D
D0UBTFIRE
Guest
Okay, thanks for that suggestion, it’s one I’ve never heard of. I’ll check it out.
- Status
A
Aquinas21
Guest
Wow, this is an amazing coincidence, lol.
Scientists at the ALMA Observatory in Chile just discovered Christ in the Universe yesterday evening.
(Okay, maybe I’m using a good-natured and careful sense of humor in this post, lol.)
Here is an authentic picture (a clickable attachment) of this amazing discovery.
View attachment 20981
main picture attribution and license
inset picture attribution and license
I
Ignatius
Guest
Actually it virtually does rule it out. The genetic variations in all branches of the human race are not diverse enough to justify polygenism as a viable theory. The single female ancestor has been designated the “mitochondrial Eve”.
I have observed over several of the threads that you are frequently in error, but never seem to be in any doubt. You could definitely benefit from doing a little more thorough scholarship in the areas that you are attempting to address.
Perhaps you could discuss the subjects with one of you professors and ask them for some directed study in these areas.
D
D0UBTFIRE
Guest
LOL Thanks! That was really funny…the last thing I expected was to check the thread and find humor.
J
John_Martin
Guest
Doubtfire,
Your info says you are agnostic 5 years after converting to Catholic.
This says to me a couple of things.
You are like Nicodemus, trying to comprehend being born again, and somewhat sarcastically asking Jesus if he is again supposed to enter his mother’s womb for this rebirth. To Jesus this rebirth is an “earthly thing”, and if Nicodemus would not believe him when he told him that he must be born again, then how would his take Jesus at his word when he told him heavenly things. Your posts show you are like this man - you are here questioning him (questioning his Church), yet you do not take the Church at her word.
Your info says you are agnostic 5 years after converting to Catholic.
This says to me a couple of things.
- You think that “you converted”, where the call is to “be converted”, not to “convert”. It is a passive thing that we subject ourselves to when we become Catholic, not an active thing. We subject ourselves to letting Jesus, the Church, define us with baptism, teach us only truth, etc., giving up our own deciding of what is truth.
- While you state you are now agnostic, you are still “hanging around Catholics”, still “hanging around the presence of the Church”, still “from a distance keeping Jesus in view as he walks about teaching, even though you don’t participate when he takes his disciples off to be by themselves to talk only to them”.
You are like Nicodemus, trying to comprehend being born again, and somewhat sarcastically asking Jesus if he is again supposed to enter his mother’s womb for this rebirth. To Jesus this rebirth is an “earthly thing”, and if Nicodemus would not believe him when he told him that he must be born again, then how would his take Jesus at his word when he told him heavenly things. Your posts show you are like this man - you are here questioning him (questioning his Church), yet you do not take the Church at her word.
D
D0UBTFIRE
Guest
I think you’re reading too much into it. I changed it from Catholic to “Agnostic 5 years after converting to Catholic” because I didn’t know how else to say it… I’m not a cradle Catholic who’s become agnostic, I’m no longer really a Catholic Convert because my thinking isn’t in line with catholic orthodoxy… I honestly didn’t know what to call it… I’m not really agnostic about God, I’m more agnostic about the Church but that wouldn’t make much sense either…so I chose the words you now see. They’re probably not the best words, but they’re the only ones I could think of. It used to just say Catholic but I wanted to change it so that I wouldn’t be misleading while still participating in the forums. But basically, I was once a convert to Catholicism who embraced orthodox Christianity. I am not that anymore. I still hang around the forums in part because people haven’t stopped responding to my threads. I also don’t believe I have enough evidence to rule out Catholicism, and I’m comfortable with still searching for more insight…
E
Emily2014
Guest
It’s great to have you here. Please don’t be deterred in your search by anything people say in the threads. We are all searching one way or another. Just please hang in there and keep praying. God loves you. Trust in Him and He will guide you towards whatever path is the right one for you.
I
Ignatius
Guest
That is not Catholic teaching. The Catholic Faith teaches Fides et Ratio!
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
OK a few things.
RE empiricism
In your second paragraph, you seem to equate “weighing the evidence” with “empiricism.” I’m not sure that that equation has been justified. Weighing the evidence may take many forms–empirical testing being one among them.
Yet since God is by definition pure spirit, utterly immaterial, He is inaccessible to the senses. To use an empirical method to test for God is essentially to predetermine not to find evidence of Him. It is as if a person were to say I’ll believe in atoms if I can see them with my own two unaided eyes, because I only believe in the existence of what I can see with my own eyes. Even though the reality does exist you won’t find evidence of it. No scientist would design and conduct research in this manner.
RE "just have faith"
I’m not sure what the others posters mean, but as I understand it there is a grain of truth to the statement. Here’s what I mean.
One method among others to explore a religious tradition (here Catholicism) in view of adjudication is intrinsically as a participant observer. Extrinsic methods as a detached observer yield valuable information, but alone are not ultimately suitable to the subject matter.
Here are some reasons.
(1) The domain of religion is not primarily one of a physical or metaphysical explanation of objects out in the physical world, but rather one of an encounter and relationship between subjects (divine and human). Consequently, approaching religious experience and traditions (in view of some adjudication) a priori, detached, and extrinsic like naturalists speaking in hushed voices observing the mating habits of adult lions from the safety of a Jeep is not methodologically consistent with the subject matter.
(2) There are many situations in life where someone makes a statement based on experience to which at the time we have no access, say, in sports, or medicine, marriage, a trade, or living in general. We cannot always get sufficient evidence a priori to judge it. We must trust them, live it out in faith, take it on their word; and then the reasons reveal themselves a posteriori . . . or not. Some things in life cannot be understood until they are lived through from within, intrinsically. It is not less reasonable to expect that one can approach religious experience and traditions for purposes of evaluation in this way.
(3) Also, there are some domains of truth and reality that will be hidden from us unless we go half way to meet them. For example, in a relationship, the question “Do you like me?” If I insist on maintaining an extrinsic posture of maximum detachment and suspicion, it’s very likely I will forfeit the chance of a positive answer/outcome.
(4) One does not deduce their way a priori to the experience of empathy, romance, sexual attraction, artistic inspiration, or grief. Yet these are rightly accepted as legitimate domains of human experience, entered into intrinsically, and reflected upon by reason. On the other hand, the encounter with God in religious experience which enters consciousness in the same way–i.e., one does not deduce their way to it, but experiences it as a datum in life–is rejected a priori and not tested in a manner consistent with its subject matter, intrinsically and phenomenologically as a participant observer, and then adjudicated by reason. This seems to be a double standard.
(5) It seems that inherent in the extrinsicist method when used alone is the position that “it is better to risk the loss of truth than to make an error.” I don’t see that this is more reasonable than “better to risk making some errors than to lose whole domains of truth and reality.”
So testing as a participant observer would be the true empiricism in the subject matter of religion.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I think maybe you should change your description, as everyone understands agnostic with regard to God, not a church. You are searching for True Divine Revelation (as was mentioned earlier in the thread.)
What caused you to doubt the Catholic Church having Divine Revelation?
- Status