I got in a morality debate with an agnostic and now I can't sleep

[CompSciGuy]

Is there any way to speed up this process of realisation for Agnostic Theists, through Gods Grace and the Holy Spirit? because I am quite unsure how to guide Agnostic Theists to the truth of Christianity and Catholicism.

Did wisdom help you though? did the truth of the gospels, the teachings of Christ, evangelization help you at all for opening up to Gods Grace and the Holy Spirit?

I’m just not entirely sure how to convert Agnostic theists to Christianity, I thought the best way would be to show them the truth of the scriptures, to evangelize, but if you say that, that doesn’t help than what do you think would help the most?

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

I am not saying that it doesn’t help, I think you have the right idea. The point I was making is that you can’t convince someone to be a Christian through mere logical argumentation. That is a starting point but know that God works through you. I was a little enthusiastic because I read 1 Corinthians chapter 2 today as part of my daily scripture reading habit and it sort of struck me because I realize that I have been taking this approach recently where I have to have the right logical answers to everything, but in 1 Corinthians 2 it says that the wisdom of God comes from the holy spirit.

As for you just tell them the truth and encourage them not to settle for skepticism. I discovered Catholicism almost randomly and since it was something I knew nothing about, it became a fascination for me. I eventually started going to mass and became interested in converting. I realized that I was hungry for spirituality and a relationship with God that I didn’t have, and I wasn’t satisfied believing in God but not knowing or caring what his relationship is with me and the rest of humanity. I think you can plant seeds through your witness and testament to your own relationship with God but I think that only the Holy Spirit can plant that hunger in their hearts.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m not defending agnosticism, I’m telling a person who was resorting to name calling to knock it off in a polite way. If you’d rather I were more direct about it, alright - No one on this forum should be calling and belief group hideous. I say so not in spite of being a Catholic, but because of it, because Christ said whoever calls his brother fool will be subject to judgment.

The intellectual tradition of Christianity is party of Christianity. Ash Wednesday is a Christian poem by a Christian poet who struggled with doubt and came to belief.

Also, the so-called Leaf of Faith is a Protestant idea. The Church has always condemned Fideism.

you are coming across as being rather aggressive, it could be the way you phrase things and hopefully not because you consider us idiots

 

[polytropos]

you are coming across as being rather aggressive, it could be the way you phrase things and hopefully not because you consider us idiots

I think Kevin was being pretty fair. It is not just to characterize agnostics as “hideous.” Everyone who comes to belief has to start somewhere, and we aren’t accomplishing much to assume that agnostics are all beginning from a position of intellectual dishonesty. Some agnostics don’t know or were raised in circumstances that did not even present the Catholic Church as an option.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I agree with Twoshoes- I’m an elder of the tribe as well and am impressed at the way you guys are handling this question. Our Church is in safe hands and to the distressed OP I have to say…agnostics are hideous creatures who sit on the fence and have no answers, they don’t know!!..we exist on faith and our answers are based around faith…they can’t cope with our faith. Now settle down and have a good nights sleep amen

I have heard it said that sitting on the fence long enough can get rather “painful”

 

[josh987654321]

I am not saying that it doesn’t help, I think you have the right idea. The point I was making is that you can’t convince someone to be a Christian through mere logical argumentation.

I think your right. Was there anything that opened you up, or brought about that hunger for the truth of God?

That is a starting point but know that God works through you. I was a little enthusiastic because I read 1 Corinthians chapter 2 today as part of my daily scripture reading habit and it sort of struck me because I realize that I have been taking this approach recently where I have to have the right logical answers to everything, but in 1 Corinthians 2 it says that the wisdom of God comes from the holy spirit.

haha,

As for you just tell them the truth and encourage them not to settle for skepticism.

Yea, that’s the most frustrating part I think, the fact that they settle for not knowing the truth of God because they think there is no absolute truth, that all religious claims are apparently valid.

I discovered Catholicism almost randomly and since it was something I knew nothing about, it became a fascination for me. I eventually started going to mass and became interested in converting. I realized that I was hungry for spirituality and a relationship with God that I didn’t have, and I wasn’t satisfied believing in God but not knowing or caring what his relationship is with me and the rest of humanity. I think you can plant seeds through your witness and testament to your own relationship with God but I think that only the Holy Spirit can plant that hunger in their hearts.

May I ask, when you were an Agnostic, when facing all of these other religions that claim to have the ultimate truth, (without researching each one) what was it about Catholicism/Christianity that for you, stood out above the rest?

I think the most frustrating saying is “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” because people latch onto that saying and no longer search for the ultimate truth.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Kevin12]

you are coming across as being rather aggressive, it could be the way you phrase things and hopefully not because you consider us idiots

I tried being gentle the first time, but it was interpreted as a defense of agnosticism, so I decided to be more direct. This has nothing to do with anyone’s intelligence, but with being charitable toward others.

 

[bsroufek]

To the OP, you do your best to defend/explain the Faith and leave the rest to God. Don’t worry: that’s a command from Christ.

I have worried [and lost a night’s sleep] after religious debates, but I do my best to not worry.

You plant the seed and God gives the growth (or destruction): He may (has?) reject your message. That’s his call.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I think your right. Was there anything that opened you up, or brought about that hunger for the truth of God?

I was raised in a very faithful Protestant home by two amazing parents who knew God’s word and lived it. After giving up on faith while in college there was a profound sense of dissatisfaction without God, and I didn’t think that God could fill it, but little did I know that I was starving, and when I found Catholicism it was like walking through the desert for five years and forgetting what real food and water is like, then finding a feast and gorging yourself.

May I ask, when you were an Agnostic, when facing all of these other religions that claim to have the ultimate truth, (without researching each one) what was it about Catholicism/Christianity that for you, stood out above the rest?

Well when it comes to world religions I have kind of a weed-out process. First it has to still exist (if it doesn’t, then that god must be dead/unpowerful/nonexistent) so that rules out all the old greek myths and religions that don’t exist anymore. It also should be revelational - that is, the religion has to be a divine mandate, God speaking to human beings, in a very clear way. We should be able to point to a specific time in history where God revealed his truth to prophets, etc. Otherwise there is no need to believe it is from God. Hinduism doesn’t fit this criteria because it really is just a set of myths that developed out of nowhere, there is no sign of an actual account, and as far as I know Hindus do not claim that any such account exists. Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern religions don’t meet this criteria because they are simply man-made philosophies and have no objective basis for them. The religions we are left with are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism (just to be fair). The last requirement I leave is that the religion has to be consistent: it should have fulfilled prophecies, and those fulfillment should not contradict previous ones. Islam gets thrown right out the window because of its revisionist nature; it basically claims that all of the Bible was corrupted and comes up with new, ridiculous new spins on Bible stories, twisting them to fit the prophet’s own perspectives. Mormonism gets thrown out the window because it claims to be a New Testament of Christ first of all, and claims that the Catholic Church became apostate (contrary to what Jesus said would never happen in Matthew 16: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”) plus the fact that it makes historical claims that are blatantly false such as Jesus appearing to the native Americans, wars between the Native Americans and (Israelites?) and other impossible events that have no historical basis. Furthermore Protestantism loses this battle for much the same reasons as Mormonism: it claims the corruption of the Catholic Church (which Jesus said wouldn’t happen) and is entirely novel. It started in the 16th century with an entirely new philosophy and set of doctrines that never existed before. It didn’t come from Christ but from men. So ultimately we are left with Catholicism and Judaism (and Orthodoxy, if you want to be picky, but I won’t get into the reasons here why I am not Orthodox). We have written gospel accounts about Jesus and many writings about how he fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. We have witnesses and accounts of his followers, many of whom went to their deaths proclaiming that He was risen. We have a Church that has existed for 2000 years despite persecutions, wars, and all kinds of trials. I guess learning about the Church, apostolic succession and the like really forced me to give Christianity another look.

I think the most frustrating saying is “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” because people latch onto that saying and no longer search for the ultimate truth.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

This mentality can be cured with a little good old fashioned dose of classical philosophy… but once again they have to be open to the idea that their beliefs don’t make any sense.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I was raised in a very faithful Protestant home by two amazing parents who knew God’s word and lived it. After giving up on faith while in college there was a profound sense of dissatisfaction without God, and I didn’t think that God could fill it, but little did I know that I was starving, and when I found Catholicism it was like walking through the desert for five years and forgetting what real food and water is like, then finding a feast and gorging yourself.

Well when it comes to world religions I have kind of a weed-out process. First it has to still exist (if it doesn’t, then that god must be dead/unpowerful/nonexistent) so that rules out all the old greek myths and religions that don’t exist anymore. It also should be revelational - that is, the religion has to be a divine mandate, God speaking to human beings, in a very clear way. We should be able to point to a specific time in history where God revealed his truth to prophets, etc. Otherwise there is no need to believe it is from God. Hinduism doesn’t fit this criteria because it really is just a set of myths that developed out of nowhere, there is no sign of an actual account, and as far as I know Hindus do not claim that any such account exists. Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern religions don’t meet this criteria because they are simply man-made philosophies and have no objective basis for them. The religions we are left with are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism (just to be fair). The last requirement I leave is that the religion has to be consistent: it should have fulfilled prophecies, and those fulfillment should not contradict previous ones. Islam gets thrown right out the window because of its revisionist nature; it basically claims that all of the Bible was corrupted and comes up with new, ridiculous new spins on Bible stories, twisting them to fit the prophet’s own perspectives. Mormonism gets thrown out the window because it claims to be a New Testament of Christ first of all, and claims that the Catholic Church became apostate (contrary to what Jesus said would never happen in Matthew 16: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”) plus the fact that it makes historical claims that are blatantly false such as Jesus appearing to the native Americans, wars between the Native Americans and (Israelites?) and other impossible events that have no historical basis. Furthermore Protestantism loses this battle for much the same reasons as Mormonism: it claims the corruption of the Catholic Church (which Jesus said wouldn’t happen) and is entirely novel. It started in the 16th century with an entirely new philosophy and set of doctrines that never existed before. It didn’t come from Christ but from men. So ultimately we are left with Catholicism and Judaism (and Orthodoxy, if you want to be picky, but I won’t get into the reasons here why I am not Orthodox). We have written gospel accounts about Jesus and many writings about how he fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. We have witnesses and accounts of his followers, many of whom went to their deaths proclaiming that He was risen. We have a Church that has existed for 2000 years despite persecutions, wars, and all kinds of trials. I guess learning about the Church, apostolic succession and the like really forced me to give Christianity another look.

This mentality can be cured with a little good old fashioned dose of classical philosophy… but once again they have to be open to the idea that their beliefs don’t make any sense.

We recently ordered a book from Saint Benedict Press/TAN Books titled “An Introduction to Philosophy” by Daniel J Sullivan. Has anyone read or heard of this book? It looks pretty good in the catalogue.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

He was raised Catholic and said that his parents forced him to go through confirmation even though he was vocal about his doubts and agnosticism.

Well, I personally think that was a bad move. Forcing some one into something can raise their resistance to it and that may have happened here. That’s not to say he would be Catholic if he had not been forced.

Which is strange because his parents don’t really practice, they just said they thought it would be better for him in the long run. I’ve been friends with this guy for a year and a half, he’s always known that I am pretty hardcore Catholic but I guess this is the first time we’ve ever talked about religion in a deep manner. We’re pretty good friends so it was a friendly discussion.

Well that’s good. If he happens to one day find that he has an interest in Catholicism he may bring up the topic again. Until that day come up I’m sure you’ll both enjoy your friendship.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Well, I personally think that was a bad move. Forcing some one into something can raise their resistance to it and that may have happened here. That’s not to say he would be Catholic if he had not been forced.

Forced conversion is ridiculous in any circumstance.

Well that’s good. If he happens to one day find that he has an interest in Catholicism he may bring up the topic again. Until that day come up I’m sure you’ll both enjoy your friendship.

Of course. I think he is perfectly comfortable talking about these things even now. Neither of us has any kind of animosity about it. And neither of us requires the other to believe the same in order to be friends.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Forced conversion is ridiculous in any circumstance.

Of course. I think he is perfectly comfortable talking about these things even now. Neither of us has any kind of animosity about it. And neither of us requires the other to believe the same in order to be friends.

Forced conversions have been a favorite tool of Muslims for centuries. That’s how so much of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc became Muslim.

 

[josh987654321]

I was raised in a very faithful Protestant home by two amazing parents who knew God’s word and lived it. After giving up on faith while in college there was a profound sense of dissatisfaction without God, and I didn’t think that God could fill it, but little did I know that I was starving, and when I found Catholicism it was like walking through the desert for five years and forgetting what real food and water is like, then finding a feast and gorging yourself.

Well when it comes to world religions I have kind of a weed-out process. First it has to still exist (if it doesn’t, then that god must be dead/unpowerful/nonexistent) so that rules out all the old greek myths and religions that don’t exist anymore. It also should be revelational - that is, the religion has to be a divine mandate, God speaking to human beings, in a very clear way. We should be able to point to a specific time in history where God revealed his truth to prophets, etc. Otherwise there is no need to believe it is from God. Hinduism doesn’t fit this criteria because it really is just a set of myths that developed out of nowhere, there is no sign of an actual account, and as far as I know Hindus do not claim that any such account exists. Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern religions don’t meet this criteria because they are simply man-made philosophies and have no objective basis for them. The religions we are left with are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism (just to be fair). The last requirement I leave is that the religion has to be consistent: it should have fulfilled prophecies, and those fulfillment should not contradict previous ones. Islam gets thrown right out the window because of its revisionist nature; it basically claims that all of the Bible was corrupted and comes up with new, ridiculous new spins on Bible stories, twisting them to fit the prophet’s own perspectives. Mormonism gets thrown out the window because it claims to be a New Testament of Christ first of all, and claims that the Catholic Church became apostate (contrary to what Jesus said would never happen in Matthew 16: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”) plus the fact that it makes historical claims that are blatantly false such as Jesus appearing to the native Americans, wars between the Native Americans and (Israelites?) and other impossible events that have no historical basis. Furthermore Protestantism loses this battle for much the same reasons as Mormonism: it claims the corruption of the Catholic Church (which Jesus said wouldn’t happen) and is entirely novel. It started in the 16th century with an entirely new philosophy and set of doctrines that never existed before. It didn’t come from Christ but from men. So ultimately we are left with Catholicism and Judaism (and Orthodoxy, if you want to be picky, but I won’t get into the reasons here why I am not Orthodox). We have written gospel accounts about Jesus and many writings about how he fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. We have witnesses and accounts of his followers, many of whom went to their deaths proclaiming that He was risen. We have a Church that has existed for 2000 years despite persecutions, wars, and all kinds of trials. I guess learning about the Church, apostolic succession and the like really forced me to give Christianity another look.

Thank you, This will help me a lot.

This mentality can be cured with a little good old fashioned dose of classical philosophy… but once again they have to be open to the idea that their beliefs don’t make any sense.

haha, especially Atheism.

If I were to convert an Agnostic where would I start? or what do you think the best way to go about it would be?

Thanks again
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If I were to convert an Agnostic where would I start? or what do you think the best way to go about it would be?

That’s going to depend on the person. I think a single approach may not fit all people. The best place to start may be by just listening to the person of interest and getting to know him or her better before making any other moves.

That being said, a few things to consider.

If it’s a Strong Agnostic then the person’s viewpoint may be similar to that of radical skepticism and trying to convince the person of the truth of a specific set of religious propositions may be putting the cart ahead of the horse in some cases; a person may need to be first convinced that it is possible to acquire the knowledge of interest before being accepting to related religious propositions.

If the person is a weak agnostic and interested then answering their questions (if the person has any) may be a way to start.

But if the person is also apatheistic then arguments/information presented to convert may just be ignored without rebuttal and possibly cause opposition towards hearing anything if presented after the person has not welcomed it. In this case you may be able to make progress if you find a topic in which the person has interest that also intersects some of the religious propositions that you would like the person to hear.

There are some other positions that some one could have in the agnostic spectrum. So finding out more about the person may play a key role in how information is presented.

 

[josh987654321]

That’s going to depend on the person. I think a single approach may not fit all people. The best place to start may be by just listening to the person of interest and getting to know him or her better before making any other moves.

That being said, a few things to consider.

If it’s a Strong Agnostic then the person’s viewpoint may be similar to that of radical skepticism and trying to convince the person of the truth of a specific set of religious propositions may be putting the cart ahead of the horse in some cases; a person may need to be first convinced that it is possible to acquire the knowledge of interest before being accepting to related religious propositions.

If the person is a weak agnostic and interested then answering their questions (if the person has any) may be a way to start.

But if the person is also apatheistic then arguments/information presented to convert may just be ignored without rebuttal and possibly cause opposition towards hearing anything if presented after the person has not welcomed it. In this case you may be able to make progress if you find a topic in which the person has interest that also intersects some of the religious propositions that you would like the person to hear.

There are some other positions that some one could have in the agnostic spectrum. So finding out more about the person may play a key role in how information is presented.

True. The person I was thinking of approaches it with apathy, but that is only because they get caught up on that false saying “There is no ultimate truth” and so they don’t even bother looking. Or there is no way of knowing for sure, but they don’t realise that there is no way of knowing for sure about the Big Bang, but we can conclude these things to be true.

I could probably try on you though, If that’s okay?

your religion says - non-religious so I assume Atheist? May I ask why you are an Atheist and maybe go from there?

Thanks for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I could probably try on you though, If that’s okay?

LOL, Sure, why not.

your religion says - non-religious so I assume Atheist?

Possibly. It depends on what you mean by the word. Within these forums there doesn’t seem to be wide agreement on what is meant by the word. If I apply it to myself I have found that people will think that there are certain propositions that I either assert or evaluate as “true” that I don’t. There also seem to be a lot of assumptions that some people have drawn from the use of the label and say my thoughts on abortion, my relationship with my father, or my psychological health among many other things.

Ironing out what is meany by the word is another topic. But in abandoning the labels while attempting to answer your question I’ll put it this way: If I had to describe to give some alien trans-dimensional entity the world in which I live there’s nothing that matches the concepts of a god, God, or deity that I would include in that definition of the universe. I could say that people have told me that such things exists (note: this is not limited to the Catholic concept of God, but a few other concepts) but in all honesty I can’t say that I have a sustained conviction that these exist. I may also have a some what ignostic stance on the question of the God proposition. Any talk of me having such a conviction is for now only spoken of in the past tense or the subjunctive mood.

May I ask why you are an Atheist and maybe go from there?

On the question of why I am no longer a Christian, that’s something that’s come up in these forums before. Rather than retype it, check this out from another thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=746555#post10257236

 

[josh987654321]

Possibly. It depends on what you mean by the word. Within these forums there doesn’t seem to be wide agreement on what is meant by the word. If I apply it to myself I have found that people will think that there are certain propositions that I either assert or evaluate as “true” that I don’t. There also seem to be a lot of assumptions that some people have drawn from the use of the label and say my thoughts on abortion, my relationship with my father, or my psychological health among many other things.

Just on a quick side note, I hope you are against Abortion, because I’m very strongly opposed to Abortion, so if you aren’t, than perhaps it’s better not to bring that up in this thread. Nothing makes my blood boil more than those who advocate Abortion, especially those who try to play the victim when advocating it.

Anyway, there is a discussion about it here - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=793443

I like what Pope Francis had said on the issue -

The pregnant woman doesn’t carry a toothbrush in her womb, nor a tumor. Science teaches that from the moment of conception, the new being has all the genetic code. It’s impressive. It’s not, therefore, a religious question but clearly a moral one, based on science.

Anyway to continue with what we are talking about

Ironing out what is meany by the word is another topic. But in abandoning the labels while attempting to answer your question I’ll put it this way: If I had to describe to give some alien trans-dimensional entity the world in which I live there’s nothing that matches the concepts of a god, God, or deity that I would include in that definition of the universe. I could say that people have told me that such things exists (note: this is not limited to the Catholic concept of God, but a few other concepts) but in all honesty I can’t say that I have a sustained conviction that these exist. I may also have a some what ignostic stance on the question of the God proposition. Any talk of me having such a conviction is for now only spoken of in the past tense or the subjunctive mood.

So what is your world view? what set of beliefs do you subscribe to?

Because most people just want to remain neutral, but little do they realise that they have a set of beliefs that are influenced by their world view. In other words, no matter what people say, everyone believes in something, there is no black and white for everything.

Also, I don’t know if you know this or not, but we are all spiritual beings, if you don’t place your faith in God, you will place your faith in something, because no matter how good science is, it says nothing about morality.

On the question of why I am no longer a Christian, that’s something that’s come up in these forums before. Rather than retype it, check this out from another thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=746555#post10257236

Thank you, I’m currently reading through it.

May I ask, have you ever read the Gospels? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

God Bless

Thanks for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

I would also like you to consider this -

If there is no God, than there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver, than there is no moral law and without moral law, there is nothing to distinguish between good and evil or right and wrong, thus there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong, it’s all just subjective opinion.

I think after seeing the horrors that mankind is capable of, I can certainly say that there is evil, I can certainly say that the holocaust and death camps of WW2, the persecution and dehumanization of the Jew’s was evil, however without God, that was just a form of morals that were not good or evil (right or wrong) it just didn’t work and there was nothing evil or wrong about it and id be surprised if anyone thought that.

Here is another story that you might like -

Does God exist?

A man went to a barber shop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects.

When they eventually touched on the subject of a God, the barber said:
“I don’t believe that God exists.”

Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who allow all of there things”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he did not want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with dirty long hair and an untrimmed beard.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the barber. “I am here, and I am a barber, and I just worked on you”

“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”

“Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”

“Exactly!” - affirmed the customer “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist!
what happens, is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him, That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

Here is another saying that I like -

C.S. Lewis -
There are two kinds of people in this world 1) those who bend their knees to God and say “Your will be done” and 2) those who refuse to bend their knees to God and God says “Alright, your will be done.”

We will constantly reap the consequences of “man’s” will, because man on so many occasions thinks he knows better and especially if he can convince himself that God doesn’t exist, everything is justifiable. Moral subjectivity justifies all evil.

Anyway, just read through some of these, there are some good quotes there -
proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php

God Bless

Thanks for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

Anyway, just read through some of these, there are some good quotes there -
proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php

Here is a great quote that I came across in that link -

**An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” It’s white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?

The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias.**

God Bless

Thanks for reading
Josh

 

[RobbyS]

The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience, a fact of which Abraham was obviously unaware. He is rightly admired for his trust in God which was so deep that he would have sacrificed his own son. His mistake was to believe he **knew **the Will of God but he was mercifully enlightened before it was too late.

This is a lesson for all fanatics who needlessly destroy people’s lives …

WE look for signs and then do not rightly read them. Reminding me of the of story of the farmer in the field nehind his plow. He looks up into the sky and watches as a plane writes against the clear blue sky, “GP.” He decides that God is telling him to go preach. So he leaves his plow, spends years unsuccessfully. Finally, he decides that God had really meant “Go Plow.” and returns to his old profession and brings in a bumper crop every year thereafter.