Isn't it strange that we can't literally see God unless we die?

[Mike_from_NJ]

I didn’t bring up eternal torture so I don’t see why that is necessary on the topic of evidence. Yes, evidence isn’t hard to overcome. It depends on whether you trust the testimonies of others. And it is something we do daily, trusting others to do what they are supposed to do.

I brought it up to show how strange it is that God has a goal for us (to be with him), a punishment for us for not reaching that goal (eternal torture), yet he purposely puts a HUGE impediment to limit people on achieving that goal and avoiding this none-more-terrible punishment.

If I’m at work and I need to pass along vital information to my co-workers that is necessary to keep us in business I make every effort to make sure those co-workers have all the information they need. If I don’t pass it along the onus is on me and NOT them.

My friend Jesus exist and he came and visited us 2000 years ago. He did things normal people couldn’t and that’s why his friends and disciples eventually came to believe what he is. And Jesus did that by showing and proving what he can do, and not by a lot of words.

I’ve come up with something called The Rule of Parallel Religious Arguments: “If similar arguments can be made for religions that you do not believe are true, then they are not convincing arguments in favor of a religion you believe is true.” Other religions have holy texts and followers and have a basis in history involving real people, places, and events. Christianity is not close to special in those regards. I have to find it, but I once read about a document distributed by the early Catholic Church stating that while the legend of Heracles/Hercules was likely based on a real person that the true elements do not reveal a true god.

The testimonies you cited come from a book (or collection of books to be more precise) that is riddled with flaws. The testimonies often run counter to each other. It’s logically inconsistant and at times morally dubious.

In short, to say that a faith has believers and has been around for a while does not necessarily mean that it is true.

That was my original point, holding out for more and better evidence (till the cows come home?) It is not your fault that each of us have a different threshold. Perhaps for some beliefs, you might be quicker to accept as true and for others , not so fast. I am thankful it is not my job to convince you that God exist. That is the Holy Spirit’s job. Mine is just to let you know that there is such a thing as God, and Jesus and Holy Spirit, and Church, and Bible and so on. I am sure if you wanted to know more , you know where to obtain that knowledge. I am also sure, if we let God into our hearts, SINCERELY, i.e. without doubt, not in a testing mode, not in a “prove to me first before I will think about it” mode, he will respond. This mantra is real. If you seek, you will find.

Muslims would say the same thing, as would Hindus, Zoastrians, and many other faiths. You and I would agree that they are not accurate.

A true thing should easily be able to withstand scrutiny not run fearfully away from it.

And I encourage you to keep at it. The built -in resistance sometimes need a certain key to unlock the defences.

I think that’s telling. What you call defenses I call reason, the same reason all of us use each day to try and decipher what is and is not true. I admit that I could be wrong about my position, and I say you may be wrong about yours and a third person may be wrong about his. We can’t say with any certainly based on the unprovable and unfalsifiable nature of the question at hand.

But to label them defenses is to make it seem that I’m purposely resistant to what you believe is true. Not only is this, unfortunately, a very common misbelief but it’s also something that can attempt to undercut the honest beliefs of non-Christians (including atheists).

I believe Anthony Flew kept on hitting his head there till he conceded, perhaps reluctantly, but that’s where the argument led for him. You may need a different trigger. But if you don’t keep on poking it, you will never find which button will unlock it for you.

I suspect all that will give me is head trauma!

That is excellent stance and prudent. And I thank you for not bashing believers as deluded. After all our threshold is different from everyone elses. If the after life is real, you may miss the greatest opportunity one would ever come by by not engaging. If it isn’t, you have lost nothing other than time on CAF and elsewhere. But who’s keeping track.

Many of my friends and family are Catholic and they’re amazing people. In fact I just went to my niece’s first communion Saturday (which was adorable).

As far as who’s keeping trank, I think CAF is with 1400+ posts. And considering that I can be a bit… overly verbose… that’s a lot of words!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

OK, that looks like an important claim. If you could support it, you would be able to make a pretty strong argument against existence of God.

So, where did you get that claim? Can you find something in the Catechism that would support it?

I hope the Bible is okay as a reference point for what God wants. When asked which commandment was greatest Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” There are numerous other Biblical examples about loving God above all else.

Now in order to love something one must necessarily believe it to exist. The easiest and most satisfactory wat to believe something exists is to experience it. By not appearing, by purposely sowing doubts as to his existence, God put a stumbling block into his greatest goal. This is true even for believers, many of whom say that they sometimes struggle at times questioning if God is there and why prayers can go unanswered if he is supposedly there.

Or, perhaps, you are going to claim to get it from your modifications of my example? let’s look:

The modification of your example was necessary to make it analogous with what you were responding to.

Nope. Your additions might work as distractions, but they do not say anything about professor’s motivations.

You are absolutely correct that my additions to fix your example said nothing about professors’ (plural) motivations. We can have 100 professors saying 100 different things about a future test, and they can all be sincere about their motivations. Pure motivations do not mean truth. The only thing we can say for certain if 100 professors with sincere motivations come up to a person about a future “test”: Either 99 or 100 of them are wrong.

So, have you looked at the rest of the text in the commentary I have linked? I only gave one sentence as an example. And opinion of more than one commentator is given there.

First it says:

The Lord, by his angel, usually spoke to Moses in the pillar of the cloud, so that he could not see the glory of Him that spoke familiarly with him. In the vision here mentioned, he was allowed to see something of Him, in an assumed corporeal form: not in the face, the rays of which were too bright for mortal eye to bear, but to view Him as it were behind, when his face was turned from him. (Challoner)

This is treating the passage as literal.

It then has a part where it says “Thus our curiosity is repressed,” not explaining how it represses our curiousity – since instead it just raises further questions.

Then:

The rock was Christ, (Du Hamel) in whose sacred humanity we discern, at a distance, the majesty of God. (St. Augustine, q. 154.) Moses saw the hinder parts of God, or what should happen to Jesus Christ in the latter days of the synagogue. (Origen, hom. 12.) By this wonderful vision, God was pleased to declare that he was appeased. (Haydock)

which as I noted says Moses saw what would happen to Jesus later, and I still want to know where this statement is itself metaphorical. By linking to this you are attesting to at least a parital degree as to its veracity. If you don’t know, I understand.

Also, are you really as sure about what that text means, as you seem? After all, you are not asking us to confirm it. You are also not telling us it is (still) hard to understand.

If I am wrong as to its meaning then please explain it.

And con men offer excuses like that, because such excuses are consistent with how persons “work”.

That’s just it. The excuses for why God isn’t seen has the whiff of excuses made by less than reputable people as well as those of sincere people who wish to try and explain away failure of a supernatural nature. The similarities make it that much harder to accept the excuses of an absent god.

So, we have a second important claim (expressed in different ways). So, how do you know it is true? How do you know you have an open mind?

Please note that here I am not asking you to persuade me. I am asking you if you have tried to check if that is not just a case of having a good opinion about yourself.

I inquire and take the responses critically but without prejudice. I have had some enlightening responses to my questions and some dodges (sadly more of the latter than the former). I have had people try to defend the indefensible as part of an argument for their faith. All I can do is keep asking. I try to make it point to rephrase my questions if there is no movement. I always do research when I can. I make sure to answer questions to me as best I can. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong; but I make every effort I can to be right and accurate.

 

[ericc]

I think that’s telling. What you call defenses I call reason, the same reason all of us use each day to try and decipher what is and is not true. I admit that I could be wrong about my position, and I say you may be wrong about yours and a third person may be wrong about his. We can’t say with any certainly based on the unprovable and unfalsifiable nature of the question at hand.

But to label them defenses is to make it seem that I’m purposely resistant to what you believe is true. Not only is this, unfortunately, a very common misbelief but it’s also something that can attempt to undercut the honest beliefs of non-Christians (including atheists).

Anything put up to prevent the entrance of a foreign thing is properly tagged a defense. Whether one let them through is after evaluation whether they are friend or foe. If it is good for your spiritual and mental health, I’d put a “Like”. I haven’t encounter any convert who claims Catholicism is bad for them spiritually nor mentally compared to their pre- conversion state.

I suspect all that will give me is head trauma!

Same as studying for anything.

Many of my friends and family are Catholic and they’re amazing people. In fact I just went to my niece’s first communion Saturday (which was adorable).

As far as who’s keeping trank, I think CAF is with 1400+ posts. And considering that I can be a bit… overly verbose… that’s a lot of words!

And when all the evaluation is done, please make a decision. Whatever defences, reasons that you come up with, just make sure they are good. Outside looking in is NOT a way to do research on any topic. I know not of any in depth knowledge that can be gained that way.

See what you did to me, exceeding my word count!

 

[ericc]

I brought it up to show how strange it is that God has a goal for us (to be with him), a punishment for us for not reaching that goal (eternal torture), yet he purposely puts a HUGE impediment to limit people on achieving that goal and avoiding this none-more-terrible punishment.

The eternal torment (it’s not torture) is the result of self choice living away from Him. We think what we experience today, nice and balmy, is without his assistance. If God were to withdrew his grace and protection, perhaps our environment is like Venus or Pluto, exceedingly hot/cold. We can choose to stay within his mansion, but he told you that if you live outside his mansion, you are not going to like it. The further you stay away from his presence, the higher the torment. He is not going to come at you with his arsenal of torture equipment, he is merely respecting your wishes not to share his abode with you. What makes you think outside his mansion, the environment would be lovely? He warned us beforehand it is not.

If I’m at work and I need to pass along vital information to my co-workers that is necessary to keep us in business I make every effort to make sure those co-workers have all the information they need. If I don’t pass it along the onus is on me and NOT them.

He appointed his apostles and setup his Church for that to provide you with that information. One could choose not to step in. You could complain to him that his choice of information dissemination is terrible but that is a separate matter between the individual and him which I doubt the Judge will put a lot of weight in mitigating one’s errors.

I don’t see the same requirement in secular governments shoving down your throats such information each time they pass a legislation and no one is complaining. But you know where to look for it don’ t you? And we also know secular judges has ruled in many many nations that ignorance of the law is never an excuse. I think you can accept that condition. Do you think Divine Law would be radically different? But the great thing about Divine Justice is that no one can escape the Law as every thing gets recorded in the Book of Life. There will never be a lack of evidence nor witnesses.

I’ve come up with something called The Rule of Parallel Religious Arguments: “If similar arguments can be made for religions that you do not believe are true, then they are not convincing arguments in favor of a religion you believe is true.”

It is nice to study and compare other religions. I can not speak for others and I have no wish to do so. I am just a simple person trying to share my views on my faith. I am not trying to prove my religion is superior, I think it is, but the main point being that our souls need saving in order to live with God. If we reject Him, we don’t. As simple as that. You may wish to continuously evaluate/reevaluate your options, but we all know, time has limits and we never know when the clock stops ticking for us. Procrastination is not a virtue.

The testimonies you cited come from a book (or collection of books to be more precise) that is riddled with flaws. The testimonies often run counter to each other. It’s logically inconsistant and at times morally dubious.

In short, to say that a faith has believers and has been around for a while does not necessarily mean that it is true.

Again my point is not that I need to prove to you my religion is true, our task is to let others know that there is such a thing. The choice is up to them to evaluate and make a choice. There is nothing I can say to compel a non-believer to believe in what I believe merely on my say so. This person need to enter and not look from outside to make an honest evaluation. Just because you failed to understand and tied up seemingly conflicting accounts in a neat package does not mean others have failed. We never need to score a 100% to pass an exam. You also need not know everything 100% to make a decision. Just sufficient knowledge. I see people finding faults/excuses with religions by lifting bits and pieces of stuff which might appear to be conflicting or erroneous. There could be explanations but they could always reject merely based on bias. A better approach is join the club, see from their angle why they think it is not a problem at all. We often latched on to absence of evidence as equating with error. But we know that is a fallacious tactic. We often don’t know the exact meaning of extinct languages too but that is expected. But none of these are sufficient to determine that a religion is true or not. We need to look at overall message and take away the important points. I think that’s what a reasonable person would do. You would complain if your teacher failed you for not putting the commas, crossing the t’s clearly in your term paper. The comparison yardstick for religion is extraordinarily biased. I see it as excuses because those objectors don’t believe the same yardstick applies to them personally to their existing choices.

Muslims would say the same thing, as would Hindus, Zoastrians, and many other faiths. You and I would agree that they are not accurate.

A true thing should easily be able to withstand scrutiny not run fearfully away from it.

Yes, yes, yes do evaluate all these religions. But do make a choice. I am not going into a discussion to tarnish or belittle other faiths. That would not be fair since I do not know enough about them. What I do know about my faith is that my God keeps his promises. What I do know is that my God brought himself down to our level so that he can experience what we experience, and at the same time teach us what it is like in heaven where he came from and taught us how to get there. History say such as person Jesus exist. I know not of other gods that love us so much as to do all that for us mere homo sapiens.

cont’d

 

[ericc]

cont’d

I think that’s telling. What you call defenses I call reason, the same reason all of us use each day to try and decipher what is and is not true. I admit that I could be wrong about my position, and I say you may be wrong about yours and a third person may be wrong about his. We can’t say with any certainly based on the unprovable and unfalsifiable nature of the question at hand.

But to label them defenses is to make it seem that I’m purposely resistant to what you believe is true. Not only is this, unfortunately, a very common misbelief but it’s also something that can attempt to undercut the honest beliefs of non-Christians (including atheists).

Anything put up to prevent the entrance of a foreign thing is properly tagged a defense. Whether one let them through is after evaluation whether they are friend or foe. If it is good for your spiritual and mental health, I’d put a “Like”. I haven’t encounter any convert who claims Catholicism is bad for them spiritually nor mentally compared to their pre- conversion state.

I suspect all that will give me is head trauma!

Same as studying for anything.

Many of my friends and family are Catholic and they’re amazing people. In fact I just went to my niece’s first communion Saturday (which was adorable).

As far as who’s keeping trank, I think CAF is with 1400+ posts. And considering that I can be a bit… overly verbose… that’s a lot of words!

And when all the evaluation is done, please make a decision. Whatever defences, reasons that you come up with, just make sure they are good. Outside looking in is NOT a way to do research on any topic. I know not of any in depth knowledge that can be gained that way.

See what you did to me, exceeding my word count!

 

[ThundersnowIV]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

God the Father is pure spirit. God the Holy Spirit is pure spirit. Jesus is who we will be able to see. No person can see the Father or the Holy Spirit. We can only see Jesus.

 

[vz71]

I brought it up to show how strange it is that God has a goal for us (to be with him), a punishment for us for not reaching that goal (eternal torture), yet he purposely puts a HUGE impediment to limit people on achieving that goal and avoiding this none-more-terrible punishment.

Death was not enough?

 

[fhansen]

Now in order to love something one must necessarily believe it to exist. The easiest and most satisfactory wat to believe something exists is to experience it. By not appearing, by purposely sowing doubts as to his existence, God put a stumbling block into his greatest goal. This is true even for believers, many of whom say that they sometimes struggle at times questioning if God is there and why prayers can go unanswered if he is supposedly there.

It’s a challenge-because it’s *meant *to be. The challenge is a call to justice, for us, each as an individual, to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God. It’s a challenge to love life and goodness, knowing there’s an overall purpose behind it, one larger than ourselves. In this, with the master gone away so to speak, our own justice is tested, refined, stretched; it’s been said that integrity is to do the right thing even when no one’s looking.

It’s taught that man already knows God to some extent, sort of like a dim memory- that we have a void within us, whether we’re directly conscious of it or not, that needs to be filled-and we see people trying to fill it in all sorts of ways, often wrong. But we’re* meant *to have it filled, and so we’re meant to seek the solution.

And we’re not abandoned or left alone in this endeavor. We believe all people have the call and capacity, in varying degrees, to come to know God, that we’re given the grace to do so, and that this world, with its many evils along with its many goods, also helps provide the impetus to seek further, beyond what we can naturally know, as nothing in this world can ever completely satisfy our thirst for complete fulfillment-or even come close, truth be known. We also believe that we’ll be judged according to the level of grace and knowledge given; more will be expected from those who’ve received more.

In any case one can come to know and love God in this life, even as many other things here vie for our attention (we even, in my opinion, possess a preferential option *against *God, even when we claim disbelief in Him, as we’re suspicious that He might hold back something central to our happiness.This disposition resists faith from the get-go.

Anyway, as knowledge of God grows, so does love for Him; one cannot truly know God without loving God. He’s a part of us-or we’re a part of Him, almost strangely familiar, as in “family”, who possesses a home like we’ve never imagined existed, so totally at home does one feel in His presence.

 

[MPat]

I hope the Bible is okay as a reference point for what God wants. When asked which commandment was greatest Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” There are numerous other Biblical examples about loving God above all else.

Now in order to love something one must necessarily believe it to exist. The easiest and most satisfactory wat to believe something exists is to experience it. By not appearing, by purposely sowing doubts as to his existence, God put a stumbling block into his greatest goal. This is true even for believers, many of whom say that they sometimes struggle at times questioning if God is there and why prayers can go unanswered if he is supposedly there.

Let’s look what you had to prove:

While having humans believe in God is not his only goal, all of his other goals spring from that one goal. Accepting his existence is far and away his most vital goal.

Once again: you had to prove that the main goal of God is to make humans believe in Him, that any (any!) other goal He has is a “consequence” of that one.

That’s a very strong claim (it is not a claim with “It would be nice of Him…” or “Perhaps”), but it is a claim you made (and you are free to take it back or modify it, if you are not happy with it).

And um, you didn’t get anywhere close to proving it. I am not sure if you were even trying…

At most, you have made a case that it is likely to be one of God’s subgoals… Depending on how you understand “other goals spring from that one goal” and “his most vital goal” (is subgoal supposed to be more or less “vital” than “parent” goal?), you might have actually gotten close to disproving your own thesis, while trying to prove it…

The modification of your example was necessary to make it analogous with what you were responding to.

You are absolutely correct that my additions to fix your example said nothing about professors’ (plural) motivations. We can have 100 professors saying 100 different things about a future test, and they can all be sincere about their motivations. Pure motivations do not mean truth. The only thing we can say for certain if 100 professors with sincere motivations come up to a person about a future “test”: Either 99 or 100 of them are wrong.

My example was about motivations and nothing else (after all, we were discussing motivations, goals, objectives, wishes). You admit that your additions have nothing to do with them. Looks like you have completely missed my point.

First it says:

This is treating the passage as literal.

If you think that counts as literal, sure. So…?

That’s just it. The excuses for why God isn’t seen has the whiff of excuses made by less than reputable people as well as those of sincere people who wish to try and explain away failure of a supernatural nature. The similarities make it that much harder to accept the excuses of an absent god.

So, you are so scared of con men, pseudoscientists and the like, that you reject everything that is anyhow similar to something they use (like those excuses), just to be sure…?

And yet, geocentrists, Holocaust deniers, people who believe Moon landings were fake and the like (I expect you to consider them to belong in that group) often say that evidence against their position is insufficient, unreliable… And yet, you do not seem to be scared to say something similar about evidence you do not like.

Perhaps it would be better to avoid inconsistent “guilt by association” and look a bit closer before making a decision?

I inquire and take the responses critically but without prejudice. I have had some enlightening responses to my questions and some dodges (sadly more of the latter than the former). I have had people try to defend the indefensible as part of an argument for their faith. All I can do is keep asking. I try to make it point to rephrase my questions if there is no movement. I always do research when I can. I make sure to answer questions to me as best I can. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong; but I make every effort I can to be right and accurate.

So, to summarise, you believe you are open-minded, because: 1) you feel open-minded, 2) you ask questions?

I’m afraid that this evidence is far more unreliable than any evidence you have ruled as insufficient or unreliable in this thread (yes, I do include evidence that is only available to you and not to us). That is, it does not include much of anything independent of you (necessary in order to check for bias in favour of yourself).

Now, note what possible evidence you did not mention: “People that know me well say I’m open-minded.”, “People I argue with say I’m open-minded.”, “I went to a professional psychologist and he told me he has concluded I am open-minded.”, “I found a psychological test that told me I’m open-minded.”…

Perhaps you should be a bit less certain of your own open-mindedness… Just in case…

 

[fisherman_carl]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

Actually, it makes some sense even from a philosophical perspective. There is always going to be a higher reality to existence than what we can know as limited creatures. Just like we find there is a more base reality that becomes harder for us to detect the more we dig into the nature of the universe (like quarks), there must be an even higher reality that is beyond our natural detection that we can only infer its existence from its effects on our world or existence. And just like quarks it may require us to do some digging or seeking to find it.

Yet, when it comes to God we can know God spiritually since we are part rational soul. We can know him intellectually as well as spiritually. The animals are of this world. They can not comprehend God. Whereas we are partly of this world and partly of another world. You just have to compare us to the animals to see this. If an alien came down from outerspace would he see man as another animal that found greener pastures or as the cow that jumped over the moon? There is something miraculous or other worldly to man when you compare him to the animals. (How many animals have been to the moon?) Which points to him not being completely from this world but from a higher world. That is from God who gives each man his rational soul.

 

[ThisOne]

The pride of life rears its ugly head. “How dare the creator of the universe tell us how it’s gonna be? Why won’t he bend to my will? Waaaaaa! It’s not fair! Just because Moses couldn’t see God doesn’t mean that I am not able to. Grrrr.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The eternal torment (it’s not torture) is the result of self choice living away from Him. We think what we experience today, nice and balmy, is without his assistance. If God were to withdrew his grace and protection, perhaps our environment is like Venus or Pluto, exceedingly hot/cold. We can choose to stay within his mansion, but he told you that if you live outside his mansion, you are not going to like it. The further you stay away from his presence, the higher the torment. He is not going to come at you with his arsenal of torture equipment, he is merely respecting your wishes not to share his abode with you. What makes you think outside his mansion, the environment would be lovely? He warned us beforehand it is not.

There are a tremendous amount of assumptions and speculations in what you wrote. Jesus multiple times describes Hell as eternmal fire, something the Quran does as well. Maybe I should throw all my energy into following Islam? Torment is torture if one has the ability to pull someone from it and chooses not to. You’re assuming our climate is at is because of God and that the burning of Hell is some natural state that God keeps us from (despite a majority of the universe being incredibly cold). You’re assuming that God doesn’t throw us into Hell post-death, that we just sort of wander there of our own accord.

You mentioned several times about warnings from God. There was a TV show I used to watch called “Early Edition”. The premise was a good, honest guy would get tomorrow’s paper today and then work feverishly to prevent anything bad in the paper from happening (usually with heartwarming and/or amusing consequences). God doesn’t seem to be working feverishly (or even at all) to prevent people from going to Hell. The problem of divine hiddenness is a concern for many believers.

He appointed his apostles and setup his Church for that to provide you with that information. One could choose not to step in. You could complain to him that his choice of information dissemination is terrible but that is a separate matter between the individual and him which I doubt the Judge will put a lot of weight in mitigating one’s errors.

I don’t see the same requirement in secular governments shoving down your throats such information each time they pass a legislation and no one is complaining. But you know where to look for it don’ t you? And we also know secular judges has ruled in many many nations that ignorance of the law is never an excuse. I think you can accept that condition. Do you think Divine Law would be radically different? But the great thing about Divine Justice is that no one can escape the Law as every thing gets recorded in the Book of Life. There will never be a lack of evidence nor witnesses.

The difference being that if I appear before a judge I can be sure he has the authority to act. I can argue before him whether I am culpable of what I did. I can be sure he exists. You mentioned ignorance of the law not being an excuse, but I can go see the laws and be sure that they are THE true set of laws that I must follow. Similar to the professor not-really-analogy from earlier in your scenario there are hundreds of groups of people claiming to speak for hundreds of judges with different laws. I can’t know which to follow, and in fact following one set of laws would result in me breaking the laws of another judge. Even when talking to people claiming to represent a single judge they often can’t agree on how laws are to be interpreted or even if laws are no long active (e.g. Should we sell all of our possessions?) This is a cacophany of unsubstantiated claims each person would have to wade through.

It is nice to study and compare other religions. I can not speak for others and I have no wish to do so. I am just a simple person trying to share my views on my faith. I am not trying to prove my religion is superior, I think it is, but the main point being that our souls need saving in order to live with God. If we reject Him, we don’t. As simple as that. You may wish to continuously evaluate/reevaluate your options, but we all know, time has limits and we never know when the clock stops ticking for us. Procrastination is not a virtue.

I think it’s vital to at least be somewhat familiar with other faiths if for no other reason that it will help you in sharing the message of your faith with others.

There is no procrastination on my part. My position is what it is based on what I’ve studied. That may change the more I learn, though so far I have learned much here on CAF it has only strengthened my position.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Again my point is not that I need to prove to you my religion is true, our task is to let others know that there is such a thing. The choice is up to them to evaluate and make a choice. There is nothing I can say to compel a non-believer to believe in what I believe merely on my say so. This person need to enter and not look from outside to make an honest evaluation. Just because you failed to understand and tied up seemingly conflicting accounts in a neat package does not mean others have failed. We never need to score a 100% to pass an exam. You also need not know everything 100% to make a decision. Just sufficient knowledge. I see people finding faults/excuses with religions by lifting bits and pieces of stuff which might appear to be conflicting or erroneous. There could be explanations but they could always reject merely based on bias. A better approach is join the club, see from their angle why they think it is not a problem at all. We often latched on to absence of evidence as equating with error. But we know that is a fallacious tactic. We often don’t know the exact meaning of extinct languages too but that is expected. But none of these are sufficient to determine that a religion is true or not. We need to look at overall message and take away the important points.
I think that’s what a reasonable person would do. You would complain if your teacher failed you for not putting the commas, crossing the t’s clearly in your term paper. The comparison yardstick for religion is extraordinarily biased. I see it as excuses because those objectors don’t believe the same yardstick applies to them personally to their existing choices.

It’s not just bits and pieces of stuff. In my opinion it’s structurally unsound riddled with moral issues and contradictory claims. If it were a house I would say demolish it instead of trying to repair it.

Yes, yes, yes do evaluate all these religions. But do make a choice.

“None of the above” is a valid choice.

I am not going into a discussion to tarnish or belittle other faiths. That would not be fair since I do not know enough about them. What I do know about my faith is that my God keeps his promises. What I do know is that my God brought himself down to our level so that he can experience what we experience, and at the same time teach us what it is like in heaven where he came from and taught us how to get there. History say such as person Jesus exist. I know not of other gods that love us so much as to do all that for us mere homo sapiens.

I think it’s important to learn about other faiths, just as it is good to learn about differing political and economic systems. One of the clearest ways to define and explain one type of something is to compare and contrast other types of the same category. It’s helpful to say confidently that Christianity differs from other religions due to A, B, C but are similar to them in D, E, F.

That’s why I brought up my rule when talking about a particular religion. If you say Christianity is true because there are a great deal of fervent
believers that doesn’t prove anything since other religions can say the same. If you say Christianity is true because it has a holy book, so do other religions. If you say Christianity has miraculous events, other religions also make such claims.

As far as what Jesus did, I would not consider that a sacrifice. There is no loss involved. There was a recent thread on this very subject in the last month if memory serves.

But getting back to the main theme, increasing our knowledge is a good thing in general, and sometimes it can make us more sure of what we believe and other times it makes us question what we believe.

Anything put up to prevent the entrance of a foreign thing is properly tagged a defense. Whether one let them through is after
evaluation whether they are friend or foe.

So would you say you had put up a defense against Islam? I know I didn’t have to. I analyzed it and then didn’t follow it. Putting up a defense is a conscious decision. I believe what I do based on evidence, not what defense I purposely do or do not decide to put in place.

If it is good for your spiritual and mental health, I’d put a “Like”. I haven’t encounter any convert who claims Catholicism is bad for them
spiritually nor mentally compared to their pre- conversion state.

That’s not only obvious, it’s also confirmation bias. You would be polling those who have chosen to both convert and remain with Catholicism. If you polled people who moved away from Catholicism the results would be different. And this is true not just in this specific religion or religion in general, if you take people in one group who could leave that group but choose not to then they will be far more positive than those who left said group.

And when all the evaluation is done, please make a decision. Whatever defences, reasons that you come up with, just make sure they are good. Outside looking in is NOT a way to do research on any topic. I know not of any in depth knowledge that can be gained that way.

As I said the choice has already been made, and that’s “none of the above” (although in reality it’s not a choice whether to believe something or not). Sometimes none of the provided options is correct. As I said before I could be wrong, but that doesn’t mean none of the above isn’t a legitimate position.

Regarding whether it’s best to research from the inside or outside, it sounds like you mean whether one should believe beforehand or not. The answer is certainly to not believe beforehand. When a person is so desperate to make everything fit, to skew research to reach a desired end then it’s not truly research. It’s an echo chamber where evidence against a position is discarded even if it’s possibly true.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God the Father is pure spirit. God the Holy Spirit is pure spirit. Jesus is who we will be able to see. No person can see the Father or the Holy Spirit. We can only see Jesus.

I understand that this is what Christianity teaches, but there are issues (some of which I’ve touched on already). God is said to be omnipotent, so there is nothing that prevents him from appearing to people – even if he were to appear in something other than his “true” form.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Death was not enough?

I apologize. Could you explain that? Do you mean a person seeing God after death is enough, that Jesus’ death is enough proof, or something else? I want to make sure I know what you’re talking about. Thanks.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s a challenge-because it’s *meant *to be. The challenge is a call to justice, for us, each as an individual, to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God. It’s a challenge to love life and goodness, knowing there’s an overall purpose behind it, one larger than ourselves. In this, with the master gone away so to speak, our own justice is tested, refined, stretched; it’s been said that integrity is to do the right thing even when no one’s looking.

This supposed challenge doesn’t test what you think it tests. It doesn’t test a person’s goodness, since some believers are good and some aren’t just as some non-believers are good and some aren’t. What it tests more than anything is where a person was raised. For the longest time a person statistically has been exceedingly likely to follow the faith of his or her parents and neighbors. That has changed some recently (Thanks Internet!) but as I said that’s how it’s been, as opposed to people looking at the varying faiths and determine which one is both likely true and morally sound.

Your challenge tests a person’s willingness to fear unsubstantiated threats (Hell). And when multiple conflicting faiths offer up their own unsubstantiated threats, the challenge becomes even less about the goodness of the individual.

It’s taught that man already knows God to some extent, sort of like a dim memory- that we have a void within us, whether we’re directly conscious of it or not, that needs to be filled-and we see people trying to fill it in all sorts of ways, often wrong. But we’re* meant *to have it filled, and so we’re meant to seek the solution.

To me it seems gods (your flavor and others) are the personification of man’s innate need to understand even when the knowledge isn’t there. Luck, karma, faith: These are all ways to explain that which we don’t (or didn’t) have the tools to explain at the time.

And we’re not abandoned or left alone in this endeavor. We believe all people have the call and capacity, in varying degrees, to come to know God, that we’re given the grace to do so, and that this world, with its many evils along with its many goods, also helps provide the impetus to seek further, beyond what we can naturally know, as nothing in this world can ever completely satisfy our thirst for complete fulfillment-or even come close, truth be known. We also believe that we’ll be judged according to the level of grace and knowledge given; more will be expected from those who’ve received more.

It seems you believe that with more knowledge obtained (given if you believe knowledge comes from an outside source) that the more likely one is to believe in your particular faith. I would have to disagree, especially when I ask these types of questions and often the response I get from believers is to think less about the matter.

In any case one can come to know and love God in this life, even as many other things here vie for our attention (we even, in my opinion, possess a preferential option *against *God, even when we claim disbelief in Him, as we’re suspicious that He might hold back something central to our happiness.This disposition resists faith from the get-go.

I have no preference against any particular god, but I simply don’t believe I have seen even a fraction of the evidence needed to believe. As I’ve noted several times I accept that I might be wrong, but I would insist that my disbelief not be brushed aside as dishonest or with prejudice.

Anyway, as knowledge of God grows, so does love for Him; one cannot truly know God without loving God. He’s a part of us-or we’re a part of Him, almost strangely familiar, as in “family”, who possesses a home like we’ve never imagined existed, so totally at home does one feel in His presence.

One can’t truly love something without first believing it exists.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Once again: you had to prove that the main goal of God is to make humans believe in Him, that any (any!) other goal He has is a “consequence” of that one.

That’s a very strong claim (it is not a claim with “It would be nice of Him…” or “Perhaps”), but it is a claim you made (and you are free to take it back or modify it, if you are not happy with it). And um, you didn’t get anywhere close to proving it. I am not sure if you were even trying…

At most, you have made a case that it is likely to be one of God’s subgoals… Depending on how you understand “other goals spring from that one goal” and “his most vital goal” (is subgoal supposed to be more or less “vital” than “parent” goal?), you might have actually gotten close to disproving your own thesis, while trying to prove it…

I showed where Jesus said that having people love and follow him was the most important commandment. When it comes to Christianity I’m going to trust what it’s claimed Jesus said about the faith over anyone else. And yes vital can be described as a parent goal, that which is necessary to reach the ultimate goal. If my goal is to be the world’s greatest basketball player I need to complete certain goals beforehand such as understanding the game and getting into amazing shape.

It’s completely logical to say that if the goal is to have people love and follow God, then it’s absolutely necessary that people first believe God exists. There’s no way around that.

My example was about motivations and nothing else (after all, we were discussing motivations, goals, objectives, wishes). You admit that your additions have nothing to do with them. Looks like you have completely missed my point.

My additions were to correct a malformed analogy. As the first premise I said God wants us to believe in him. You responded by asking if it was weird that a professor would want his students to pass a test. By equating your God with a professor you are saying we know for absolute sure that we are all taking a class – the same class despite shouts from other professor. By equating a post-death judgment with a test you are saying that we are certainly being judge under a very specific set of criteria – despite the other professors and despite the massive disagreements people with the same professor say is on that test.

If you think that counts as literal, sure. So…?

I’m asking you. You provided a link that was to answer my specific question as to the meaning of God’s back parts, so I hoped you could attest to its validity. The explanation in that link is, regrettably, as clear as mud. It doesn’t seem to work either in a literal or in a figurative sense. If you can enlighten me, please let me know whether it’s literal or figurative; and depending on which one can you give some explanation as to what it means for Moses? I’m asking for a modicum of research here.

So, you are so scared of con men, pseudoscientists and the like, that you reject everything that is anyhow similar to something they use (like those excuses), just to be sure…?

No, but one’s cautiousness toward something should be proportional to the vagueness of its supposed evidence.

Let’s say you come up with a theory showing that blueberries cause cancer. I then apply the same methodology and find it can be used to show that tap water, sunflower seeds, a gentle kiss on a cold January night, and a host of other things also cause cancer. The methodology is shown to be flawed. That doesn’t mean that blueberries don’t cause cancer, but you can’t point to your methodology as proof.

The same goes for religion (including why God doesn’t appear to people) – it suggests but certainly never proves.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

And yet, geocentrists, Holocaust deniers, people who believe Moon landings were fake and the like (I expect you to consider them to belong in
that group) often say that evidence against their position is insufficient, unreliable… And yet, you do not seem to be scared to say something similar about evidence you do not like.

Perhaps it would be better to avoid inconsistent “guilt by association” and look a bit closer before making a decision?

I’m presenting rational arguments as to why the reasoning as to why divine hiddenness hasn’t been explained away. I’ve presented several points in the understanding of how belief works, how evidence works, how culpability works. I’ve given references from Jesus himself, which you don’t feel accurately reflects the wishes of God. These arguments I’ve made deserve refutation and not baseless dismissal.

So, to summarise, you believe you are open-minded, because: 1) you feel open-minded, 2) you ask questions?

I’m afraid that this evidence is far more unreliable than any evidence you have ruled as insufficient or unreliable in this thread (yes, I do include evidence that is only available to you and not to us). That is, it does not include much of anything independent of you (necessary in order to check for bias in favour of yourself).

Now, note what possible evidence you did not mention: “People that know me well say I’m open-minded.”, “People I argue with say I’m open-minded.”, “I went to a professional psychologist and he told me he has concluded I am open-minded.”, “I found a psychological test that told me I’m open-minded.”…

Perhaps you should be a bit less certain of your own open-mindedness… Just in case…

I’ve been told repeatedly here to close my mind, to assuage any doubts and just believe. Once I do that then I’ll be fine. I’m told not to do the same with other faiths. I’ve said over and over again that I admit I could be wrong, and I’m the only one to have done so. I’ve pulled points from the opposing position to prove my points. I am not research-averse. What I’m waiting for is something that shows one of my premises or conclusions is incorrect (e.g. Jesus said X was his goal, or Here’s how one can love something without believing in it.) and not just a wordier version of “Nope, you’re wrong.”

But this is all a dodge to not address this points. While I am quite open-minded it’s all moot, because even the most closed-minded person can be right. I would prefer please that we tackle the points I’ve made instead of an incorrect portrait of my character. Thank you.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The pride of life rears its ugly head. “How dare the creator of the universe tell us how it’s gonna be? Why won’t he bend to my will? Waaaaaa! It’s not fair! Just because Moses couldn’t see God doesn’t mean that I am not able to. Grrrr.”

I’d like to think that you’re not equating anything I’ve written (or that the OP has) to a tantrum. I am expressing a bit of dubiousness against certain claims and pointing out why I have doubts. It’s not whining or a hissy fit. It’s the same type of skepticism people tend to apply in their daily lives, and not a sign of pride or hubris. I would go so far as to say that in general everyone should be more willing to take what they are told with a grain of salt and research matters as best as possible (especially in this day and age where so much of us have such a massive amount of information at their fingertips).

Is there anything about the arguments that I’ve made thus far that you can demonstrate where I’m wrong and why?

 

[fhansen]

This supposed challenge doesn’t test what you think it tests. It doesn’t test a person’s goodness, since some believers are good and some aren’t just as some non-believers are good and some aren’t. What it tests more than anything is where a person was raised. For the longest time a person statistically has been exceedingly likely to follow the faith of his or her parents and neighbors. That has changed some recently (Thanks Internet!) but as I said that’s how it’s been, as opposed to people looking at the varying faiths and determine which one is both likely true and morally sound.

That’s the challenge that Christianity presents-that’s all I’m saying. And that comes after looking into many different religions BTW, FWIW. And one can be judged by the criteria I described regardless of their religion-or lack of it.

Your challenge tests a person’s willingness to fear unsubstantiated threats (Hell). And when multiple conflicting faiths offer up their own unsubstantiated threats, the challenge becomes even less about the goodness of the individual.

My challenge means that there are consequences, demanded by *justice, *to our actions, just like in “real life”. And that threat shouldn’t even need to exist-and poses no problem for anyone who simply behaves with basic moral rectitude. Anyway, it’s *all *about the goodness of the individual, not who we say we are, or what we say we believe, but who we are.

To me it seems gods (your flavor and others) are the personification of man’s innate need to understand even when the knowledge isn’t there. Luck, karma, faith: These are all ways to explain that which we don’t (or didn’t) have the tools to explain at the time.

We do have that need-and in His mercy God happens to supply the missing knowledge.

It seems you believe that with more knowledge obtained (given if you believe knowledge comes from an outside source) that the more likely one is to believe in your particular faith. I would have to disagree, especially when I ask these types of questions and often the response I get from believers is to think less about the matter.

IMO the more one knows God, the more one will agree with the Catholic faith. But, like I said, knowledge varies greatly, both inside and outside the Church. And either way God inherently transcends all human concepts; any real knowledge possessed by us is strictly knowledge received.

One can’t truly love something without first believing it exists.

Um…yes!!! And that’s why faith is considered to be the first step. But to the extent that one at least believes in the ultimate goodness of life and proceeds as if there’s meaning to it, and that we’re obligated to a basic moral standard of not harming others, they’re already exhibiting a level of faith and humility. To take it a step further along those lines would mean to recognize more specifically that a rational mind, superior to ourselves, is necessarily essential to it all, and that love is foundational to the universe.