Is Faith Rational?

[John_Martin]

“Appetibility” is a new word for my vocabulary.

Your statement that the Scriptures are the creation of the Church is, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, not accurate. The Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John before the Church accepted them as Scripture over 200 years later. St. Paul was instrumental in enhancing the spread of Christianity and his epistles document his efforts. But even in the time of St. Paul, there was no Church. Indeed, the Catholic Bible was not accepted as Scripture until Roman Emperor Constantine ordered the convening of the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century to gather writings of the day upon which to create a Nicene Creed, which became the basic doctrine for a Catholic Church for the entire Roman Empire. Prior to that, bishops throughout the empire were interpreting Jesus in different ways and preaching various doctrines, several of which were vehemently thrown out. Even the Gospel of Thomas was rejected. Constantine wanted a uniform religion for the whole empire so that it would be regarded as Roman Catholic. Prior to that there was no Catholic Church, only various somewhat different Christian churches, often at odds with each other.

Appetibility - a nice little word from Thomas Aquinas. Suitability and desireability by the appetite.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, were the Church leaders when they wrote, approving what they wrote as being sound teaching. Even at the time of its being written, it was the Church’s work.
If you think there was no Catholic Church prior to the 4th century, then you did not evidently read of Jesus saying he would build his Church upon Rock, against whom the gaits of Hell would not prevail.
Of course the Gospel of Thomas was rejected - it was the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, recognizing what was not written by the Church, not a voice of the Church.

John Martin

 

[nmgauss]

Appetibility - a nice little word from Thomas Aquinas. Suitability and desireability by the appetite.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, were the Church leaders when they wrote, approving what they wrote as being sound teaching. Even at the time of its being written, it was the Church’s work.
If you think there was no Catholic Church prior to the 4th century, then you did not evidently read of Jesus saying he would build his Church upon Rock, against whom the gaits of Hell would not prevail.
Of course the Gospel of Thomas was rejected - it was the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, recognizing what was not written by the Church, not a voice of the Church.

John Martin

I don’t know what you mean by the term “Church”. Does it mean Christian Church or Catholic Church? Even though the intention of Jesus building His Church upon Rock was proclaimed, there was no agreement of the teachings of this Church and it was certainly not accepted as Roman Catholic as long as Christians were being persecuted by the Romans. Even though Thomas was an Apostle of Jesus, his Gospel was rejected. Gnosticism was claimed as being Christian. So was Marcionism, Arianism, and Athanasiism. The contributions of Philo of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Origen Adamantius , and Tertullian were considered before a first agreement on the what the teachings of the Church should be was achieved at Nicaea. Even after this first council, many bishops ignored the results. Because more and more ideas were promoted, especially by Constantine’s successor, Constantius, subsequent councils were convened to consider changes in the first agreement. Political battles ensued during these councils.

Remember that Christianity started out as a sect within Judaism. Only after several decades in which gentiles were encouraged to become Christians was this idea of being Jewish dropped. The question was asked originally whether gentiles needed to be circumcised before becoming Christians. When the answer was “no”, then the idea of Christianity as separate from Judaism was established.

Many of the ideas of the Catholic Church were changed over the centuries so that Scripture has taken a back seat. Theologists such as Augustine, Gregory, and Thomas of Aquinas have altered Catholicism. What is taught in the Catholic Church today has considerable differences from what was taught 1,700 years ago.

 

[John_Martin]

I don’t know what you mean by the term “Church”. Does it mean Christian Church or Catholic Church? Even though the intention of Jesus building His Church upon Rock was proclaimed, there was no agreement of the teachings of this Church and it was certainly not accepted as Roman Catholic as long as Christians were being persecuted by the Romans. Even though Thomas was an Apostle of Jesus, his Gospel was rejected. Gnosticism was claimed as being Christian. So was Marcionism, Arianism, and Athanasiism. The contributions of Philo of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Origen Adamantius , and Tertullian were considered before a first agreement on the what the teachings of the Church should be was achieved at Nicaea. Even after this first council, many bishops ignored the results. Because more and more ideas were promoted, especially by Constantine’s successor, Constantius, subsequent councils were convened to consider changes in the first agreement. Political battles ensued during these councils.

Remember that Christianity started out as a sect within Judaism. Only after several decades in which gentiles were encouraged to become Christians was this idea of being Jewish dropped. The question was asked originally whether gentiles needed to be circumcised before becoming Christians. When the answer was “no”, then the idea of Christianity as separate from Judaism was established.

Many of the ideas of the Catholic Church were changed over the centuries so that Scripture has taken a back seat. Theologists such as Augustine, Gregory, and Thomas of Aquinas have altered Catholicism. What is taught in the Catholic Church today has considerable differences from what was taught 1,700 years ago.

You are speaking as one who has left the Church, just as Protestantism “left the Church” in “protest” to remake it according to their opinions of what it ought to be. St. Augustine, the dear St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory, St. Jerome, were speakers for what is and was true, voices of the Church and of Christ. This is the Catholic assertion. There was only and ever one Church, built on Peter (Rock), and it has never been prevailed upon or overcome by Satan, whether in the guise of Gnosticism, Marcionism, Arianism, etc.

It was the Catholic Church who convened the councils, from the first in Jerusalem, when Gentiles were allowed to remain uncircumcised, and all councils through Vatican II. The doctrines of the Catholic Church have not changed since the first Bishops of the Church began explaining them (that would be the Apostles).

However, you appear not to believe Peter was named the Prime Minister of the Kingdom established by God (the Pope), and not to believe in the promise to him from Jesus, and not to believe in the apostolic succession of the Bishops of the Church, and not to believe that the Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals is infallible.
So these words will be futile.

John Martin

 

[nmgauss]

You are speaking as one who has left the Church, just as Protestantism “left the Church” in “protest” to remake it according to their opinions of what it ought to be. St. Augustine, the dear St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory, St. Jerome, were speakers for what is and was true, voices of the Church and of Christ. This is the Catholic assertion. There was only and ever one Church, built on Peter (Rock), and it has never been prevailed upon or overcome by Satan, whether in the guise of Gnosticism, Marcionism, Arianism, etc.

It was the Catholic Church who convened the councils, from the first in Jerusalem, when Gentiles were allowed to remain uncircumcised, and all councils through Vatican II. The doctrines of the Catholic Church have not changed since the first Bishops of the Church began explaining them (that would be the Apostles).

However, you appear not to believe Peter was named the Prime Minister of the Kingdom established by God (the Pope), and not to believe in the promise to him from Jesus, and not to believe in the apostolic succession of the Bishops of the Church, and not to believe that the Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals is infallible.
So these words will be futile.

John Martin

My maternal grandmother who lived with us and my mother were Catholics. My father was raised as a Protestant. I was never baptized. I went to Catholic Mass often to please my grandmother. But I could not accept everything I saw and heard without questioning its veracity. When I stopped going to Mass, a priest came to our house and demanded that I go to Mass or dire consequences would follow. This was not compassionate as the Church is supposed to be. That turned me off ever since.

So now I am a confirmed skeptic. Faith is not my habit. I have to dig into the whys and wherefores of the history of Christianity. I also have studied the origins of Judaism and Islam and saw the similarities between these religions.

You appear to want to preach without considering anything I have said. Being closed minded to my contributions indicates to me that you are a brick wall, not wanting to have your faith destroyed. That’s OK. I thought this forum was about dialog on various ideas. But if you are closed to new ideas, I won’t persist.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I went to Catholic Mass often to please my grandmother. But I could not accept everything I saw and heard without questioning its veracity. When I stopped going to Mass, a priest came to our house and demanded that I go to Mass or dire consequences would follow. This was not compassionate as the Church is supposed to be. That turned me off ever since.

So now I am a confirmed skeptic. Faith is not my habit. I have to dig into the whys and wherefores of the history of Christianity. I also have studied the origins of Judaism and Islam and saw the similarities between these religions.

nmgauss, thank you for sharing your story. I appreciated it. And I agree with you that skepticism and questioning are good, with the condition that they are practiced consistent with an open pursuit of the truth.

When I was a boy, my parents demanded that I do a whole lot of things. Not run out into the street, stay in my yard unless I had permission to leave it, brush my teeth, take baths, do my chores, do my homework, refrain from using bad language, always tell the truth, abstain from smoking, drugs, alcohol and sexual relations, and a bunch of other things, including going to Mass on Sundays and holy days. In my selfish moments I was ‘turned off’ by such admonishments, but as I matured I understood that all of them, no matter how they were delivered, were done with great love and a genuine care for my ultimate well being.

Why did you react differently?

And, as I have said before, faith is your habit. You believe in so much, as evidenced throughout your postings. It would be impossible for you to post anything but questions in a thread such as this if you did not believe in something.

My personal observation is that one’s belief in the existence of God, or alternately, one’sr belief that a god does not exist, is primarily determined by what they WANT to believe, not what the evidence is telling them. Are you closed to new ideas?

Are you aware of any reasons that you do not want to believe that there is a god?

 

[nmgauss]

nmgauss, thank you for sharing your story. I appreciated it. And I agree with you that skepticism and questioning are good, with the condition that they are practiced consistent with an open pursuit of the truth.

When I was a boy, my parents demanded that I do a whole lot of things. Not run out into the street, stay in my yard unless I had permission to leave it, brush my teeth, take baths, do my chores, do my homework, refrain from using bad language, always tell the truth, abstain from smoking, drugs, alcohol and sexual relations, and a bunch of other things, including going to Mass on Sundays and holy days. In my selfish moments I was ‘turned off’ by such admonishments, but as I matured I understood that all of them, no matter how they were delivered, were done with great love and a genuine care for my ultimate well being.

Why did you react differently?

And, as I have said before, faith is your habit. You believe in so much, as evidenced throughout your postings. It would be impossible for you to post anything but questions in a thread such as this if you did not believe in something.

My personal observation is that one’s belief in the existence of God, or alternately, one’sr belief that a god does not exist, is primarily determined by what they WANT to believe, not what the evidence is telling them. Are you closed to new ideas?

Are you aware of any reasons that you do not want to believe that there is a god?

I suppose that my mother had a great deal to do with my skepticism. She had a suspicious attitude about the motives of people, especially the Church when she saw how her own mother fed visiting priests with the best while the family had beans and leftovers.

Perhaps that is why I would probably be a poor candidate for hypnosis.

I tend to believe science, especially Darwin. I studied genetics and evolution in college and learned the mechanisms of these phenomena. Nowhere was God mentioned in these studies. My college major was earth science. Here again there was no mention of God.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I suppose that my mother had a great deal to do with my skepticism. She had a suspicious attitude about the motives of people, especially the Church when she saw how her own mother fed visiting priests with the best while the family had beans and leftovers.

Perhaps that is why I would probably be a poor candidate for hypnosis.

I tend to believe science, especially Darwin. I studied genetics and evolution in college and learned the mechanisms of these phenomena. Nowhere was God mentioned in these studies. My college major was earth science. Here again there was no mention of God.

I am confused by many of your conclusions, they seem so random.

Why would your mother be skeptical of the motives of the Church, based upon the actions of her mother? I could see how the actions of the Church may lead one to make judgements about the motivations of the Church, but it is very difficult to make judgements of one, based upon the actions of another.

And because of the rigor of your school to compartmentalize your learning (biology taught in biology classes, philosophy taught in philosophy classes, religion taught in religion classes) you then do not want to believe in God?

Trying to follow the logic, and not able to.

 

[nmgauss]

I am confused by many of your conclusions, they seem so random.

Why would your mother be skeptical of the motives of the Church, based upon the actions of her mother? I could see how the actions of the Church may lead one to make judgements about the motivations of the Church, but it is very difficult to make judgements of one, based upon the actions of another.

And because of the rigor of your school to compartmentalize your learning (biology taught in biology classes, philosophy taught in philosophy classes, religion taught in religion classes) you then do not want to believe in God?

Trying to follow the logic, and not able to.

My mother relied on emotions, not logic. She was not a deep thinker. I don’t know if Stanford, Cornell or UCLA taught religion. (I was a student at all three). It certainly was not specified as a requirement. In my history of western civilization class, we learned about the history of Christianity, but any reference to God was made only in reference to theological philosophy during the times of St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, & St Thomas of Aquinas.

 

[Hamlet123]

The issue here is:
Is Faith Rational?
Let’s get back on track

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The issue here is:
Is Faith Rational?
Let’s get back on track

How is this discussion off track?

 

[Aloysium]

The issue here is:
Is Faith Rational?
Let’s get back on track

From these personal disclosures, we may conclude that “faith” can be related to family dynamics, school (including secular instruction in university whereby God is understood as as a social phenomenon), the teaching and example of religious, etc

Irrespective of this, may I suggest that the Catholic faith is a rational system inspired by God, that points to Him and directs us as to how we are to act in accordance to His will.

 

[nmgauss]

From these personal disclosures, we may conclude that “faith” can be related to family dynamics, school (including secular instruction in university whereby God is understood as as a social phenomenon), the teaching and example of religious, etc

Irrespective of this, may I suggest that the Catholic faith is a rational system inspired by God, that points to Him and directs us as to how we are to act in accordance to His will.

Are you saying that Catholicism gives no validity to the psyche and the power of the unconscious mind?

 

[cwltexas]

I guess I am a very strange bird, in my College, Animal & Plant Biology class, Freshman year, after moving heaven and earth trying to master the material, example; photosynthesis, I became CONVINCED that this world was way too complicated and complex to have happened by accident. lol

 

[nmgauss]

I guess I am a very strange bird, in my College, Animal & Plant Biology class, Freshman year, after moving heaven and earth trying to master the material, example; photosynthesis, I became CONVINCED that this world was way too complicated and complex to have happened by accident. lol

That’s just the point. If it was created, why couldn’t it be simple? Why not have universal clonal reproduction instead of sexual?

 

[cwltexas]

That’s just the point. If it was created, why couldn’t it be simple? Why not have universal clonal reproduction instead of sexual?

Like you, I have a great many questions, I am told that if fortunate enough to get to heaven, they will all be answered, now there is some incentive to try.

 

[nmgauss]

Like you, I have a great many questions, I am told that if fortunate enough to get to heaven, they will all be answered, now there is some incentive to try.

The emphasis on eschatology in Catholicism is similar to the Buddhist outlook. In both religions, getting to heaven or nirvana has prime importance. If one is told repeatedly the recipe for getting into paradise instead of dwelling on improving ones life here on Earth, one is likely to think about it all the time.

 

[cwltexas]

The emphasis on eschatology in Catholicism is similar to the Buddhist outlook. In both religions, getting to heaven or nirvana has prime importance. If one is told repeatedly the recipe for getting into paradise instead of dwelling on improving ones life here on Earth, one is likely to think about it all the time.

Thank You!

 

[Aloysium]

Are you saying that Catholicism gives no validity to the psyche and the power of the unconscious mind?

What I would say is that for various reasons,
one can end up trapped in a cognitive cage,
which forces perceptions and ideas
into understandings which maintain one’s world/one’s mental stability,
but act as barriers constricting the mind,
preventing it from soaring,
preventing direct contact with reality

the word of God
can set in motion a set of concepts concerning comparative religion and
historical events, in addition to personal hopes and fears,
or it can knock you back, awestruck at the wonders,
the beauty, the infinite compassion that is His being
and wanting to get ever closer to Him,
to do His will,
to bring about His kingdom here on earth

 

[nmgauss]

What I would say is that for various reasons,
one can end up trapped in a cognitive cage,
which forces perceptions and ideas
into understandings which maintain one’s world/one’s mental stability,
but act as barriers constricting the mind,
preventing it from soaring,
preventing direct contact with reality

the word of God
can set in motion a set of concepts concerning comparative religion and
historical events, in addition to personal hopes and fears,
or it can knock you back, awestruck at the wonders,
the beauty, the infinite compassion that is His being
and wanting to get ever closer to Him,
to do His will,
to bring about His kingdom here on earth

Is this cognitive cage the result of confining ones convictions to those arrived at by reason? This experience of being awestruck is akin to being transfixed by a work of art or a piece of music. For me, certain symphonies by composers of the Romantic style do the same. I am awestruck whenever I hear them. In my youth, I was a violinist in the UCLA Symphony Orchestra and really got into several of the pieces we performed, because I was part of the process of making music. I was taking an active part rather than just listening in a passive mode. It was exhilarating.

Having unquestioning and passionate faith in God appears to be similar but much more intense than the experience I related above.

 

[Aloysium]

Is this cognitive cage the result of confining ones convictions to those arrived at by reason? This experience of being awestruck is akin to being transfixed by a work of art or a piece of music. For me, certain symphonies by composers of the Romantic style do the same. I am awestruck whenever I hear them. In my youth, I was a violinist in the UCLA Symphony Orchestra and really got into several of the pieces we performed, because I was part of the process of making music. I was taking an active part rather than just listening in a passive mode. It was exhilarating.

Having unquestioning and passionate faith in God appears to be similar but much more intense than the experience I related above.

To a Zen Buddhist. a cage is a cage; hence the Koans, which are meant to exhaust the analytical mind.
Imho, some cages are better than others - having a belief in God because that’s how one’s clan rolls is better than not believing.

Beauty is beauty;
whether one calls these moments, religious experience lies in the recognition and honouring of their Source.
One does not self-create; one’s talents are given. Music as a phenomenon, is likewise a gift to mankind.

There is an interplay of artistic energies and skills
coming together to musically define beauty
through one’s participation in a giving back to music, to the world
something that transcends the mundane.

This is heaven when the focus is the Source of all,
That which is Beauty Itself, That which is love.