understanding, you will not see it.

Secondly, those who commenced Christianity, to a person, were all Jews! Therefore, their UNDERSTANDING of Scriptures and what to expect and look for from Scriptures cannot be divorced from the same understanding of those who hold that Judaism continues unchanged!

In many ways, outside of Christ Himself, the Jews validated Christ because ONLY THEY could have understood the Scriptures, Judaism and the Messianic Prophecies! Their faith is the reason there are Christians.

Lastly, God only gave the lineage of ‘he who is to come!’ Because it was to be from the lineage of Judah, every normal thinking person, rightly expects an everyday kinda bloke, but who will end up donning a flaming red cape with a blazing “M-1” on his chest and set about doing superduper feats, delivering ONLY JEWS!

IMHO, In spite of all the supernatural feats God openly displayed to His people throughout the OT, they still reduced Him to fit into the box within their reasoning and expected only what they could fathom, into the passage.

Put simply, two Jews look and listened to Jesus. One walks aways shaking his head, saying, “Nah! You ain’t the one we’re waiting for.”

The other, using the same knowledge of Judaism, falls prone, saying, “I’m not worthy! I’m not worthy!”

Before this point of separation, both possessed the same Scriptural and cultural knowledge to make a call. Unfortunately, it seems every individual is still being called to make this decision thoughout. It’s apparently about something called “freeing wheely” or something like that.
I didn’t intend to list those three as a “top three”; it was just easier to lsit them because they all share a somewhat common notion of God. I meant to include every possible faith…
Immaterial though because it refers to them all by implication!
I will ask rhetorically, why is our faith worthless if the ressurection is not “true”? That Jesus did exist, I think the historical record is pretty convincing.
The second part is settled then. 👍

For the first part, because if the ressurection is not true, then we have followed a false god and are in violation of several of The Commandments!

This also means all the promises of Jesus about eternal life are worthless.

:cool:
 
Our creeds were developed a good distance temporally from the actual events. I agree that blasphemy is the logical conclusion if they are false.
I know Nicene settled the ‘final’ creed formulation, but the evidence is that a creed existed from the Apostles as they professed their faith and the things they witnessed. Read Acts and some of the Epistles and pay attention to the bits that mention their gatherings and witnessing to each other and the faithful. Then read some of the early fathers of the church when they ‘profess’ what the faith of the church is. You should find the ‘bits and pieces’ that compile the creed. It wasn’t thought up out of thin air at Nicene!
On the first count, there are a good number of modern scholars who would contend that Jesus didn’t consider himself to be God or divine. Hypothetically, if Jesus didn’t consider himself to be God, can his follows still be considered Christian?.
Scholars who are millenias removed from the events they mull over, end up quoting each other, and reduce snippets of Holy Writ to their interpretations and musings and then pollute libraries with their ‘findings’ as though they’ve discovered “The Everything Theory”…do not ascend to the superior level of truth, unless the evidence they laud defeats THE HELD POSITION of those who were ACTUALLY either there, or closest to the same events!!!

It may succeed in frustrating some Protestant denominations who cannot trace themselves back to when The Bible was canonized!

If Jesus didn’t consider himself to be God, hypothetically, his followers will have to be considered not just Christian but mentally retarded.
If we believe that Jesus is God, I personally do not believe that it necessarily follows that the Roman Catholic Church be considered the “Church” established by God. Given the gospel accounts, it is fairly clear to me that Jesus didn’t intend to “throw down” Judaism or change Jewish practice in any way shape or form.
If you’re serious, you need some heavy research! Not to justify Catholicism, but examine and investigate WHY The Church says what It holds to! I wasn’t guessing when I said The Church can PHYSICALLY trace itself back to Christ, as well as being corroborated by Scriptures!

He didn’t just change Judaism, but fulfilled and extended it to it’s fullness.

Judaism is limited only to Jews! Everyone else be damned! They will/may say, “God knows all things and He has a plan for the Gentiles and the rest of the world and He will save them because He is God!” (Yeah, I’m paraphrasing.)
**
I say, *“Really? Gee, that’s good. Now, How do you know that? Where’s the evidence for that? Oh! In Scriptures?!! What’s that?! Moses wrote it? Who’s Moses? But it doesn’t relate to us, nor do we know what it means, since, it was given to you! We (the rest) don’t even feature in there except as ‘bad guys’ to be smote and conquered.” * **

As you see, the entire New Testament is out and all arguments regarding God’s intentions for the rest of the world BECOME SUBJECTIVE! The truth is, we wouldn’t even know there is a God because Judaism to this day have no revelation of anything concerning ‘The Rest’ except that it is in God’s hands. But we wouldn’t know the difference between The One God, Buddha and Orion’s Belt!

Thankfully, the Jews who were alert enough to recognise their Promised Messiah have saved us!

:cool:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
That is true of non-revealed knowledge. That is partially true of revealed knowledge in that while revealed knowledge is absolutely true, any “part” of it may be better understood as further development of revelation comes to bear on it.

I agree with you here. “Truth” is absolutely true. I only question the degree to which we can claim to possess that truth and make pronouncements upon it.
We can claim to possess the truth, as absolutely true, of revelation perfectly. We may not know everything there IS to know about all the implications or “behind the scenes” material of any particular piece of revelation, as revealed truth must be “revealed”, obviously, and if it hasn’t been revealed yet, then there is no way to know it is true.

Your position seems to be that no truth, which you grant does indeed exist, can be known, even in part, to be true. It can only be considered a “hypothesis”, because it could still be proved “wrong”.

I would counter that just as we know the truth that 1+1=2, we know the truth of revelation. They both are “revealed truths”, I dare say, because they were “given to us” as axioms, by God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
**The Jews knew God as God because that was revealed to them. That is absolutely true.
They didn’t know that Jesus was to be, and was, God, because that development of revelation had not been revealed to them,… until it was,… even though “The Son” had always been God, just as “The Holy Spirit” had always been God.**
Jews say that Jesus was not the Messiah because he did not fulfill the messianic prophecies as was revealed to the in the Old Testament. Their texts that “revealed” God to them gave specific criteria that Jesus did not fulfill in their eyes.
That’s fine. People can have different opinions. One can also say that 1+1=(not 2), but the “value” of that opinion is whatever it is to whomever tries to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Let’s be honest. You simply deny that revelation is a valid form of acquiring knowledge, don’t you?
Not at all! I simply recognized that about every world religion says that they have “revealed knowledge” and that not everyone of them can be right at the same time! There is no way to prove that any of us are right in the content of our “revealed knowledge” and therefore we need to recognize and establish some sort of standard that allows us to live peaceably.
I agree that people should be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they wish. That has nothing to do with the actual truth of those beliefs. There is an inherent “competition” of belief systems, which SHOULD be a matter of non-coercive proposition and convincing (self conviction).

Your world view is that since “no natural man” necessarily arrives at “God stuff” as known by the Church, the Church’s dogma (revealed truths) are arbitrary.

That would be true only if revelation, which means information imparted DIRECTLY from God, did not exist,… which is what you believe. You can say you believe in “revelation”, but when you say we can’t, “…prove that any of us are right in the content of our ‘revealed knowledge…’”, you are saying that revealed knowledge may be imparted to “a man”, but never to “man”, because men don’t believe men, and that doubt nullifies the transmission of revelation, which makes revelation non-existant for anyone but “a man”.

…continued below →
 
…continued from above:
As I have said before, I think the 2 great commandments that Jesus highlighted give us this standard. I trust that God will sort out the rest.
You may use whichever subset of revelation you like to inform “right living”. It would be lovely if that were enough, which it is actually in theory, but yet men need more than that, it seems, to stay “on track”.
If you do, then Christianity, and any “revealed religion”, is utter nonsense excepting it’s “apparently ethically nice” manifestations, which are only “nice accidentals resulting from a mental delusion”.
You have nicely summed up what any “revealed religion” could potentially be-I however am incapable of proving it one way or the other. That is the problem we face! How do we know? Everyone accepts a different standard!
Everyone accepts a different standard because they are wedded to the local over the universal. The Catholic Church, and I use the word “Catholic” in it’s descriptive sense, is the one most full exposition of revelation. How can I prove that? Look at the volume of revelation and it’s internal/external coherence.

Once you accept that revelation is real, and not an illusion of “nature”, you conclude that it can be given to individual men. Then you ask, to whom is it given in greater measure? What is the oldest and largest actual “thing”, group of men(/women), who’s job it is to be sensitive to revelation?

Could they be a self deluded large group, who doesn’t actually have or use revelation correctly? The test for that is it’s results, relative to other groups. That is a personal test, which we all make.

One lovely bit of revelation is that God made it impossible for faith to be a matter of proof (in the scientific sense). If the “best place to hang your spiritual hat” was provable (absolutely) to you, then it would be provable to everyone, which would make it not having faith in “this provable thng” but simple obvious necessity,… like breathing.

No one “chooses” to breathe. Breathing is just “done”.

God ordained that our choice of Him was to be a use of our free will, and therefore He “arranged” it such that the “correct” choice was NOT to be a necessity, like breathing, but a real free choice.
What you want is a non-revelation-based ethical system, a philosophy, that serves the function of “the good parts of religion” while not being dependent on this “irrational” stuff.
Not necessarily for reasons stated above. We can no more prove the existence of an absolute “good” or “evil” than we can God. Everyone will have their own subjective opinion. This DOES NOT that “the good” or “the evil” doesn’t exist in an absolute sense. The inability to prove the existence of these values doesn’t automatically mean that they don’t exist and does not mean that relativism should reign. We simply have to acknolwedge our epistemelogical short comings.
This is our difference in these matters: You demand reasons before having faith,… I demand faith before recieving reasons.

Your “need” for proof is the prime and initial “sin” of mankind, from which all other sins decend. It is, in fact, what all of creation is about,… all things are to teach us (man) that there is no creation (creature/thing) that comes before God,… and reasons are creations.

God comes before things. Faith comes before reasons. Proof is simply a reason.

…continued below →
 
continued from above:
Quote: Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Good luck with that, as such an “enterprise” (human creation) will always result in the enslaving of that portion of humanity that it tries to “help”.
One could easily say this of organized religion. You assume that it is not a human creation. Some would argue that what you have described is easily pointed to in the history of organized religion.
Organized religion, to you, is a sham, just as “revelation” is a sham, as it can’t be “proved” to be “real” to everyone simultaneously. To be “provable” to everyone simultaneously would violate our gift of free will. It would make our reason for being null, and the reason for the universe’s existence nothing.

Organized religion is either oriented in it’s work by revelation, in larger or lesser quantity, or by human wants.

Sometimes, parts of even correctly oriented organized religions can be “hijacked” by human wants. That happens constantly. Does it negate the overall organized religion which is, constitutionally, oriented by revelation? No.

You either believe that “Organized Religion” is a human creation, or not.

You either believe that revelation is real or not.

You either believe that faith comes before reason in matters of “faith and morals” or you don’t.

The consequences for not believing some or any of the above are the continued “lessons in grief” that naturally flow from those choices of our gift of free will.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
 
The problem though is that He did come!
Easily said for a Christian! Many Jews would disagree…
It’s a simple matter then of deciding whether He is Who He said He IS!

Firstly, HONEST examinations of the Messianic prophecies shows that they are indeed fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but it has a catch! Firstly, you must believe that He is who He says He IS. Without that understanding, you will not see it.
It is not my place to defend Judaism nor can I do an adequate job of it. Yet my Jewish friends believe that the OT is quite clear about what will happen when the Messiah does come and such things as world peace have not arrived…

Saying that one must first believe a proposition (believe that Jesus was who the Gospel writers said he was) is like saying that blue paint mixed with yellow paint makes pink paint, only you must first add in a little red to “bring the color out” (analogy borrowed from a book by Richard Feynman…)
Secondly, those who commenced Christianity, to a person, were all Jews! Therefore, their UNDERSTANDING of Scriptures and what to expect and look for from Scriptures cannot be divorced from the same understanding of those who hold that Judaism continues unchanged!
I don’t think anyone would seriously contend that the few Jews who followed Jesus were representantive of Judaism and thus their interpretation of Judaism would be considered anything but orthodox. They were clearly a small minority. That is like saying that those Catholic nun who believe that one of their own was the reincarnation of Mary are representative of Catholicism and its doctrines.
Put simply, two Jews look and listened to Jesus. One walks aways shaking his head, saying, “Nah! You ain’t the one we’re waiting for.”

The other, using the same knowledge of Judaism, falls prone, saying, “I’m not worthy! I’m not worthy!”

Before this point of separation, both possessed the same Scriptural and cultural knowledge to make a call. Unfortunately, it seems every individual is still being called to make this decision thoughout. It’s apparently about something called “freeing wheely” or something like that.
Agreed and this is a nice way of describing the faith decision each makes. However, neither can objectively prove that the other is right or wrong. They just have to accept that the believe differently and move on.
This also means all the promises of Jesus about eternal life are worthless.
Let’s suppose that Jesus was not divine but made the same statements in the role as Messiah (there is no requirement that the Messiah be divine). Could his sayings still be just as true as the non-divine prophets who foretell of the coming Messiah in the OT? From what I have been told, it doesn’t seem that Judaism dwells much on the nature of the world to come. They worry about living in this world. Jesus never said “worship me”, and if you take out the Gospel of John, much of the “proof of divinity” on the part of Jesus evaporates.
 
Keikiolu, to start, you have made some awesome points here! Past disagreements aside, we are seeing things the same way here on many issues, it seems though that we differ on how far we can take each issue.
Your position seems to be that no truth, which you grant does indeed exist, can be known, even in part, to be true. It can only be considered a “hypothesis”, because it could still be proved “wrong”.

I would counter that just as we know the truth that 1+1=2, we know the truth of revelation. They both are “revealed truths”, I dare say, because they were “given to us” as axioms, by God.
Nice analogy here. Revelation serves EXACTLY the same purpose of axioms for us that believe. The problem is that 1+1=2 is apparent to all humans in our daily lives, this “local phenomenon” is apparent to all and is universal. Revelation requires ones assent and is not universal.
I agree that people should be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they wish. That has nothing to do with the actual truth of those beliefs. There is an inherent “competition” of belief systems, which SHOULD be a matter of non-coercive proposition and convincing (self conviction).
Agreed.
Your world view is that since “no natural man” necessarily arrives at “God stuff” as known by the Church, the Church’s dogma (revealed truths) are arbitrary.
Not arbitrary at all. Actually church dogma is and should be priceless for the individual who assents! However, because these “truths” are not universal, one cannot say that they are absolutely true in the sense of 1+1+2 and must respect the inherent tension of not knowing in the common rational/empirical sense that they are right or wrong. Faith is not that type of “knowing”.
That would be true only if revelation, which means information imparted DIRECTLY from God, did not exist,… which is what you believe.
Not true.
You can say you believe in “revelation”, but when you say we can’t, “…prove that any of us are right in the content of our ‘revealed knowledge…’”, you are saying that revealed knowledge may be imparted to “a man”, but never to “man”,
That was an awesome and eloquent way to articulate that idea.
because men don’t believe men, and that doubt nullifies the transmission of revelation, which makes revelation non-existant for anyone but “a man”.
Not because “men don’t believe men” but rather becausethe content of these things (religious “stuff”) is always open to rational/empirical doubt. Religious “stuff” is a matter of faith.

Revelation is existent for anyone who accepts it! Revelation is only “nullified” for those who choose not to accept it!
 
…continued from above:
You may use whichever subset of revelation you like to inform “right living”. It would be lovely if that were enough, which it is actually in theory, but yet men need more than that, it seems, to stay “on track”.
I don’t disagree with you. The intent behind much of the development Church doctrine points to the truth you have illuminated here.
Everyone accepts a different standard because they are wedded to the local over the universal.
I think here the issue is that anyone who believes differently than Catholicism is often accused of being a relativist or “wedded to the local over the universal” (nice phrase!). This is in part because Catholics assume (you would say know!) that they are wedded to the universal. Once again, the thrust of my argument is that there is no universal way of demonstrating this in the sense that 1+1=2; it is a matter of assent and faith.
The Catholic Church, and I use the word “Catholic” in it’s descriptive sense, is the one most full exposition of revelation. How can I prove that? Look at the volume of revelation and it’s internal/external coherence.
Some would say and I know you will disagree, that much which “demonstrates” the coherence of revelation was written after the fact or interpreted in a certain way.
Once you accept that revelation is real, and not an illusion of “nature”, you conclude that it can be given to individual men. Then you ask, to whom is it given in greater measure? What is the oldest and largest actual “thing”, group of men(/women), who’s job it is to be sensitive to revelation?
The Jewish people? lol
Could they be a self deluded large group, who doesn’t actually have or use revelation correctly? The test for that is it’s results, relative to other groups. That is a personal test, which we all make.
Agreed.
One lovely bit of revelation is that God made it impossible for faith to be a matter of proof (in the scientific sense). If the “best place to hang your spiritual hat” was provable (absolutely) to you, then it would be provable to everyone, which would make it not having faith in “this provable thng” but simple obvious necessity,… like breathing.
Exactly!! And much of its value would be lost!
No one “chooses” to breathe. Breathing is just “done”.

God ordained that our choice of Him was to be a use of our free will, and therefore He “arranged” it such that the “correct” choice was NOT to be a necessity, like breathing, but a real free choice.
Agreed again. But you will make the unprovable statement that your choice is the universal correct choice. It is a matter of faith that the choice you have made IS correct.

That there is only one TRUTH I know we agree.

The religion itself is not the TRUTH, but the glasses through which we see that TRUTH, the vehicle by which we approach the truth, it is revelation filtered through culture, people and time.

I know we disagree here.
This is our difference in these matters: You demand reasons before having faith,… I demand faith before recieving reasons.
Not true. My Christian faith is totally irrational and by normal scientific standards, completely illogical. My faith is a miracle to me and completely without reason! I have absolutely no idea why I believe but I do. Perhaps I am deluded!
Proof is simply a reason.
Not true. Proof allows us to claim with universal certainty that our beliefs are absolutely true. Proof is verification.
 
…continued from above:
Organized religion, to you, is a sham, just as “revelation” is a sham, as it can’t be “proved” to be “real” to everyone simultaneously.
Not true. It is completely relevant to those who believe.
To be “provable” to everyone simultaneously would violate our gift of free will.
Agreed.
It would make our reason for being null, and the reason for the universe’s existence nothing.
I don’t agree. Can you explain more here?
You either believe that “Organized Religion” is a human creation, or not.
I believe that it is a human creation.
You either believe that revelation is real or not.
It is real for those that accept it.
You either believe that faith comes before reason in matters of “faith and morals” or you don’t.
I think that because there is no absolute moral authority on earth that reason cannot be divorced from morality.
The consequences for not believing some or any of the above are the continued “lessons in grief” that naturally flow from those choices of our gift of free will.
I don’t agree with this completely.

Thanks for the awesome posts and the effort you put into them.
 
…{snip}…

Saying that one must first believe a proposition (believe that Jesus was who the Gospel writers said he was) is like saying that blue paint mixed with yellow paint makes pink paint, only you must first add in a little red to “bring the color out” (analogy borrowed from a book by Richard Feynman…)
It was “How do you get yellow paint from red paint and white paint, and a little admixture of yellow paint”, and the premise was that we tend to give undue credece to people we consider “experts” even when we KNOW what they’re saying is nonsense, but who’s counting. 🙂

But the analogy is incorrect in that the thing sought is not “pink paint”, but, to torture the analogy into screaming in agony, the wall that you’d eventually like to be pink.

We believe an inherently unprovable premise to see what happens. When we’ve done the “experiment” of this belief, our result is something that couldn’t be arrived at without the prerequisite belief.

What “materialists” refuse to take into consideration is one of their own basic premises,… that all axioms are “beliefs” and are accepted as “facts” only because they happen regularly.

Thus, even materialistic beliefs (faith) PRECEED their reasons.

Once a materialistic belief is believed, then reasons are found, rightly, that support those beliefs.

The way materialistic beliefs are first noticed is by observing and generalizing reality. Then the belief is “held” as a hypothesis, and tested for repeatability. Once it is repeatably observed, THEN the reasons for the belief are sought, The reasons come AFTER the belief. Just as with “religious faith”.
…{snip}…

Let’s suppose that Jesus was not divine but made the same statements in the role as Messiah (there is no requirement that the Messiah be divine). Could his sayings still be just as true as the non-divine prophets who foretell of the coming Messiah in the OT?
They are just as true as the OT prophets. His divinity informed His “sayings”, but He spoke them as the human being that He was.

Are you saying that it’s just as believable that Jesus was simply a rabbi, as His being God? Of course it is. If it weren’t that way, it wouldn’t be a matter of faith at all, but merely a matter of intelligence. The less intelligent would say NO, he’s just a man, while the more intelligent would say YES, He is God.

God wanted it to be a matter of faith, not intelligence.

He who could hold the required belief, and act within it so as to recieve the gifts of “grace” which are the “proof” of revelation, got what they got, which is what God wanted for them, while those incapable (unwilling) to do so got what they got, which was confirmation of their materialism.
From what I have been told, it doesn’t seem that Judaism dwells much on the nature of the world to come. They worry about living in this world. Jesus never said “worship me”, and if you take out the Gospel of John, much of the “proof of divinity” on the part of Jesus evaporates.
And if you “take out” the word “Jesus” out of the bible, Jesus doesn’t even APPEAR in the bible.

…rather a nice “proof” of the nonexistence of Jesus’ divinity, as Jesus doesn’t even exist…!
 
It is not my place to defend Judaism nor can I do an adequate job of it. Yet my Jewish friends believe that the OT is quite clear about what will happen when the Messiah does come and such things as world peace have not arrived…
Currently, the ‘default setting’ for the world is PEACE! This is why we are able to voice our dissatisfaction when any country breaks that peace! There is a UN! There are countries publicly voicing opinions about ‘dictators’ and “would be conquerors.” People point to world wars and say there is no world peace. I see a group of countries ganging up and interfering in another country’s business with its neighbours… because its disturbing the peace!

Trade, Sanctions, ‘Politicking,’ negotiations, tricks and coniving negotiations…etc, are all possible under a ‘peace.’

The world ‘interferes’ with countries that mistreat their citizens or factions of them…BECAUSE THERE IS A PEACE!

Otherwise, the mighty rules the weak, and abuse their strength at will. However, what these countries decide to do from there on, is subject to their respective leaders and those in power! But even they are mindful of the rest of the world views on their decided course!
I don’t think anyone would seriously contend that the few Jews who followed Jesus were representantive of Judaism and thus their interpretation of Judaism would be considered anything but orthodox. They were clearly a small minority.
I can’t remember exactly where the garage was that Steve Jobs and his mates were working from when they set about realising the idea that every household should have a PC! The business community and corporate moguls laughed it off as impossible, pointless and worthless!

It isn’t the size of the ‘genesis’ but the substance of it that holds the value…
That is like saying that those Catholic nun who believe that one of their own was the reincarnation of Mary are representative of Catholicism and its doctrines. …
Many outside Catholicism see it that way. Hence why it is important to have a ‘truth,’ don’t you think?

This analogy is apt for why there must be a correct view, and a point of reference for it, rather than “they could be right, so they’re alright!” (you’re ok, we’re ok)

:cool:
 
Agreed and this is a nice way of describing the faith decision each makes. However, neither can objectively prove that the other is right or wrong. They just have to accept that the believe differently and move on.
This is that “You’re ok, I’m ok” kind of thinking, again. The point is, one of them has the wrong view, and the other the correct view! Our analytical human intellect require verification. So corroboration and evidence for a particular position would be good.

You already know where I stand. Not because I am Christian,(spiritual piety) but because of Christ (physical evidence)
Let’s suppose that Jesus was not divine but made the same statements in the role as Messiah (there is no requirement that the Messiah be divine). .
A supposition. There is room for what eventuated within the same passages, without reading anything ‘extra’ into them.
Could his sayings still be just as true as the non-divine prophets who foretell of the coming Messiah in the OT? From what I have been told, it doesn’t seem that Judaism dwells much on the nature of the world to come. .
No other prophet claimed to be God! No other prophet set about raising people from the dead nor perform the miracles He did! No other prophet mentions God has a Son or claim to be He. His sayings cannot be credible if He lied ONCE! Therefore, He cannot be considered ‘just as true’ as the others in any way shape or form.

The last prophet for Judaism is Moses! His “Laws” as decreed to him by God are the continuing means of ‘pleasing’ God. In Judaism, there is no “faith” element because as long as you keep the laws as given, you are ‘guaranteed’ everlasting life. This is why HOW one lives his life here and now is more important. If you do (good) works and keep the laws, you don’t need faith! There is nothing ‘spiritual’ about attaining salvation!

All this is plausible and supported by Scriptures in the OT, even though, in a legal sense, it holds God accountable to ‘a contract’ and He is expected to uphold His end of the bargain when one dies, if ‘one’ has kept all the laws! Again, plausible and ‘perfectly legitimate’ under the OT.

Now I ask you, given what we now know through Christ, should we just ignore ‘their’ views (as they ignore ours?) or are we beholden to each other under the revealed understanding that we are brothers!
They worry about living in this world. Jesus never said “worship me”, and if you take out the Gospel of John, much of the “proof of divinity” on the part of Jesus evaporates.
“No one can come to the Father, except through me”

If that is true, should we leave everyone else alone because “we’re ok, you’re ok” ?

:cool:
 
It was “How do you get yellow paint from red paint and white paint, and a little admixture of yellow paint”, and the premise was that we tend to give undue credece to people we consider “experts” even when we KNOW what they’re saying is nonsense, but who’s counting. 🙂
I knew I got the colors wrong (it has been years since I have read that book)! It wasn’t my intention though to use this comparison to attack the credulity of Deconi’s position, just the manner at which it was being justified.
We believe an inherently unprovable premise to see what happens. When we’ve done the “experiment” of this belief, our result is something that couldn’t be arrived at without the prerequisite belief.
Sure it could.
What “materialists” refuse to take into consideration is one of their own basic premises,… that all axioms are “beliefs” and are accepted as “facts” only because they happen regularly.

Thus, even materialistic beliefs (faith) PRECEED their reasons.
"Things happen regulary (evidence) and the materialist arrives at “beliefs”. That is your statement. This does not equate with beliefs preceding reasons as you are trying to hold.
Once a materialistic belief is believed, then reasons are found, rightly, that support those beliefs.

The way materialistic beliefs are first noticed is by observing and generalizing reality. Then the belief is “held” as a hypothesis, and tested for repeatability. Once it is repeatably observed, THEN the reasons for the belief are sought, The reasons come AFTER the belief. Just as with “religious faith”.
Fromt the point of materialism or empiricism, it is the repeated nature of phenomena that allows one to conclude or “believe” that something is reliable, a “fact”. One only believes that the “sun will rise tomorrow” because that person has experienced it for x number of days in their life. They weren’t born knowing it would rise and then verify it through experience.
They are just as true as the OT prophets. His divinity informed His “sayings”, but He spoke them as the human being that He was.
lol. How do you know his “divinity” informed his sayings? This is a matter of faith, not empiricism.
Are you saying that it’s just as believable that Jesus was simply a rabbi, as His being God?
No, it is actually more believable to the empiricist. Believing that he was God takes faith.
Of course it is. If it weren’t that way, it wouldn’t be a matter of faith at all, but merely a matter of intelligence. The less intelligent would say NO, he’s just a man, while the more intelligent would say YES, He is God.
Completely unsubstantiated. Now you are trying to equate faith with intelligence… lol. Is a child who believes in the easter bunny, by virtue of this belief, more intelligent that the child who does not?
God wanted it to be a matter of faith, not intelligence.
Agreed
And if you “take out” the word “Jesus” out of the bible, Jesus doesn’t even APPEAR in the bible.
Why would we want to?
 
Currently, the ‘default setting’ for the world is PEACE! This is why we are able to voice our dissatisfaction when any country breaks that peace! There is a UN! There are countries publicly voicing opinions about ‘dictators’ and “would be conquerors.” People point to world wars and say there is no world peace. I see a group of countries ganging up and interfering in another country’s business with its neighbours… because its disturbing the peace!
Uhhh, ok…turn on the news brother.
Otherwise, the mighty rules the weak, and abuse their strength at will. However, what these countries decide to do from there on, is subject to their respective leaders and those in power! But even they are mindful of the rest of the world views on their decided course!
You must be right. We absolutely no disparity and abuse of that disparity in international markets, wars, etc. What was I thinking?
Many outside Catholicism see it that way. Hence why it is important to have a ‘truth,’ don’t you think?
I think everyone has their version of the truth. We must understand though that everyone’s version is just that.
 
The “further” a religion is from the Church (Catholic), the further it is from reasonableness and rationality. I think we can agree with that…! 🙂
i think judaism and buddhism are more reasonable than catholicism. orthodoxy is more reasonable than romanism.
Religion, as you understand it, is the same thing as reasoning. It is the accumulated methods and bases of dealing with the question of God.
its not the same. though religion is a product of human reasoning, religion is a reasoning that obstructs further reasoning. examples:
  • catholicism discourages reasoning that contradicts the cathecism.
  • islam discourages reasoning that contradicts the koran.
*mormonism discourages reasoning that contradicts the book of mormon.
  • buddhism discourages reasoning that contradicts the 5 fold path.
You make “reasoning” into ONE THING, while it is in actuality many things, and make “religion” into many things, where it is actually many things, then complain that your false idea of the superiority of a SINGLE “gift” is superior to a MANIFOLD “gift”…!
you confuse talent (reasoning) with product (reasons).
…for no other reason than that God, whom you don’t believe in anyway
FYI, i believe in God. I just dont believe that he gave us a set of reasons (religion).
Coming from someone who has no idea of what religion IS
i know it more than you do. it seems like when you say ‘religion’ you only have catholicism in mind. everytime I say religion I have christianity, islam, neopaganism, etc. in mind. religion is simply any set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Firstly, religion is not about “having it all figured out”. It is about the consequences of a very small set of revealed truths.
when i said ‘all figured out’ i was referring to BOTH the supposed truths and their supposed consequences.

is neopaganism a set of revealed truths? is islam? is buddhism? answer this.
 
I believe because the Faith is reasonable–though I do not believe by reason alone.

Methinks Peter Kreeft said it best in his 1982 book Between Heaven and Hell, using the deceased CS Lewis (talking to the same day deceased John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley) as a mouthpiece;

"*…I looked before I leaped, I reasoned before I believed…and once I believed I was convinced by the way reason backed up faith–it couldn’t **prove *everything but it could give strong argument for many things and it could answer all objections…I don’t hold that I can answer all objections but reason can…If truth is one and God is the author of all truth, then there can never be a rational argument against faith that’s telling, that’s unanswerable…Faith may go beyond reason but it never simply contradict reason"
 
I believe because the Faith is reasonable–though I do not believe by reason alone.
when it comes to religion, what you see as reasonable other religionists see as very unreasonable. like the trinity doctrine. the papal infallibility. the celibate priests. the salvation process. heck, even i see them as unreasonable.
Faith may go beyond reason but it never simply contradict reason
this afterall is about religion, not faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top