How much freedom?

[fred_conty]

Trurl,
Here is your answer to all your objections in your previous post.

Interview with an Exorcist by Fr. Fortea P.85

“…there were people in Jesus’ time who did not believe in Him even after witnessing His miracles. We have to understand that, regardless of what we see, grace is required for faith. If a person freely decides to resist grace’s interior and invisible invitation, he could see the heavens open and hear God speaking to him from on high through the clouds and still believe he was having a hallucination. It is not what we experience that ignites the interior of our immortal souls with the flame of faith; it is the grace of God.”

 

[aragonjohn1]

That was a very kind post, thank you. Most touching, for sure. I am curious, what kind of practical steps would you suggest? What should I try? It is interesting that you speak of an “open heart” - since the “heart” is usually a metaphore for emotions. And there was no emotional “crisis” for me when I simply shrugged of my previous beliefs. (I was never “molested”, the members of the clergy were very lovable, wonderful people, and I still remember them with lots of love.) It was all “cold, impassioned” reason which I employed to examine my beliefs. I examined them, I found them irrational, and dropped them. So all I can promise is to have an open mind - which is probably not enough.

Without going into unnecessary details, there are many facets of the “christian / catholic faith” which are totally irrational. Believers talk about logical impossibilities, and “cheerfully” declare them “mysteries” (for example the trinity, or the transsubstantiation in the eucharist). These are logical contradictions, not “mysteries” and to deny this is either the sign of a feeble mind, or obstinate hypocrisy - and I don’t know which one is worse. If I am supposed to accept them (and there are many more) as “mysteries”; that approach simply would not work. They say that God is “actus purus”, (pure act) and also that God is “frozen” in a timeless “environment”. Without time there is no action, there is only stasis. They say that God is immutable, and yet they say that God can be influenced by supplicative prayers (observe: not meditative prayers, which are different ballgame). There is an official teaching that God is “needed” to maintain the reality from second to second (without such maintenance the whole world would “fall apart” - the so-called “sustaining” cause argument) and also that God rarely ever interferes - with miracles - he just lets the laws of nature do their work. The whole belief system is huge conglomerate of undefined and mutually contradictory ideas. God is just like a “married bachelor”. Someone who is supposed to “love” us, yet does not help the ones in need. What kind of “love” is that? I conducted many experiments during the years: I presented the same problem with slightly different wording, and the same people argued against both sides. Whatever part I emphasized, they argued against it. Truly, it was hilarious.

So your suggested approach will probably not work. But I am curious about your practical advice. (Nonetheless, I would have loved to see your answer to my previous post. I invested quite a lot of time into it, and took pains to create my argument according to the church’s official position.)

Good sir,
You’re story of anylitical abandonment sounds like mine.

Could it be that you are my doppelgänger?¿¿?¿

Shalom

 

[Steve80]

The Desire for Proof

There was a time when I started questioning my own faith with the common question, “What if I’m doing all this for nothing?” I enjoyed going out Saturday night, but not so much getting up the next day for church. I eventually got to the point that I really needed some kind of proof. I wasn’t asking for a clap of thunder or for Jesus to knock on my front door, but something to solidify my belief in God; an example and not just the demand for obedience. Faith was an effort for me.

One night I was lying in bed and I prayed to God; I mean really prayed and talked to God, not just reciting memorized prayers as part of my evening ritual. I felt half ashamed because the story of Thomas and the theme “Blessed are those who have not seen and believe,” kept popping into my mind as I asked God for some sort of sign. But my sign came nonetheless, in the form of Mother Teresa passing out food to the poor and building shelters for the homeless. I thought of all the joy, hope, and love she brought into millions of lives. I thought of all the personal sacrifices she made in order to provide for others. Here was an example of someone doing God’s will, not because God was forcing her to, but because she wanted to. She understood what it meant to love God and neighbor. In contrast, I thought of atrocities committed with an anti-religious sediment and intolerance, such as those of Stalin. What fueled Mother Teresa’s passion to serve the poor and do so much good for people? Her faith in God. What allowed Stalin to commit atrocities of evil and do so much harm to people? His intolerance of religion and God.

(Note: I know there are many atheists who are charitable, and I also know that many atrocities have been committed in the name of God and religion. I will address that shortly.)

For me, it was the examples of extreme polar opposites when it came to good and evil, particularly acts of good, that solidified my faith in God. So much good, happiness, and charity came from people like Mother Teresa and many of the Saints, and I realized their work was done in the name of God and for their love of neighbor; and loving thy neighbor is loving God. I think that when our faith is waning or we have lost it completely, it can help us to examine the life of someone who did so many wonderful things and how that passion to do good was fueled by their love for God. This is just a suggestion of something that might help in the form of proof; proof by example.

Ignore the Contradictions (to Start)

Jesus’ single most important message was that of Love and Charity; they are the heart of Christianity. Christians protesting the deaths of gay soldiers with signs saying, “Your son is burning in Hell,” is not love or charity. Christians outside of abortion clinics calling women “murders” and “adulterers” is not love or charity. Christian leaders who commit war crimes, burn witches, force false confessions, and are guilty of other atrocities are not forms of love and charity. None of these are examples of love and charity; none of these is Christianity. Mother Teresa providing food, medicine, and shelter to all people, no matter their religion, sexual orientation, or sins, is a true example of love and charity. Mother Teresa would pray for the soul of the soldier, give love and support to a woman considering an abortion, and condemn such atrocities carried out in the name of God. Look to real examples of love and charity carried out by the Saints and Jesus, not the actions of self-proclaimed Christians committing acts of anti-love and anti-charity.

Likewise when it comes to scripture, forget conflicting interpretations and go straight to the source. Read what Jesus said and taught and make your own interpretations. As clever as you are, I have no doubt that if you approached the Bible open-minded to God, you would be able to bridge the gap of the very contradiction you’ve pointed out. Heck, you might even write a book one day to help people understand those very contradictions and what they mean! Before reading and writing were as prevalent as today, people relied on others for scripture and interpretation. I am not trying to undermine the church’s teachings, but I think it helps when we are able to approach the Bible and make our own interpretations rather than being told how to interpret it. Many times interpretations are the same. When they are not, open dialogue with others can help to clarify something we might not fully understand, or we might help someone else to do the same.

At the beginning I touched on faith being an “effort” and that obedience felt constricting when I was going through my struggles. I’ve never really enjoyed being told what to do, so I understand the reluctance to adhere to an arsenal of “rules” set forth by the church. I wanted to know what Jesus said and put the pieces together for myself. My parents gave me a book series called, “The Poem of the Man-God” by Maria Valtorta, and after reading it, I’ve never felt so sure of my faith in God and Jesus’ teachings. Reading the series removed the “effort” from faith and made it natural. It also replaced the negative connotation of “obedience” and replaced it with a definition of love and mercy.

(Note: There is a bit of controversy behind The Poem, as a small number of church authority have condemned it, but it pales in comparison to the exponential number of people it has helped to increase their faith and understand Jesus and scripture. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I am aware of the controversy and if need be, am willing to dispel any doubt against the series. Mother Teresa even recommended its reading; you already know what a hero she as been for me!)

Continued…

 

[Steve80]

(Continuation from previous post.)

Practical Advice

Find an example of someone’s faith that really touches you. For me it was Mother Teresa. Hopefully it will touch your heart in a way that you can say, “This person was able to accomplish so much for others by their faith in God. How could this example possibly be wrong, misguided, or done out of ignorance?”

If your example of inspiration is able to crack open the door to “maybe,” with regard to, “maybe God does exist because I’ve witnessed this example of love and charity,” then you can take the next step of coming back to scripture (or the Poem which I highly recommend), and let Jesus’ teaching and example speak to your heart, temporarily forgetting what others say about how you should interpret. If you are comfortable in doing so (or even if you aren’t), ask the Holy Spirit to guide you as you read.

There are many self-identified Christians who don’t act, as well as others who do the opposite of what Jesus taught. Don’t let them be an example for you. I honestly believe that if you can find that footing to take you closer to believing in God, your ascension to do good and inspire others will far surpass what many others are already doing. Currently, your passion for your beliefs may touch a few people here and there, but it pales in comparison to the number of people you would bring hope to by confronting many of the issues you’ve pointed out, bringing clarity and enlightenment to people who struggle with doubt, but don’t have the same intellect or driving passion as you do.

I hate to end with a correlation to Star Wars, but I think the message is appropriate. In “The Empire Strikes Back,” Luke wants to go into the cave. He asks Yoda what’s in there and Yoda says, “Only what you take with you.” Luke grabs his weapons and straps them on. Yoda says, “Your weapons, you will not need them.” But Luke takes them anyway. Luke finds Darth Vader and after decapitating him the head explodes and reveals Luke’s face. My suggestion is to leave your weapons behind if and when you decide to read the Bible again, or read the Poem. With them, you might end up defeating yourself.

 

[Trurl]

fred conty:

Trurl,
Here is your answer to all your objections in your previous post.

Interview with an Exorcist by Fr. Fortea P.85

“…there were people in Jesus’ time who did not believe in Him even after witnessing His miracles. We have to understand that, regardless of what we see, grace is required for faith. If a person freely decides to resist grace’s interior and invisible invitation, he could see the heavens open and hear God speaking to him from on high through the clouds and still believe he was having a hallucination. It is not what we experience that ignites the interior of our immortal souls with the flame of faith; it is the grace of God.”

Well, let’s see.

About the hallucination. That is easy to fix. One can hallucinate if there is only visual (name removed by moderator)ut. If God would add some olfactory (smell) information, and some tactile (touching) element or a sound or a taste, then one cannot believe that it was just a play of the senses. (Examples: no one can mistake the stench of a rotting carcass for the smell of a rose. Or no one can mistake a kick in the shin and believe that it was a loving caress, or it is impossible to mistake a gentle violin sound for the blaring of a trumpet, or the taste of chocolate cannot be confused with the taste of quinine). (The reason is that vision is the only true “faraway sense”, which can be easier misinterpreted.) There is one thing that we are all unable to believe: “that we became insane”. Even insane people believe that they are quite sane, and they believe that their environment went haywire. So, if there are only two choices, one that I went crazy, or two, that God is real, then I would have to accept that God is real. Of course this kind of “argument”, namely that it would be futile for God to manifest himself, because some people would not accept it, is just a bunch of baloney. This is a usual cop-out. let God come and manifest himself and let’s see the result. The funny thing is that people also use the opposing argument: God cannot come and show his face, because then he would take away the people’s “free will” to believe that he exist. Very convenient to argue both sides of the question… “Let’s toss a coin, if it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose”. This is called a con game, and I refuse to play it. Remarkable, how many times this type of “argument” is presented.

Now, about this “grace”, which is an invisible, untouchable substance. There is an assertion that God gives everyone the “necessary” grace (also repeated ad nauseam). Well, I never received mine. It is just as ridiculous as saying that God never gives anyone a bigger “cross”, than they can bear. The people who assert this simply ignore the fact that many people cannot cope with their “cross”, and commit suicide. But again, facts cannot sway “faith”. As the story goes, Billy Graham (not a catholic, for sure) said once: “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts”. Could be an urban legend, but it perfectly describes “faith”: facts cannot change it. The facts will be denied and explained away.

Also, how can anyone resist this “grace”, which cannot be experienced? Suppose you come to me and offer your support and love to me. True, neither support nor love can be directy experienced by the senses. But they can be experienced by their effects. If you say that you offer support, and I ask you to give me a piece of bread, because I am hungry, and you refuse, then where is your “support”? If I am sick and ask you to heal me (you are supposed to have the power to do it) and you refuse, where is your support and love? This “lack” of the effect is a very serious “almost proof” that the claim was bogus. This “grace” is just another unsubstantiated concept like the “immortal soul”. Neither can be experienced either directly or indirectly. They are unnecessary assumptions.

You gave me a little smile, when you quoted an “exorcist” as an “authority”. No one has less credibility in my book than someone who “exorcises” demons and devils. So, my friend, this purported answer to my objections simply does not cut it.

aragonjohn1:

Good sir,
You’re story of anylitical abandonment sounds like mine.

Could it be that you are my doppelgänger?¿¿?¿

But you went back. Why? Or am I misunderstanding you? Your journey went in the other direction (from atheist to believer) based on analytical thinking?

 

[Trurl]

The Desire for Proof…

Steve, this was another very nice post. However, right now I am pressed for time, and cannot give it the necessary attention it deserves. So, please wait a day (approximately) while I compose an answer. But I sure thank you for your effort. See you in a jiffy

 

[fred_conty]

Well, let’s see.

About the hallucination. That is easy to fix. One can hallucinate if there is only visual (name removed by moderator)ut. If God would add some olfactory (smell) information, and some tactile (touching) element or a sound or a taste, then one cannot believe that it was just a play of the senses. (Examples: no one can mistake the stench of a rotting carcass for the smell of a rose. Or no one can mistake a kick in the shin and believe that it was a loving caress, or it is impossible to mistake a gentle violin sound for the blaring of a trumpet, or the taste of chocolate cannot be confused with the taste of quinine). (The reason is that vision is the only true “faraway sense”, which can be easier misinterpreted.) There is one thing that we are all unable to believe: “that we became insane”. Even insane people believe that they are quite sane, and they believe that their environment went haywire. So, if there are only two choices, one that I went crazy, or two, that God is real, then I would have to accept that God is real. Of course this kind of “argument”, namely that it would be futile for God to manifest himself, because some people would not accept it, is just a bunch of baloney. This is a usual cop-out. let God come and manifest himself and let’s see the result. The funny thing is that people also use the opposing argument: God cannot come and show his face, because then he would take away the people’s “free will” to believe that he exist. Very convenient to argue both sides of the question… “Let’s toss a coin, if it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose”. This is called a con game, and I refuse to play it. Remarkable, how many times this type of “argument” is presented.

Now, about this “grace”, which is an invisible, untouchable substance. There is an assertion that God gives everyone the “necessary” grace (also repeated ad nauseam). Well, I never received mine. It is just as ridiculous as saying that God never gives anyone a bigger “cross”, than they can bear. The people who assert this simply ignore the fact that many people cannot cope with their “cross”, and commit suicide. But again, facts cannot sway “faith”. As the story goes, Billy Graham (not a catholic, for sure) said once: “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts”. Could be an urban legend, but it perfectly describes “faith”: facts cannot change it. The facts will be denied and explained away.

Also, how can anyone resist this “grace”, which cannot be experienced? Suppose you come to me and offer your support and love to me. True, neither support nor love can be directy experienced by the senses. But they can be experienced by their effects. If you say that you offer support, and I ask you to give me a piece of bread, because I am hungry, and you refuse, then where is your “support”? If I am sick and ask you to heal me (you are supposed to have the power to do it) and you refuse, where is your support and love? This “lack” of the effect is a very serious “almost proof” that the claim was bogus. This “grace” is just another unsubstantiated concept like the “immortal soul”. Neither can be experienced either directly or indirectly. They are unnecessary assumptions.

You gave me a little smile, when you quoted an “exorcist” as an “authority”. No one has less credibility in my book than someone who “exorcises” demons and devils. So, my friend, this purported answer to my objections simply does not cut it.

Anyone can deny anything. It’s called freedom of choice.

There are people who have denied the Holocaust even tho we have films to prove it and people who testifiy to it. They deny the evidence they see.

Grace is invisible, but then so are our thoughts and our loves.

Grace can be visible as it was in the case of St. Paul when thrown from his horse.

Grace can also be refused when offered because we have the ability to do so.

God did show himself thru Jesus Christ his only beloved Son. And today he shows himself thru his church which he established. But then that takes faith which is one floor above the intellect.

As a passing note, what do you think this world is about?
Is there something positive in all of this intellectualism?
Is the little holy old woman praying in her church have the answer, or should she be told that she has been wrong all along, to go home and forget about all her hopes?
Communism once stated that religion was the opium of the people. But they offered nothing except misery and captivity.

Just a thought, what do you hope to gain in your freedom?

 

[aragonjohn1]

But you went back. Why? Or am I misunderstanding you? Your journey went in the other direction (from atheist to believer) based on analytical thinking?

I was a believer then because of similar circumstances to yours I converted to something that is not polite to mention in pleasant company then I became an atheist because of something intellectually different then for a long period I was intellectually fulfilled but when I in my knowledge was only able to deny or refute Being and even when looking up to my peers they were as successful as I. Then I hopelessly reasoned and was led into deep despair over this and finally after a long period of being unfulfilled. I through reason found truth and faith through a much longer process than I dismissed these objective and subjective proofs.

Shalom

 

[Trurl]

fred conty:

Anyone can deny anything. It’s called freedom of choice.

I already explained in the previos post, why this is not true. You cannot deny that you exist. If you stab your toe, you cannot deny the pain. When you eat too much, you cannot deny the stomach pain. First hand information cannot be denied.
fred conty:

There are people who have denied the Holocaust even tho we have films to prove it and people who testifiy to it. They deny the evidence they see.

Second hand information can be denied. They do not see the actual evidence. Those soldiers, who went and saw the camps did not deny what they saw.
fred conty:

Grace is invisible, but then so are our thoughts and our loves.

The effect of the thoughts and the effect of love are very “visible”. What is the visible effect of this “grace”?
fred conty:

God did show himself thru Jesus Christ his only beloved Son. And today he shows himself thru his church which he established.

Unsubstantiated mythology.
fred conty:

But then that takes faith which is one floor above the intellect.

Your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
fred conty:

As a passing note, what do you think this world is about?

Nothing. It just “IS”.
fred conty:

Is there something positive in all of this intellectualism?

Yes. A lot.
fred conty:

Is the little holy old woman praying in her church have the answer, or should she be told that she has been wrong all along, to go home and forget about all her hopes?

Well, no. At the end of her life she would not gain anything by dropping her superstition. But I feel very sorry for all those poor teenagers, whose guilt is on open display in the Moral Theology section for following the urges of their hormones, especially when those actions are not just NOT detrimental, but actively beneficial. If only one of them would realize how detrimental their beliefs are, then my presence was not in vain. You have no idea how depressing those post are.
fred conty:

Communism once stated that religion was the opium of the people. But they offered nothing except misery and captivity.

Actually it was Marx who said that. And I bet you never learned what the real, original concept of communism was all about. Jesus was the original, arch-communist. The totalitarian systems which adopted the word “communism” are just as incorrect representations of the “real communism” as the inquisition was a distortion of what Jesus taught.
fred conty:

Just a thought, what do you hope to gain in your freedom?

Gain? The freedom is what I gained. Self-respect, for taking control of my life, not relying on someome else to make decisions for me. And when I make bad decisions, accept the responsibility for them. In one word, to be a responsible adult.

 

[Trurl]

aragonjohn1:

I was a believer then because of similar circumstances to yours I converted to something that is not polite to mention in pleasant company then I became an atheist because of something intellectually different then for a long period I was intellectually fulfilled but when I in my knowledge was only able to deny or refute Being and even when looking up to my peers they were as successful as I. Then I hopelessly reasoned and was led into deep despair over this and finally after a long period of being unfulfilled. I through reason found truth and faith through a much longer process than I dismissed these objective and subjective proofs.

Thank you.

 

[Trurl]

Hi Steve,

let me reflect on your kind post. One problem is that I do not depend on emotions in these matters. Logic and reason are the only tools I employ. Of course it would be great if this life would not be “all there is”, though the purported two possible continuations are equally “unappetizing”. Heaven sounds utterly boring, and hell is something that only a sick and twisted mind could come up with. I cannot believe that people do not reject it as a ludicrous idea. Of course, the “fire and brimstone” version is not fashionable nowadays.

Concerning your advice, it does not work for me. Obviously there are many people whose acts are worthy of admiration. Some of them might subscribe to certain creeds, while others do what they do for different reasons. The fact that some people do what they do in the name of God, does not lend any credence to the existence of God. It would be strange if these actions would be considered as evidence for the christian God, but would not be considered evidence for some other deity. One should always use the same measuring rod, wouldn’t you say?

I am convinced that good people would do the same good things, even if they would be of a different religion, or no religion at all. There is no causation, nor correlation between being “good” and believing in a specific deity, and I am very glad that we agree on this matter.

You urged me to discard the different interpretations, and go directly to the source, to consider what Jesus (allegedly) said. First, as you are well aware, there is no original text from Jesus’ hand, everything is second and third hand. The authors of the gospels wrote everything at least 40 years after Jesus’ death. But that is not the most important part. Jesus said once: “turn the other cheek”, and “do not resist evil” - indicating forgiveness. But he also said “I did not come to abolish the law, I came to uphold it”, so he endorsed the “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” type of revenge. So not even Jesus was consistent, he did teach contradictory things…

And one more remark. Lots of things that Jesus said are praiseworthy (not everything!) but none of those are original. (Someone might object that the “love your enemy” is unique to christianity - but it is a very bad concept. The idea of “turn the cheek” is an inferior method for conflict resolution, as game theory can prove. Of course the writers of the bible had no idea of game theory and its implications. One of the “dead giveaways” that the bible was written by people.) The “good stuff” is simply based upon the golden rule, and the golden rule is sufficient to build a well-functioning, good society. Respect others, let them live, or, as the old saying goes: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. I accept these maxims, and they are enough for me. Where is the “need” for God in this picture?

Obviously I do not have a “proof” that there is no “generic deity” up there. But, if there is, he/she/it does not resemble the God of christianty. That I can know with total and absolute certainty, since the christian God is a highly anthropomorphic concoction of incredibly overblown characteristics, which are partly nonsensical, partly self-contradictory and partly mutually exclusive, mixed together with some metaphysical absurdities and some scientific nonsense. How can people believe it, now that is truly a “mystery” for me.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Thank you.

welcome.

Shalom

 

[Steve80]

I admit that I am not able to confront some of your arguments for two reasons: my own spiritually renewal has come about quite recently, and I don’t have the theological background to point out specifics. What I do have is more than a new outlook on life; it’s an inner peace that I believe comes about through a closer relationship with God. The way I came about a closer relationship with God was not through others telling me how I should act as a human, but from exploring what “spirit” is and how it relates to me specifically. In a private revelation to Maria Valtorta, Jesus speaks of Mankind of today as being “bones,” or in other words, spiritually dead. In many, “The spirit no longer exists, the spirit which is in the flesh and life in eternity, the spirit which is what differentiates people from animals.” Jesus goes on to say:

“They are machines, because they do their day’s work mechanically like a mechanism which works because work it must due to the force of its parts in motion, but which does so without understanding the beauty of what it is doing. People too get up and go to bed after having eater, worked, travelled, spoken, without ever understanding the beauty or ugliness of what they are doing. This is simply because, bereft as they are of spirit, they can no longer tell beauty from ugliness, good from evil.”

This intrigued me to find out more about “spirit.” We use the term loosely, meaning anything from team-spirit to the Holy Spirit. But my exploration lead to a deep understanding of how the kind of spirit Jesus refers to impacts not only the way we behave, but also our awareness of what we are doing and why we do it. This was the groundwork for what really got me out of a stagnant faith that seemed to be dictated by effort and that negative connotation of obedience I referred to. With a deeper understanding of spirit, many of the churches teachings began to make more sense to me and that’s when obedience morphed into love. Most of us go about our lives, just as Jesus said, measuring everything according to flesh, void of the spiritual impact of our actions. I still do it, a lot, but I am making progress each day and I am happier and more fulfilled because of it.

I believe the answers to many of the points you make can be explained through a “spiritual” lens rather than through theological “facts” alone, which are subject to human error, whether through poor wording or misinterpretation of scripture. As ugly as that statement sounds (I’m not trying to disregard texts on theology), it’s important to realize, facts can become just words on paper without the right approach; a spiritual approach.

So how does this all relate to the original forum topic? Once we are able to really make that connection spiritually (you’ll know when it happens), the atrocities you site remain the horrible acts they are, but the perspective of why God allows it to happen changes, and that’s because we no longer see people as flesh that dies, but as eternal spirits.

There are atheists who have done amazing charitable acts, such as feeding the hungry. Mother Teresa also fed the hungry, but she did more than feed them food for the flesh. She gave them spiritual food that is the embodiment of love, hope, and charity towards thy neighbor. Perhaps you can answer a question for me (I know it will seem harsh and it’s not my intent; I’m just getting both of us to think!). If there is no God, what is more merciful in the eyes of an atheist, to let a starving child die of hunger today, or give them enough food so that they die a week from now, prolonging their misery? There are some who would let the child die, as it would be the merciful thing to do according to the flesh. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you would give the child food, even if it meant sacrificing your own food, with the knowledge that the child will die. Why? Because I know you see that child as more than just flesh to be buried.

 

[tonyrey]

If there is no God, what is more merciful in the eyes of an atheist, to let a starving child die of hunger today, or give them enough food so that they die a week from now, prolonging their misery? There are some who would let the child die, as it would be the merciful thing to do according to the flesh. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you would give the child food, even if it meant sacrificing your own food, with the knowledge that the child will die. Why? Because I know you see that child as more than just flesh to be buried.

Irrefutable!

 

[fred_conty]

QUOTE from Trurl. I already explained in the previos post, why this is not true. You cannot deny that you exist. If you stab your toe, you cannot deny the pain. When you eat too much, you cannot deny the stomach pain. First hand information cannot be denied.​

Yes people have already denied that they existed. French philosophers did it. They said that everything only exists in thought and that there is no intellectual way to prove otherwise.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Second hand information can be denied. They do not see the actual evidence. Those soldiers, who went and saw the camps did not deny what they saw.​

Miracles have been seen and denied. So actual evidence can be denied. Besides that, people lie when it suits their purposes.

QUOTE from Trurl.
The effect of the thoughts and the effect of love are very “visible”. What is the visible effect of this “grace”?​

Show me an actual thought. I’ve never seen one. Cognitive power can be self reflective and not visible. I see the EFFECTS of God’s thoughts all the time in his creation, yet people deny this right and left.
A number of the saint’s bodies have not been corrupted.
St. Catherine Laboure’s body as it is today which anyone is free to be first hand observers.
traditioninaction.org/SOD/SODimages5/232_incorrupt_labourel.jpg

QUOTE from Trurl.
Unsubstantiated mythology.​

About Jesus being a myth, no recognized historian would say this for many reasons and this has been discussed at length on other threads, as well in history books. For more logical facts on this issue, I refer you to them, and they are easy to find on CAF.
Besides, reading your other responses, I don’t really believe you think that.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Your opinion. Mine is the opposite.​

I said that faith is one floor above the intellect and you replied that it was one floor below the intellect. If that is correct, and you claim the intellect is superior, then way doesn’t the intellect see what faith sees if faith is below the intellect?

QUOTE from Trurl.
Nothing. It just “IS”.​

You think that this passing world just “is”. But how do you know that? It could be your imagination. Maybe you are a dream in some other “things” mind. Maybe you are in a dream of your own dream or just a passing idea. There may be no “IS” but just you thinking there is.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Yes. A lot.​

This is your response to “is there more to this intellectualism?”.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Well, no. At the end of her life she would not gain anything by dropping her superstition.​

Those little old ladies would not gain anything by dropping their supperstition? You say they have nothing to gain? But what could you offer them?

QUOTE from Trurl.
Actually it was Marx who said that. And I bet you never learned what the real, original concept of communism was all about. Jesus was the original, arch-communist. The totalitarian systems which adopted the word “communism” are just as incorrect representations of the “real communism” as the inquisition was a distortion of what Jesus taught.​

Actually what you refer to is early Christian commununism which is written in the Acts.
Marx communism was atheistic, where the state was supreme and the individual was secondary.
That truth and morality was subject to the state and had no objective reality. Bishop Sheen used to talk about this often in his weekly tv program on Sunday evening. But atheistic communism used this slogan that religion was the opium of the people. And when they dumped religion, they took the rubble and built walls to keep people captive and to keep the cold war warm as long as possible.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Gain? The freedom is what I gained. Self-respect, for taking control of my life, not relying on someome else to make decisions for me. And when I make bad decisions, accept the responsibility for them. In one word, to be a responsible adult.​

I hope that everything works out. But the statement you just made sounds like a lot of pressure to live under. I guess I’m old fashioned but when we lawyer ourself we have a bad lawyer.

One final comment. I really don’t see how anyone can deny all second hand info. What is the good of any schooling, since this is really what it is. It is giving us what others have discovered. That is a big leap. Or when the evidence is so overwhelming… But then that is what we are, free to deny, free to chose…anything…even if it seems very unrational by so many others.

Wish you the best, and say a prayer each day for me, I need it more than you because my humility really is at an all time low.

 

[aragonjohn1]

QUOTE from Trurl. I already explained in the previos post, why this is not true. You cannot deny that you exist. If you stab your toe, you cannot deny the pain. When you eat too much, you cannot deny the stomach pain. First hand information cannot be denied.​

Yes people have already denied that they existed. French philosophers did it. They said that everything only exists in thought and that there is no intellectual way to prove otherwise.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Second hand information can be denied. They do not see the actual evidence. Those soldiers, who went and saw the camps did not deny what they saw.​

Miracles have been seen and denied. So actual evidence can be denied. Besides that, people lie when it suits their purposes.

QUOTE from Trurl.
The effect of the thoughts and the effect of love are very “visible”. What is the visible effect of this “grace”?​

Show me an actual thought. I’ve never seen one. Cognitive power can be self reflective and not visible. I see the EFFECTS of God’s thoughts all the time in his creation, yet people deny this right and left.
A number of the saint’s bodies have not been corrupted.
St. Catherine Laboure’s body as it is today which anyone is free to be first hand observers.
traditioninaction.org/SOD/SODimages5/232_incorrupt_labourel.jpg

QUOTE from Trurl.
Unsubstantiated mythology.​

About Jesus being a myth, no recognized historian would say this for many reasons and this has been discussed at length on other threads, as well in history books. For more logical facts on this issue, I refer you to them, and they are easy to find on CAF.
Besides, reading your other responses, I don’t really believe you think that.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Your opinion. Mine is the opposite.​

I said that faith is one floor above the intellect and you replied that it was one floor below the intellect. If that is correct, and you claim the intellect is superior, then way doesn’t the intellect see what faith sees if faith is below the intellect?

QUOTE from Trurl.
Nothing. It just “IS”.​

You think that this passing world just “is”. But how do you know that? It could be your imagination. Maybe you are a dream in some other “things” mind. Maybe you are in a dream of your own dream or just a passing idea. There may be no “IS” but just you thinking there is.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Yes. A lot.​

This is your response to “is there more to this intellectualism?”.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Well, no. At the end of her life she would not gain anything by dropping her superstition.​

Those little old ladies would not gain anything by dropping their supperstition? You say they have nothing to gain? But what could you offer them?

QUOTE from Trurl.
Actually it was Marx who said that. And I bet you never learned what the real, original concept of communism was all about. Jesus was the original, arch-communist. The totalitarian systems which adopted the word “communism” are just as incorrect representations of the “real communism” as the inquisition was a distortion of what Jesus taught.​

Actually what you refer to is early Christian commununism which is written in the Acts.
Marx communism was atheistic, where the state was supreme and the individual was secondary.
That truth and morality was subject to the state and had no objective reality. Bishop Sheen used to talk about this often in his weekly tv program on Sunday evening. But atheistic communism used this slogan that religion was the opium of the people. And when they dumped religion, they took the rubble and built walls to keep people captive and to keep the cold war warm as long as possible.

QUOTE from Trurl.
Gain? The freedom is what I gained. Self-respect, for taking control of my life, not relying on someome else to make decisions for me. And when I make bad decisions, accept the responsibility for them. In one word, to be a responsible adult.

---

I hope that everything works out. But the statement you just made sounds like a lot of pressure to live under. I guess I’m old fashioned but when we lawyer ourself we have a bad lawyer.

One final comment. I really don’t see how anyone can deny all second hand info. What is the good of any schooling, since this is really what it is. It is giving us what others have discovered. That is a big leap. Or when the evidence is so overwhelming… But then that is what we are, free to deny, free to chose…anything…even if it seems very unrational by so many others.

Wish you the best, and say a prayer each day for me, I need it more than you because my humility really is at an all time low.

:knight1:quite succint :knight2:

thank you:thumbsup:

Shalom

 

[Trurl]

Before we go any further, the word “spiritual” as you use it, is completely meaningless for me.

Steve80:

So how does this all relate to the original forum topic? Once we are able to really make that connection spiritually (you’ll know when it happens), the atrocities you site remain the horrible acts they are, but the perspective of why God allows it to happen changes, and that’s because we no longer see people as flesh that dies, but as eternal spirits.

That does not help. Even if there would be some continuation, it still cannot retroactively justify the atrocities here and now. Look at a simpler picture: “there is a toddler, who is being mistreated”. You may have every reason to believe that this mistreatment is temporary, it might not even produce lasting scars. Yet, you cannot just “shrug” it off, saying that it will pass. If one has compassion, then every little detail must be examined - on its own right. If it cannot be justified for what it is, it cannot be justified for it possible outcome. Observe, I am again using the catholic dogma: “the end cannot justify the means”. (You know, there are advantages of being familiar with the church’s teachings. )

Steve80:

There are atheists who have done amazing charitable acts, such as feeding the hungry. Mother Teresa also fed the hungry, but she did more than feed them food for the flesh. She gave them spiritual food that is the embodiment of love, hope, and charity towards thy neighbor.

Why do you suppose that the love and helpfulness is missing from the help rendered by an atheist? And that the people who are being helped do not realize that? I know that there are homeless people, who avoid the religious charities, because they do not want to hear the proselytization.

Steve80:

Perhaps you can answer a question for me (I know it will seem harsh and it’s not my intent; I’m just getting both of us to think!). If there is no God, what is more merciful in the eyes of an atheist, to let a starving child die of hunger today, or give them enough food so that they die a week from now, prolonging their misery? There are some who would let the child die, as it would be the merciful thing to do according to the flesh. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you would give the child food, even if it meant sacrificing your own food, with the knowledge that the child will die. Why? Because I know you see that child as more than just flesh to be buried.

Well, first of all, I cannot know that this child will definitely starve next week. Being an incurable optimist, I would work under the assumption, that the child will survive and grow into a better life - so my temporary help would bear fruititon. But, let me answer an unasked question: “if I knew, really knew that this child is about to die of some incurable condition next week, then I would advocate to kill that child, right now, and painlessly to spare him another week of agony”. Because in my eyes, life and death are not contradictory, however, life and suffering are. Now, I would not wish to do it myself for the following reasons: 1) it is illegal, and I would not wish to risk punishment, 2) because I do not have the wherewithal to do it painlessly, and 3) I am a coward. But, if the act would be legal, and I had the means to perform it, then I would overcome my cowardice, and spare that child one extra week of agony. I would do (actually did - twice) the same for a dog, and what kind of a person is the one who has compassion for his pet, but not for another human being?

The funny thing is, that for the believer the solution should be the same: since they DO believe in the continuation, it would be logical to spare that extra week of agony, and help that child into that continuation as fast as possible, That is the reasonale and logical approach. But, of course the believers are forbidden to use reason and logic. Also understandable, since it would be self-defeating for the church. The logical step would be to encourage everyone to go and confess their sins, give them am absolution, and then quckly shoot them so they would die sinlessly and thus get to heaven. (There is a great play: “Sister Mary Ignatius explains it all for you”, where this particular solution is employed. Caveat: the play is very anti-religious, so I advise you to stay away from it.) The person who would do the execution would place his own “immortal soul” in jeopardy… or maybe not. After all there is no greater love than giving your life for your fellow men. Is there not? For an atheist there is not, but for a believer this life is just a preamble. For a believer there is no grater love than giving up your eternal life for your fellow men. Now that is a true sacrifice, worthy of being rewarded by eternal bliss. But, as we know, the church cannot advocate this, since it would be the end of catholicism.

There is another simple reason for help. It is the good, old reciprocity - the golden rule. I would help, because I would expect to be helped, if I would need help. One spreads goodwill around, so that it might come back later. The phrase: “what goes around, comes around” is a very true and wise saying.

By the way, the child is not “mere” flesh. There is the mind to consider, which is not immortal, but there is a difference between a dead body (which is truly just flesh) and a live one. Let me also state that I am a firm adherent to the sign in the national parks and forests: “take nothing but pictures, and leave nothing but footprints”. Lead a life so you can look back in your final moments and not be ashamed for what you did. Leave good memories behind and you will have a short “immortality”.

 

[Trurl]

fred conty:

But the statement you just made sounds like a lot of pressure to live under.

Not necessarily “pressure”, but definitely responsibility. Some people strive under pressure, while others crumble under it.
fred conty:

One final comment. I really don’t see how anyone can deny all second hand info. What is the good of any schooling, since this is really what it is. It is giving us what others have discovered. That is a big leap. Or when the evidence is so overwhelming… But then that is what we are, free to deny, free to chose…anything…even if it seems very unrational by so many others.

It all depends on the evidence. And no, you do not “choose” to believe something. Inside, in your subconscious you weigh the available evidence, and either accept the proposition, or reject it. This has been discussed many times, and the skeptics always offer the following experiment: “just choose to believe in the tooth fairy” (after all you already believe in angels and demons). If you can successfully change your “gut” feeling that “fairies are just imaginary beings” (even though many prominent people, like Conan Doyle, for example believed in them) then come back and report the result. No one ever takes the challenge. Do you wonder why?
fred conty:

Wish you the best, and say a prayer each day for me, I need it more than you because my humility really is at an all time low.

I most certainly wish the best for you, too. As for prayers, I am sure there are many people who can and will do that much better than I could. After all from my mouth it would be nothing but mockery.

 

[Steve80]

That does not help. Even if there would be some continuation, it still cannot retroactively justify the atrocities here and now. Look at a simpler picture: “there is a toddler, who is being mistreated”. You may have every reason to believe that this mistreatment is temporary, it might not even produce lasting scars. Yet, you cannot just “shrug” it off, saying that it will pass. If one has compassion, then every little detail must be examined - on its own right. If it cannot be justified for what it is, it cannot be justified for it possible outcome. Observe, I am again using the catholic dogma: “the end cannot justify the means”. (You know, there are advantages of being familiar with the church’s teachings. )

I did a poor job of explaining this. I’m not saying it somehow justifies or lessons the severity of the act. With either view, it’s equally important to do what we can to prevent such acts from happening. When you look at these things from a religious point of view, you see more than just the physical act taking place. The person committing the crime is doing serious damage to their soul. The victim of the crime may also be rewarded as a form of expiation, or in the case of the Saints, expiation for others. This unravels a deeper discussion that even some people of faith have a hard time digesting, getting in to sin, suffering, purgation, expiation, etc. Trying to look at it through your point of view, I can see how it sounds ludicrous; if there is a God, why doesn’t He prevent these things. It’s something that takes a deeper understanding of faith for things to make more sense, and even then, we can never hope to fully understand as we are limited by our human intellect. It is our spiritual wisdom that gets us closer to that understanding.

Why do you suppose that the love and helpfulness is missing from the help rendered by an atheist?

I don’t think that love and helpfulness are missing through an atheist’s charity (though I do believe all good comes from God, even if atheists don’t want to admit it! ). What’s missing is hope and mercy, which is what really drives people to keep pushing forward towards love and charity, especially in rough times. Is it possible to bring hope to someone when one believes hope ends with death and that all your trials and tribulations resulted in nothingness? The example of the play you gave, and why Catholics don’t just go to confession and then have someone off all of us to go to Heaven, is a form of atheist rationalism. The mentality of accepting that solution would not land a Christian in Heaven, as we are responsible not only for taking care of our own souls, but also for loving and caring for the souls of our neighbor. Atheistic logic and reasoning suggests it would be more acceptable for an atheist to take this approach as there would be no point to the joys or sufferings in one’s life. I think that is the irony of the play.

But, of course the believers are forbidden to use reason and logic. Also understandable, since it would be self-defeating for the church.

Atheists try to use reason as a way to disprove God, whereas reason is what brings people to God. I have yet to see a statement about reason that doesn’t ultimately point to a higher power. As with the example above, logic suggests a Catholic should confess and then be offed in a state of absolution. Reason dictates this is the opposite of what Christianity is (certainly not landing one in Heaven) and would only be acceptable in a Godless universe, in which reason would cease to exist. Using reason, if you walked into a casino, would you go to the table where the stakes were the chance to lose nothing and gain everything, or gain nothing and lose everything?

Just as a side note, because I truly believe in the things Jesus taught, I never take the attitude of “us vs. them” when it comes to atheists or anyone else. Many people do, which is unfortunate, but I do my best to look at everyone with the kind of love Jesus left as an example. Sometimes that gets lost in discussion, but it is never my intent to insult if it ever seems such. It’s difficult to express care while debating on a forum! But it’s at the heart of the discussion for me.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Atheists try to use reason as a way to disprove God, whereas reason is what brings people to God. I have yet to see a statement about reason that doesn’t ultimately point to a higher power. As with the example above, logic suggests a Catholic should confess and then be offed in a state of absolution. Reason dictates this is the opposite of what Christianity is (certainly not landing one in Heaven) and would only be acceptable in a Godless universe, in which reason would cease to exist. Using reason, if you walked into a casino, would you go to the table where the stakes were the chance to lose nothing and gain everything, or gain nothing and lose everything?

Just as a side note, because I truly believe in the things Jesus taught, I never take the attitude of “us vs. them” when it comes to atheists or anyone else. Many people do, which is unfortunate, but I do my best to look at everyone with the kind of love Jesus left as an example. Sometimes that gets lost in discussion, but it is never my intent to insult if it ever seems such. It’s difficult to express care while debating on a forum! But it’s at the heart of the discussion for me.

Beautiful
Thank you

Shalom
God bless you on you’re journey