S
Servant19
Guest
With eyes tearful, I rejoice at your beautiful soul revealing such wonderful words to your mind.
Amen dear friend in Christ
.
- Status
Amen dear friend in Christ
.
M
MacQ
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is not clear that they don’t provide consistent answers to every person who sincerely and completely devotes their “self” to finding the answers. You are judging by “third party” claims concerning faith, revelation and intuition. The problem with your reasoning is that relying on claims about faith, revelation and intuition you are trusting that the individuals or groups making those claims have allowed themselves to be fully engaged in the quest for truth. It is very possible, and indeed likely, that pursuit of truth, for many, ends at something short of full engagement when the demands of truth become too difficult to accede to. This could be true, as well, about many who claim to be Catholic, even those in positions of authority.
The challenging aspect of faith, revelation and intuition means that those who come to an impasse regarding the expectations of truth they haven’t got the gumption to live up to will rationalize away their own shortcomings and promulgate a bastardized version of the truth to retain a modicum of self-respect.
The question for you is not what everyone else tells you about their findings based on the methodologies of faith, revelation and intuition, but on YOUR findings, keeping in mind, of course, that your eternal welfare rests on those.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Just read this and see if any other religion can compete!
miraclesofthesaints.com/2010/10/miraculous-cures-in-lives-of-saints.html
May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I asked why the religious all use the same tools yet arrive at different results, and your response is to question the sincerity of everyone who disagrees with you. I hope you’ll forgive me for not finding that answer terribly impressive.
And you may even be right. It is possible that everyone on this planet has been intellectually lazy except for the elite few. But it’s not a very strong argument, is it? Imagine how it would work in practice: Someone of another faith would disagree with you, and your only rebuttal is to say that they haven’t been steadfast in their quest for truth. Would you be convinced if someone from a different faith said that to you? Why or why not?
M
MacQ
Guest
Well said. That’s my beef with many of the responses posted on this thread.
They might as well say “Because I said so”.
A
Aloysium
Guest
What I said basically was:Well said. That’s my beef with many of the responses posted on this thread.
They might as well say “Because I said so”.
But I can understand how you would have interpreted the comment the way you did.
If I might suggest that you work harder in developing your relationship with God.
Pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
If you want to understand God you must surrender your mind to Him.
You will know more than you ever thought you could.
M
MacQ
Guest
OK, first of all, the quote from me you used was not a response to you. It was to someone else. Why you chose to take it out of context, I’m not sure.
On the other hand, if the shoe fits…
Second of all, I’m not sure why you condescend to think there’s something wrong with my relationship with God, simply because I don’t think that arrogant pronouncements convince other people that the pronouncer’s religion is the only right one.
A
Abu
Guest
The reality is that:
Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].
Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].
Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.
His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].
It really is futile to assert that any other religion has the teaching of Christ, or can compare with the fact that Christ proved His divinity by His many miracles and His actual Resurrection.
Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].
Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].
Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.
His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].
It really is futile to assert that any other religion has the teaching of Christ, or can compare with the fact that Christ proved His divinity by His many miracles and His actual Resurrection.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Did I claim anywhere that I have been steadfast in my quest for the truth?
I can say quite honestly that the reason I have not completely found the truth has been because of my own failings. I am all too aware of those.
By the way, it is not sincerity so much as a complete and utterly single-minded commitment to knowing and living out the truth that is required. So it isn’t anyone’s sincerity I questioned. It is far beyond sincerity and involves a willingness to lose those harbored notions and cherished thoughts that are instrumental in securing control of reality in order to bend it according to “my” will.
Have you been completely steadfast in your quest? That is a question you will have to answer to yourself and one that no one of any other faith or religious belief can answer for you. Certainly, you need not answer to me nor to anyone else because only you (and God) know intimately the answer to that question. Nor am I even mildly interested in the answer because it is not my concern in the least.
What I do know is the truth is there to be known and lived out by anyone who has the courage and tenacity to do so. It is subjective as much as it is objective. I am not interested in trying to defend “my truth” over and against “your truth” or anyone else’s; nor am I interested in having you pit my “sincerity” against the sincerity of everyone else.
Christ is the truth, the eternal expression of the mind of God. Every human being will come to know that in due time. How I have come to know that is a long story but I can say that knowing THAT Christ is the truth, as a fact about reality, is quite a different matter than actually coming to know Christ AS the truth which involves a metamorphosis of being.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It seems to me that your ruling on “arrogant pronouncements” is made from a perspective that assumes the NON-arrogant position is to deny that any truth exists whatsoever and that any religion is fundamentally as good or truth-worthy as any other.
That is fine as a pseudo-academic neutrality that seeks to find out the nature of people’s beliefs, but when push comes to shove and your eternal destiny hangs in the balance it is not clear, to me, at least, that any “truth” is as good as any other.
I am not speaking of “fear of Hell” here as I would expect a broken record reply from you; what I am speaking about is that knowing and living the truth is an important issue, both for ourselves and for those around us. It is important, very much so, in fact, that we “get right” notions about reality and ultimate purpose - any belief about such matters is not as good as any other. That is clearly false with regards to morality and just as clearly false with regard to religious beliefs.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Back to the itower of Babel, with apologies for my writing style. No offense is intended.
Zen Master Alo Ysiu meets his new pupil Gedo.
Gedo: “Master Ysiu, why does every religion think it’s the right one?”
Alo Ysiu: “Dukkha, originating from cravings founded on ignorance.”
Gedo: “So, how do I overcome this ignorance. What is truth?”
Alo Ysiu: “Three pound of flax.”
Gedo scratches his head. Alo Ysiu laughs.
View attachment 20216
It’s not enough to know the rules, it’s all in playing the game.
And, there are many etherial games in this one Life.
Best way to play the game of Life? → the Catholic Church.
Zen Master Alo Ysiu meets his new pupil Gedo.
Gedo: “Master Ysiu, why does every religion think it’s the right one?”
Alo Ysiu: “Dukkha, originating from cravings founded on ignorance.”
Gedo: “So, how do I overcome this ignorance. What is truth?”
Alo Ysiu: “Three pound of flax.”
Gedo scratches his head. Alo Ysiu laughs.
View attachment 20216
It’s not enough to know the rules, it’s all in playing the game.
And, there are many etherial games in this one Life.
Best way to play the game of Life? → the Catholic Church.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You are correct about pronouncements being insufficient to convince others, but the law of non-contradiction basically rules out all religions from being right. Where there is any logical disagreement between religions, the law of non-contradiction insists incongruous beliefs cannot all be true.
This is simply an “in principle” objection to what appears to be a possible claim that every religion is on an inescapable equal standing regarding truth claims.
The problem with your posts thus far is that your position is both vacuously true and vacuously false. Your claim amounts to stating that all religions ought to be accorded equal treatment with regard to their claims about reality. That is fine, as far as it goes, or, for fear of ruffling feathers or maintaining an appearance of neutrality, you wish to pursue the matter of assessing religious truth claims no further. Unfortunately, when it comes down to the real work of determining the truth value of any specific claims or beliefs, your prima facie stance has to be abandoned.
If, for whatever reason, you cannot tolerate reprisal or contention, then perhaps it would be wise to refrain from, as it is said, “going into the kitchen.” If determining truth value is important, it is entirely unhelpful to maintain a perspective that all beliefs have the same truth value as all others, beyond an initial prejudgment position.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
This supposed self-doubt of yours rings hollow because you seem quite sure of yourself when you assert that
It seems that you’re merely pretending to doubt yourself. You are confident in your position, so you must be confident for a reason, and this reason must be better than something of the form “Everyone else is just lying/lazy/incompetent/etc., but I’m telling the truth.”
I would be highly interested in how you came to know such a thing, as that would be evidence for your religion. That’s what an atheist/non-Christian would want to hear from you. What you’ve said before this point is not evidence, you merely doubted the capacity of your opposition.
I think MacQ’s position, and MacQ can correct me if I’m wrong, is similar to mine: Your religion may indeed be the right one, but questioning the integrity of those who disagree with you (even if you pretend to doubt your own integrity) is not evidence.
M
MacQ
Guest
No, plato. The NON-arrogant position would be to refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions (otherwise known as ASSumptions). Case in point: The NON-arrogant position would be to refrain from condescending to lecture someone on their “flawed relationship with God” simply because they said they were unwilling to make wholesale pronouncements about invalid religions (to basically say “mine is the true one and everyone else’s is therefore false”).
See, there you go again with ASSumptions. You don’t know me…how do you know what to expect? I suppose the real assumption on your part is that you are so intellectually superior to everyone, that you don’t have to discourse with anyone…you already know they are stupid and below you. We need to be lectured. And you don’t need to tell us why, we’re just to take your word for it. Gee thanks from coming down from Olympus.
PS: I never mentioned anything about a fear of hell…whose posts are you reading (into) anyway? But since you brought it up, I reckon pretty much everyone could be in for an eschatological surprise vis a vis their beliefs, religions and “truths”.
I never said ‘every belief is as good as another’, and I never said ‘it isn’t important to live in truths’. Perhaps you should extrapolate less (as it causes you to put word in others’ mouths) …or do you do that on purpose?..Socrates wouldn’t approve…
M
MacQ
Guest
M
MacQ
Guest
That’s fine if you’re talking about single issues…whether something is black or white or purple. But “religions” are made up of a set of beliefs. More than one thing in the mix, Socrates.
Said in a plain way: It’s entirely possible that most religions got some things right, and that none of them got everything right.
Oh, and you got my prima facie stance all wrong. I never said anything about “inescapable equality”. You really do seem to want to take notions to some extreme.
You might have gleaned by now that I have no fear of confrontation.
It’s not timidity but judiciousness.
I think the documents of Vatican II got it right about how we should view others religions.
I am a catholic.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I suppose that would be because you have made a “judgement” about the truth of Catholicism, no?
Does the fact that you have made that judgement make you intellectually superior? Are you, therefore, arrogant because you have deemed some belief systems or religions less true or simply false?
The point here is that at some point it is necessary to take a stand regarding truth and fight the good fight rather than stand back and refuse to get engaged merely out of fear of being wrong.
By the way, your judgements of me could have been launched at Jesus himself. Are you claiming that Jesus didn’t “get everything right?”
My position, by the way, is that as far as I can tell, Jesus got everything right and my competency to question his judgement is inadequate to the task.
Clearly, he is God made flesh. Once that determination is clear, deference is necessary. No amount of thinking on my part measures up to questioning that.
If that is “arrogant” I can’t help that. I will trust and defer to him to answer you. I have nothing else to add on the question.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
If you’re right, prove that you are right. That is all that’s required. Proving your religion to be the correct one is the way to solve the issue proposed in the OP. Thus far, all you’ve done is say that you’re right, everyone else is wrong, and that’s all there is to it. I would take no issue with that if you would kindly prove the veracity of your religion. Otherwise, you must understand that everyone else is just as likely to be correct as you are.
I
inocente
Guest
I think the counter argument would go something like this though: If no religion got everything right then my religion must have got some things wrong. What the… That’s fighting talk! How dare you! There can only be one true religion! Anyone not in my religion is doomed!
Doomed I tells thee.
- Status