My difficulties with the Catholic Faith

[organist]

Thanks again for the responses. I apologise for not being able to respond to everyone, but I have enjoyed reading your comments and very much appreciate your prayers and advice.

Below I’ve picked out a selection of points to respond to. But first I feel I should clarify a few things:

Basically my main argument in my original message was in bold at the top; the numbered points I listed below it were merely there to “flesh out” the argument.

Put more broadly, I could have expressed it like this:

1. 
   *]There exist an array of belief systems and theories about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
   *]Each belief system and theory has its own set of compelling arguments
   *]I do not possess the intellectual capacity to fairly compare, contrast and critique them all
   *]Therefore I am paralysed, incapable of deciding ultimately which is true
   
   And more specifically related to Catholicism, I could have said:
   
   If the Catholic God exists, he has:
   1. 
      *]Provided me with no clear unequivocal evidence for his existence
      *]Provided me with no clear unequivocal evidence for the idea that Catholicism is true
      
      On the contrary, he has:
      1. 
         *]Allowed innumerable competing religions and theories to flourish
         *]Allowed modern critical thinkers to pick gaping holes in the most fundamental of Catholic beliefs
         *]Created me with such a limited intellect that I am left confused by said religions, theories, and criticisms
         *]Allowed the Catholic Church to appear largely unattractive to me
         
         I hope that makes more sense.

 

[organist]

Continued…

kell0618:

When you go to a physician and he tells you what ails you, do you ask him how he knows the diagnosis is accurate? Do you ask him if he cheated on his medical exams in University so that he could become a doctor? Do you ask him for proof that the diplomas on the wall are real and not mere copies?..

Yes, I’ve thought about this before; Newman famously talks about it in the Grammar of Assent. I go along with the idea that we do tend to accept a lot of things as true in life without questioning them, and that’s not much of a problem for me – at least not in small matters such as whether my physician holds a valid degree, the circumference of my country, and so forth. Why? Because those things are not vitally important. However, religious questions are vitally important – at least that’s what most religions themselves tell us. Indeed, in the case of Catholicism, behaving and therefore believing correctly can be the difference between heaven and hell. So why isn’t God clear on the matter? That’s the problem I am having. Surely if my salvation depends on it, God would clearly and unambiguously set the record straight. He wouldn’t leave me in this deeply confused state.
Daniel Marsh:

If I were you I would start with argument 5, design…

It’s been a while since I looked at the argument from design. It convinced me when I was younger, but I have since seen it taken apart by evolutionists. In fact, it’s is a good example of one of these issues that leaves me confused and ambivalent. I look at the arguments and I follow both sides to an extent, but then I get lost and confused in the scientific details and, more importantly, on the vital matter of deciding who is right. I inevitably end up concluding, “I don’t know.”

Benedictus:

I should start off by saying that I don’t have any answers for you. I’m in a pretty similar position as you are…

A most interesting post, thank you. I wasn’t expecting anyone to relate much with my position at anything but the theoretical level, but you are clearly going through similar things. At one time I too was surprised how anyone could go from seminarian to atheist, and I certainly never thought I myself would be flirting with atheism in the not too distant future. Strange how thing sometimes turn out. In many ways I miss the security of Catholicism, but I just couldn’t keep up the act.

Jonk:

I’m not going to answer your objections fully, though I hope that you don’t give up your mental pursuits; I’ll just share my thoughts and experiences…

Yes, in my experience orthodox Christians are indeed a rare breed in this country. The university I attended certainly had a decidedly liberal undercurrent to it, as do most Catholic colleges today it would seem. However, at the time I and a few others were in something of an “ultra-orthodox” clique. Our mentors were generally the older professors in the history department whom we could discuss more solid matters of history with. The biblical studies, philosophy and systematic theology departments we tended to avoid – they were all too keen to foist their “historical Jesus,” or “anti-realist” views on us – views which, at the time, I was not open to.

 

[organist]

Continued…

Jonk:

We’re not talking gooey, touchy-feely hippy love here, man. Seriously, don’t even go there - I heard some crazy nuns talk about that stuff and I thought I was gonna… Anyway, if you find yourself convinced of the existence of a theist God and of Christianity, the love with which you are expected to ‘love’ Jesus with is a commited, sacrificial and obedient sort of love. Any other forms of love flow from that one…

RyanL:

Here’s the deal. I think that you (like me and most of the rest of us) bought into the Enlightenment romanticism that sees love as a feeling over which you have no control. That’s what all the movies and romance stories tell us, so it must be so…right? Wrong…

I don’t really want to go off on too much of a tangent about this point. All I’ll say is that, as I understand it, the Catholic view that God chose to redeem mankind by becoming a man is partly due to the fact that, by becoming a man, we fellow men and women can relate to, love and understand him better. Personally, I find thinking of God as a man to be deeply confusing, especially a man who lived in a completely foreign culture 2,000 years ago and who apparently spoke in confusing parables. Perhaps if he appeared tomorrow as a modern Western man and spoke personally to me, I could relate to him and love him better. But trying to relate to this 2,000-year-old hazy historical figure is for me just confusing. In fact, I feel I can relate and connect much more to the distant and utterly mysterious and incomprehensible God of Judaism and Islam.

In any case my main point here was not about loving and relating to him. It was about the fact that most modern scholars have picked apart the Gospels and the Jesus presented for centuries by the Church. These men and women, not prejudiced by faith, have devoted their lives to the study of the subject using the tools of science and they have presented a pretty compelling case for a Jesus entirely different to the one the Church has traditionally presented. Again, this is one of those instances in which I am ultimately left confused. I see their arguments, and I see the arguments of the more traditionally-inclined Christians (but not many Catholic academics, strangely!). But I don’t know who is right, because I’m no archaeologist, scholar or historian. I just have to conclude: “I don’t know.”

Jonk:

The Church is pretty special. I’ve heard it’s got the longest unbroken succession in the history of mankind. It’s contributed greatly to science (shock!) and our civilisation. Keep your mind open and check it out…

RyanL:

Actually, it has. It started the university systems in the west, it pioneered several scientific fields…

Again, I don’t want to go off on too much of a tangent with this point. Basically, when I said, “the church hasn’t done anything special,” I meant that, it hasn’t, as far as I can see, done anything that stands out and communicates unequivocally to me that it is God’s one true Church. If, for example, tomorrow every Catholic church in the world suddenly started emitting a heavenly light and Catholics began to float around the world doing untold miracles, I’d find that special. As for all these points about the Church contributing to civilisation. Those things, while certainly commendable, don’t stand out in my mind as unequivocal communications that the Church is divine.

The other point I was trying to make was that, from the point of view of me – a pretty typical man born at the end of the 20th century in Western society – nearly everything I’ve heard about the Catholic Church has been negative. Millions of other men and women born around the same time have also been exposed to this view of the Church. Like you say, it may be the fault of the secular press and the modern educational system etc., but still, God has allowed it to happen – he has not done anything to prevent it. So, we have, in effect, a large portion of the planet with a thoroughly negative view of the Church. We have men and women who would never even entertain the idea of entering it. That is the point I was trying to make about God neglecting the Church’s PR. And this is just one small example. A similar case could also be made for huge portions of the planet like China.

 

[sdkevins]

I find that the more I try and intellectualize religion, the less spiritual I feel. There is one thing I know for sure…when I attend church regularly, things seem to go better in my life.

 

[MTD]

I believe the answer to your main problem is Original Sin. In the beginning God did not create the human person with such limited ability to discover His existence. It is a consequence of Original Sin. This darkening of the intellect as a result of Original Sin is the reason why it’s so difficult to prove the existence of God unequivocally, which in turn is the cause of the multitude of religions and theories.

God chose to redeem man by becoming man not primarily so that we could understand and relate to Him better, but so that man’s sin would be paid for by man. “For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:21-22) It was totally appropriate that man should pay the price for his sin; however, since man by himself could never pay that price, God took on our human nature in order to make that payment for us Himself, thus not only satisfying His perfect justice but also lavishing His infinite mercy and love. “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” (John 3:16)

Maria

 

[RyanL]

Do you have an MP3 player (or even speakers on your computer)? If so, I think you should listen to some lectures from the best and the brightest on these subjects. We can articulate good reasons and we are useful for dialog, but if you want the top presentations you deserve to hear from the top presenters.

Last September I started a thread to provide links to these MP3 files, and you can find it here.

In the first post I linked to Dr. Peter Kreeft. Another poster already referred you to his argument from design (which I personally find a little weak, at least as he articulates it - but don’t let that dissuade you). If you’re not familiar with him, he’s been a philosophy professor at Boston College since the 60’s - he knows his stuff. He also knows how to put a sentence together (something often lacking in academic settings), which makes listening quite pleasurable. His writings are top notch, and available here. If you would like a sample of his writing but don’t want to get too philosophical just yet, the following is one of my favorites: Satan’s Battle Plan for the Third Millenium.

Another speaker I like is William Lane Craig. He’s an Evangelical Christian who deals almost exclusively with the historical Jesus and the logic of believing in God. You can find his talks here.

I don’t have time tonight to write too much more (and I’m sure by your response you know exactly how time consuming responding can be), but I would like to leave you with a thought:

Some Jesuit is going to have a lot of explaining to do to God for Rene Descartes.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[seremina]

Continued…

I don’t really want to go off on too much of a tangent about this point. All I’ll say is that, as I understand it, the Catholic view that God chose to redeem mankind by becoming a man is partly due to the fact that, by becoming a man, we fellow men and women can relate to, love and understand him better. Personally, I find thinking of God as a man to be deeply confusing, especially a man who lived in a completely foreign culture 2,000 years ago and who apparently spoke in confusing parables. Perhaps if he appeared tomorrow as a modern Western man and spoke personally to me, I could relate to him and love him better. But trying to relate to this 2,000-year-old hazy historical figure is for me just confusing. In fact, I feel I can relate and connect much more to the distant and utterly mysterious and incomprehensible God of Judaism and Islam.

In any case my main point here was not about loving and relating to him. It was about the fact that most modern scholars have picked apart the Gospels and the Jesus presented for centuries by the Church. These men and women, not prejudiced by faith, have devoted their lives to the study of the subject using the tools of science and they have presented a pretty compelling case for a Jesus entirely different to the one the Church has traditionally presented. Again, this is one of those instances in which I am ultimately left confused. I see their arguments, and I see the arguments of the more traditionally-inclined Christians (but not many Catholic academics, strangely!). But I don’t know who is right, because I’m no archaeologist, scholar or historian. I just have to conclude: “I don’t know.”

Again, I don’t want to go off on too much of a tangent with this point. Basically, when I said, “the church hasn’t done anything special,” I meant that, it hasn’t, as far as I can see, done anything that stands out and communicates unequivocally to me that it is God’s one true Church. If, for example, tomorrow every Catholic church in the world suddenly started emitting a heavenly light and Catholics began to float around the world doing untold miracles, I’d find that special. As for all these points about the Church contributing to civilisation. Those things, while certainly commendable, don’t stand out in my mind as unequivocal communications that the Church is divine.

The other point I was trying to make was that, from the point of view of me – a pretty typical man born at the end of the 20th century in Western society – nearly everything I’ve heard about the Catholic Church has been negative. Millions of other men and women born around the same time have also been exposed to this view of the Church. Like you say, it may be the fault of the secular press and the modern educational system etc., but still, God has allowed it to happen – he has not done anything to prevent it. So, we have, in effect, a large portion of the planet with a thoroughly negative view of the Church. We have men and women who would never even entertain the idea of entering it. That is the point I was trying to make about God neglecting the Church’s PR. And this is just one small example. A similar case could also be made for huge portions of the planet like China.

What about the approved apparitions of Mary? Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc., have shown us Mary and she’s repeated what Jesus has told us. There’s been miracles from the water that Lourdes was provided by our Heavenly Father, and this still continues today.

What about Our Lady of Guadalupe’s image on Juan Diego’s tilma? Her image appeared miraculously as he was unrolling flowers from it as Mary had commanded him to do. The tilma is on display for all to see and appreciate. A bomb couldn’t destroy it. Floods couldn’t destroy it. Its under God’s protection.

What about the Shroud of Turin? Its our true portrait of Jesus Christ. Just like the tilma of Guadalupe, this image can’t be destroyed. It has brought us much. Everything from the spiritual to the medical. We understand fully Jesus’ suffering, we gaze into His Holy Face, we can see Jesus’ hairstyle and other interesting features.

The Church is almost everywhere, which fulfills Jesus’ words that the Church would be public and the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. God doesn’t need PR when every Catholic is called to be His representative and treat others the way He would. Besides that, His ways are not human ways. He would rather people come to Him on their own. He’s like a real shepherd, wandering and waiting for sheep to come so He may tend them and nurture them.

If anything, I find the Church’s charitable involvements, the presentation of the Eucharist when the Priest holds up our dear Saviour for all to see, the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, and the things I’ve mentioned earlier, are all -miracles-. There’s even been miracles that have occurred to the Eucharist, too.

Sometimes, the most ordinary things are the most extraordinary.

 

[Titus]

There’s even been miracles that have occurred to the Eucharist, too.

Sometimes, the most ordinary things are the most extraordinary.

Very true. Miracle of Lanciano- you can still go and see the flesh and blood today. And the flesh comes from part of the heart: scientists say is impossible to get such a piece by dissection. And impressively, the blood matches the blood type on the Shroud of Turin, and all other approved Christocentric or Eucharistic miracles.

 

[JLM316]

Dear Organist,
something I find in your posts is a desire to be convinced that Christianity is correct by looking for some sort of proof, or preponderance of evidence, or convincing arguments. I would ask you to consider that if even you had that - what would keep you in the Church - would be your intellectual assent to the truth ? Would it be fear ? Would it be social pressure? Indeed you could even be going to church, thinking the right thing, doing all the right things, knowing the right things, and your soul could still be lost. You could follow every rule, and believe everything correct, and still not be saved. the reason being that God wants us to be converted - to be disciples of Christ - and this can only occur if you have faith. I suggest you talk to God and ask Him for faith. He will answer that prayer. I know it. He always answers that prayer. Then you can move on to other matters as to where you will go to church, and belong to exercise your faith - if you are not sure that God exists, you must begin at the beginning and find your faith - convincing you of the reality of the sacraments, the rites of the catholic faith will do you no good if there is nothing inside of you drawing you to them - for this, you need to find Jesus - to find the cross and know in your heart that Jesus died for you - then you will be a Christian, and then you can truly be a catholic. Assenting or being convinced will not help - unless as you go through the motions of attending mass you see Jesus there - and experience Him in the Eucharist. For this to be a reality, you need to feel the passion of Jesus and know by partaking in the bread of life, you are joining yourself to Him, and realizing the reason we have been baptized into His death- is to join with Him and each other to become a living part of His perfect love.

 

[organist]

MTD:

I believe the answer to your main problem is Original Sin… God chose to redeem man by becoming man not primarily so that we could understand and relate to Him better, but so that man’s sin would be paid for by man…

The problem I have with that explanation is that it is predicated on the idea that the bible is true and that God exists. But those things have yet to be proven, at least as far as I am concerned.

I didn’t say primarily, I said partly. God could have redeemed humankind however he liked because he is omnipotent. As I understand it, he chose to do so as a man PARTLY so that we could know and relate to Him better, so that our relationship to him would no longer be cold and distant like it was to the Jews. However, I find the idea of an incarnate God more confusing personally.

RyanL:

Do you have an MP3 player (or even speakers on your computer)? If so, I think you should listen to some lectures from the best and the brightest on these subjects…

Thank you. I’ll have a listen to those.

seremina:

What about the approved apparitions of Mary? Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc…

I used to be impressed by Catholic miracles such as that of Lanciano, apparitions of Mary and so forth. The problem I have with them is:

1. 
   *]They’re few and far between
   *]They’re not all that impressive
   *]Similar miracles exist in other religions
   1. If miracles were happening in lots of Catholic churches all over the world everyday and I could walk down the street and see them with my own eyes, then that would truly make the Catholic Church stand out. It would be good solid proof from God that this Church is without question special, and it would make it very difficult NOT to believe. As it is, all the Church has to offer is a few miracles dotted around in a few dozen places across the course of two millennia. Many of them have been discredited and many others shelter from science under lock and key.
   2. If these miracles were more impressive, that would be helpful. For me, a picture that seems to have withstood a fire and an explosion isn’t all that impressive. People after all have survived things like 9/11, so it can and does happen. A piece of decomposed matter in a monstrance doesn’t impress me all that much either, it could have got in there by some other means. And people leaving crutches at Lourdes doesn’t impress me; I forget which critic said it, but I tend to agree with him: If they were leaving prosthetic limbs, THAT would be impressive.
   3. Thirdly, if you look into other religions they also have miracles like this. There are cases of incorruptible bodies among Buddhist, Muslims and Hindus and so on. Buddhists also have the whole “rainbow body” phenomenon which involve resurrection-type events in which monks’ bodies suddenly emit rays of multi-coloured light before entirely disappearing. Christianity is built on the miracle of the resurrection, but if other religions have similar phenomena happening on a regular basis, suddenly Christianity loses its allure.
   Also, at one time miracles in other religions would have been dismissed by Catholics as Satanic. But that can work both ways, as I am sure many of you know from Protestant interpretations of Catholic miracles. Moreover, if God’s Church really is the Catholic Church, wouldn’t it make sense for Catholics in general to radiate something special, something that made them stand out? The overwhelming majority of Catholics I’ve ever met have, on the whole, struck me as no different to the next man, and in quite a few cases, much worse than then next man I’m sorry to say.
   
   
   JLM316:
   

   something I find in your posts is a desire to be convinced that Christianity is correct by looking for some sort of proof, or preponderance of evidence, or convincing arguments…

   The problem I have with blind faith is that nearly all religions call for it. So, who am I to go with - the Catholic? the Mormon? the Jew? the Zoroastrian? the Muslim fundamentalist? I need evidence first. Without it, religion becomes a lucky dip; I might make a poor choice and end up strapping a bomb to myself.

 

[Friend_Of_Rome]

Let’s turn, for a second, the focus upon atheism. This form of literal godlessness has several flwas. most of its proponents follow sheer reason, because “Faith is un-logical.” If you want to look at it through a “reasonable” lens, think of Pascal’ wager- **If Gos does not exist, and I dont’ believe, okay. nothing happens. If god does not exist and I do believe, notihng happens. If God does exist, and i do believe, how wonderful. HOWEVER, IF GOD DOES EXIST AND I DON’T BELIEVE, UH-OH! ** it’s sheer logic. You seem to like logic, so please think of what could be more logical than this. With the midset of logic, i could say that "oxygen doesn’t exist. I can’t see it now, can I? Well, without oxygen we die. Without God, we die to our own lusts, perversions, immorality and sins.

WIthout God, everything is permissable!

 

[Aleii]

Let’s turn, for a second, the focus upon atheism. This form of literal godlessness has several flwas. most of its proponents follow sheer reason, because “Faith is un-logical.” If you want to look at it through a “reasonable” lens, think of Pascal’ wager- **If Gos does not exist, and I dont’ believe, okay. nothing happens. If god does not exist and I do believe, notihng happens. If God does exist, and i do believe, how wonderful. HOWEVER, IF GOD DOES EXIST AND I DON’T BELIEVE, UH-OH! ** it’s sheer logic. You seem to like logic, so please think of what could be more logical than this.

There are a couple of flaws in Pascal’s wager.
-This does not talk about which religion to believe in. Catholicism is not the only religion to make the claim that they are the true religion that should be followed.

-If a person does this, it is not really a true belief. I would make the argument that you can not change beliefs easily at will, like flipping a light switch. If I gave you a piece of red paper and told you to believe that it is actually yellow and green stripes, could you make yourself believe that easily? Could you force yourself to believe in Santa? God would know if you are making a claim that you believe something when you really don’t truly believe it in your heart. And, according to Catholicism, there is more to going to heaven than just believing in God.

With the midset of logic, i could say that "oxygen doesn’t exist. I can’t see it now, can I? Well, without oxygen we die. Without God, we die to our own lusts, perversions, immorality and sins.

We can do tests to determine that oxygen is present. There are other senses besides vision.

 

[Mirdath]

Let’s turn, for a second, the focus upon atheism. This form of literal godlessness has several flwas. most of its proponents follow sheer reason, because “Faith is un-logical.” If you want to look at it through a “reasonable” lens, think of Pascal’ wager- **If Gos does not exist, and I dont’ believe, okay. nothing happens. If god does not exist and I do believe, notihng happens. If God does exist, and i do believe, how wonderful. HOWEVER, IF GOD DOES EXIST AND I DON’T BELIEVE, UH-OH! ** it’s sheer logic. You seem to like logic, so please think of what could be more logical than this. With the midset of logic, i could say that "oxygen doesn’t exist. I can’t see it now, can I? Well, without oxygen we die. Without God, we die to our own lusts, perversions, immorality and sins.

Pascal’s Wager honestly doesn’t do much to convince a non-believer. Its most glaring hole is that in either of the ‘exists’ cases, the correct religion (if any) remains undefined – it’s just as much an argument for Zoroastrianism or Asatru as it is for Catholicism. Further it predicates that God, if extant, condemns all unbelievers to some kind of hell no matter what, which is a position the Church itself does not take.

(edit: beaten by Aleii, who said it better anyway )

WIthout God, everything is permissable!

Not true – one still has responsibilities towards everyone else and even oneself, and it’s quite possible to have a moral code without faith in a deity.

---

Anyway, I’m not trying to be the agnostic missionary here Organist, religion is something you can’t really reason out from nothing – you have to make that ‘leap of faith’ as Kierkegaard called it. Good luck, and I hope you find peace.

 

[Kevin42]

Moreover, if God’s Church really is the Catholic Church, wouldn’t it make sense for Catholics in general to radiate something special, something that made them stand out? The overwhelming majority of Catholics I’ve ever met have, on the whole, struck me as no different to the next man, and in quite a few cases, much worse than then next man I’m sorry to say.

You can’t blame God for the choices that men make. Yes, ideally they should radiate goodness. However, if you look at the saints, I’m sure you will find that they certainly stand out. The church calls everyone to be saints, but alot of people fail miserably. The Church points to Saints, and says, this is an example of someone living the right way. The Saints and the Church point to Christ, and say, this is who we need to imitate. If it were ideal, the entire Church would be full of people living life in the imitation of Christ.

All that said, keep in mind that God needs to be approached with a humble heart. You are not going to find him by having the attitude that you’re really not all that impressed with what He has going here, and He needs to do some cooler things so you will believe. We are undeserving of anything that God does for us, and everything He does give us is a gift. That’s why unless you have a humble heart, you will not find God.

You’ll be in my prayers. Peace be with you.

 

[Catholic_Mike]

Not true – one still has responsibilities towards everyone else and even oneself, and it’s quite possible to have a moral code without faith in a deity.

Maybe, but that is debatable. Your oringial post spoke about confusion. “So, if I’m struggling as much as I am with these questions, what hope is there for the billions of simpler less educated people out there who are trying to think through these issues objectively?”

I can relate, but I don’t think there is escape from that. Catholicism has difficult issues to think through, but so does any secular moral code. Any human mind is only going to get at so much truth. There are people smarter and more educated than me on every side of every issue. You have to just do the best you can. (Sometimes I wonder if we get different challenges depending on our strengths) You’re asking if God wouldn’t just make it easier if he wants us to know him, because currently it seems impossible to have sufficient faith. But a lot of people seem to. A lot of people who aren’t mental giants do. I’m wary about judging their reasons insufficient, though they sometimes seem that way. I have a hunch that our reason is one tool God has given us for finding truth, but not the only one. I think that revelation - through scripture, through other people (the church) - has a role to play. I mean, obviously from a Catholic view, when you stopped practicing you lost sources of grace that might have helped you understand. I can understand not wanting to be hypocritical, but on the other hand, I don’t see much reason to give up prayer and study and all that until and unless you are convinced that Christianity is entirely untrue. It seems like even if there is a slim chance, further investigation is worth the effort.

I guess I’ve been speaking mostly about your fourth objection. Some of the other stuff doesn’t bother me - many Catholics being jerks, for example. I wouldn’t really expect much differently. As for Jesus living 2,000 years ago, you’re assuming from the get go that he isn’t alive now. I don’t think you need to know Greek and Aramaic to be a Christian, but if you think it’d be necessary, learn it. Is your current position that God did not make it possible for you to believe, or just that he didn’t make it reasonably easy?

I’m curious: why did you believe before?

 

[Jennifer123]

Not true – one still has responsibilities towards everyone else and even oneself, and it’s quite possible to have a moral code without faith in a deity.

That is because even atheists have the law of God upon their hearts.

Atheists however can’t claim a moral code based on anything absolute, their moral code, by their own admission, has to come from society and it is dependant on the mores of the time. Atheists owe a gratitude that they live in a time formed by Christian-Judeo ethics. But now that we are moving into the brave new world of a “post-Christian” era, I worry about what the future holds for everyone, including our atheists.

I don’t think the OP is leaning towards atheism though so I’m probably leading this thread off the rails. Sorry.

 

[Friend_Of_Rome]

I wrote and used the examples for one simple reason-you can’t just simply explain something so deep and prfound such as faith and God in one sitting. It was a beginning. If you will simply wait patiently, perhaps you’ll be able to read the second part

Now, logic. It definately exists, and is instrumental to our existance. But, it is all the more potent when coupled with faith. Faith . . .what is it? Some may say it is simply a simpleton’s education in nothing . . a mere hope that something exists. Others, that it is an optimistic way of thinking, nothing more. Rather, it is a key and undeniable part of life. Logic state sthat when you drop a pencil, it will fall down. So, when you drop it, you have “faith” that your logic will not fail you. Faith and logic are inseperable! When you focus too much on one, the other becomes out of shape . . .like children with lazy eyes. You need to lessen the stronger so as to balance out the weaker. For our organist, it seems that faith is the weak eye. Let us, for a time, cover up logic, so as to help this sibling in christ find Faith again.

 

[jonk]

organist,

Would you be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact event and/or idea that made you start question your faith and the event and/or idea that made you lose it, if there are such? It might be helpful or interesting.

I found out about the Zeitoun/Zeitun apparitions recently. They’re quite recent and they’re certainly interesting. Learning more…

Take care

 

[Janet_S]

Here we have, I believe–in however strange a guise–a very precise description of the situation of man confronted with the question of God. No one can lay God and his Kingdom on the table before another man; even the believer cannot do it for himself. But however strongly unbelief may feel itself thereby justified it cannot forget the eerie feeling induced by the words “Yet perhaps it is true.” That “perhaps” is the unavoidable temptation which it cannot elude, the temptation in which it too, in the very act of rejection, has to experience the unrejectability of belief. In other words, both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief, if they do not hide away from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt, for the other through doubt and in the form of doubt. It is the basic pattern of man’s destiny only to be allowed to find the finality of his existence in this unceasing rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and certainty. Perhaps in precisely this way doubt, which saves both sides from being shut up in their own worlds, could become the avenue of communication. It prevents both from enjoying complete self-satisfaction; it opens up the believer to the doubter and the doubter to the believer; for one it is his share in the fate of the unbeliever, for the other the form in which belief remains nevertheless a challenge to him.
–Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, Chapter 1–Belief in the World of Today

 

[MTD]

The problem I have with that explanation is that it is predicated on the idea that the bible is true and that God exists. But those things have yet to be proven, at least as far as I am concerned.

But your argument was: “If the Catholic God exists, he has…created me with such a limited intellect that I am left confused by said religions, theories, and criticisms.” Your argument makes the unfounded assumption that God is the cause of man’s limited intellect. You are disregarding the possibility that man is the cause of his own limited intellect. So I’m basically pointing out that your argument is flawed because it assumes the one possibility without sufficient proof for rejecting the other possibility.

However, I find the idea of an incarnate God more confusing personally.

Well regardless, that is quite beside the point of whether God exists or not. Why don’t we focus on that first, and then we can examine Catholicism.

Maria