A
ASimon
Guest
So you’d ignore the implications that this has for your own religious faith?
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
I’m not sure what that means. The experience was ‘universal’, in the sense that it transcends anything we think we know from religion and yet it didn’t contradict or deny what I believed-it confirmed it if anything. The ‘picture’ is just so much grander than we can imagine.
C
ChesterBeach
Guest
It’s the same question I asked: If you have two testimonies one Catholic, one Buddhist both telling of a similar experience. How do you choose which faith to follow?
A
ASimon
Guest
Oh, I get that such experiences are universal. But it seems to me that, if these experiences mean what you take them to mean, and they are universal, as you say, it all but eliminates any need to consider oneself a “Catholic,” or a “Christian,” or even a “Theist.”
It’s nothing to me, you understand. If God did exist, I would sincerely hope he’d be beyond trivial concerns like whether certain people believed in him or not. But for someone who holds to a particular religious faith, it appears to force a question that they may or may not want to face.
F
fhansen
Guest
I can’t speak for anyone else. I only know what I’ve experienced and the affect it’s had on me. We may have this in common: that we sensed there’s something more-and more important- to this universe than what we can observe ordinarily, and we were seeking it, although I wasn’t actively seeking anything at the time I had the experience we’re discussing now. I have discussed this matter with people of eastern persuasions at times and there seem to be both similarities and differences.
F
fhansen
Guest
One of the most important teachings for me in Christianity is that God is love. I think this notion, as it’s come to be truly understood by a person, supersedes any other notion we may’ve picked up along the way about God’s nature and values, so to speak, IOWs about what’s most important and significant in the universe. I didn’t expect or plan on love having anything to do with this; I didn’t expect or plan anything, for that matter but one of the most striking aspects of this experience was the knowledge of love on an infinitely huge scale. Love-unequivocal and unconditional- virtually tactile, was part of the experience.
Now, if we’re honest, we don’t really know if love is a reality in itself at all, if love is nothing more than “a sweet old-fashioned emotion” as the old songs says. But this experience nailed it down to be the most worthwhile aspect of our existence. Now the “problem” with this IMO, from the human perspective, is that love does nothing to stroke our egos, does nothing for our pride, at least ‘pride’ understood in the most negative sense of sheer arrogance, because love simply doesn’t allow for me to seek to be superior to any other. In fact, at its best, it would cause one to die for another, in any case not seeking glory or anything for itself. Love, in fact, opposes pride by its nature. But there’s nothing like it-and I wish I could adequately explain what that means. But, without it, existence is pretty well meaningless.
Anyway, none of that may have meaning for you now and I can’t begin to explain what that experience was like and for all you know I’m crazy or a liar, etc, but I’ll say this: I couldn’t have produced it in a million years of trying and, if I could, I’d be “there” now.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Exactly. Why give this guy’s videos ANY credence?
Beats me. The internet is not known for its reliability. I sure wouldn’t base something as essential as my theology or my eternal salvation on a random Youtube video by some guy.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
Sweeping things under the rug does nothing it simply means you can’t defend your faith and so you choose to not address it.
Beats me. The internet is not known for its reliability. I sure wouldn’t base something as essential as my theology or my eternal salvation on a random Youtube video by some guy.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I once had a religion, but yes, I don’t think I was ever described as religious.
It’s not. I think there is generally an expectation that some one that applies a meaning to the word “God” applies the same or compatible meaning and attributes. But that is an expectation that often fails along religious lines (ex: Christian vs Muslim), denominational lines (a Catholic God concept compared to a Baptist God concept), and between different people.
No need to apologize. Questions are fine. For most of my younger years I wan’t around anyone I knew to be Catholic. My church participation was with Baptists, Methodist, and non-denominational churches over the time span of about 20 years.(sorry for all the question I have just grown up in a catholic environment my whole life so this is really interesting
Okay, well here are my thoughts, some of which are clearly subjective. I did watch the video in its entirety, but I’ll only speak about the section you mentioned.
I like WLC’s shirt! Had they not said where the debate was the shirt would have been a significant hint. Sorry, had to share that.
In no particular order here are my thoughts on what he said.
「You can experience God personally」
There’s a lot of ambiguity here especially from the attributes for the God of interest not being well defined or agreed upon. Given an experience with God, how does one recognize it as an experience with God? And should all claims to experience with God be treated equally? There have been people that have reported experiences with their god spontaneously, through prayer and meditation, through the use of drugs, or through sex.
I think the claim only really speaks to those that have had some experience with what ever concept it is that they recognize as “God.” The interpretation of the claim can be fit over that experience. But if you don’t have such an experience it doesn’t communicate much.
「Anything that exists has an explanation for it’s existence.」
I don’t agree with this if one adds the constraint that said explanation must be correct. People are creative and one might have the ability to construct a creation story for any given set of objects; such as the explanation for the origin’s of baby’s that involve the stork and the cabbage patch. Given our limitations as humans we can’t know the complete explanations for everything.
It’s possible he is including consideration for explanations we don’t know or have. But to me having no access to an explanation is identical to there not being one.
「God is the best explanation for why something exists.」
Craig asserts this but doesn’t support it.
「Numbers necessarily exists…」
I don’t agree with this one either since numbers are human invention allowing us to both internally and externally manipulate concepts that we can usually map to physical items. I don’t mind going into further detail but it could be lengthy. So I’ll only go into this if you request it. There’s a pretty lengthy thread for this topic alone here in these forums.
「Gods existence implied from the origin’s of the universe.」
I didn’t realize that any one knew the origin’s of the universe. Though there some hypothesis the state of the early universe that have been supported by evidence. The most notable of which is the “Big Bang…”
「Big Bang represents origin of the universe from literally nothing」
No, it doesn’t. The Big Bang hypothesis starts off with incredibly dense hot matter but is silent on the origin’s of this hot dense matter. The Big Bang theory doesn’t start at T=0, but after it.
「Everything that comes into being has a cause. The universe came into being. Therefore the universe has a cause.」
I think this is a form of the Kalam Cosmological argument. I’m perfectly content ignoring the arguments against it (that’s not to say I agree with it, but let’s see where this takes us).
「The cause must be “greater” than the universe, beyond space and time, non-physical, none material…」
As far as I can tell he took the properties that we apply to the universe, decided the negation of these must be the cause, and called it “God.”
「Show that Atheism is true.」
For those that call themselves atheist based on the definition of one that doesn’t positively assert the existence of any gods this isn’t something to which “true” or “false” would be applied. There’s a spectrum of people that meet that definition. So let’s reword this so that it can be evaluated as something as true or false and reduce the “fuzziness” that comes from not identifying the god concept to which
“Show that the proposition that ‘there is no Yahweh’ to be untrue.”
The question is better defined (though still with some ambiguities). Given that Craig has already defined God of not something to which we could apply attributes of location or being physical this becomes something that can’t be shown as true. Some times you’ll see people posit other non-physical beings to prove a point (invisible pink unicorn, spaghetti monster, invisible non-material dragon in my garage that breathes heatless fire).
And it’s that these beings are all equally non-falsifiable. You can’t prove that any of them don’t exist.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
I agree with the shirt comment, it is a nice shirt.
Thanks for the reply on his points. I think with the negation as god (non physical, etc) is that to be physical it would have to be in this universe (were there is such a thing as “physical”) so to be outside of the universe (as it created the universe, the cause can’t be only in existence when the effect of that cause is caused) it would then be non physical (it can’t be physical what’s the other option? non-physical) I think that is what the thought process for the non physical, non time bound, etc attributes were from).
and yes that is the Kalam Argument he uses ( see for example reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6259 )
By the way ReasonableFaith.org is his website.
Interesting observations
If you have any questions I’d be happy to address .
W
wcknight
Guest
I was born into a family that was borderline buddhist became Catholic around 1st grade, left the Church for a bit more than 10 years around college age and studied as many faiths as I could and came back too the Church later.
I know a lot of folks from other faiths, BUT none have any sort of miracle workers mentioned in their faith. Death is a universal experience so NDEs are experienced by folks in many faiths.
Unlike some other faiths and unlike what some used to say even in our faith, I do not believe that Heaven is restricted to folks of my own faith. So even if I had not become Catholic, if I lead my life as well as I can based on whatever knowledge I have of God and truth, then I believe that God will still be kind and merciful. That is preceisely what Pope John Paul II said when speaking about folks who are of other faiths, and of folks who do not believe in God whatsoever.
W
wcknight
Guest
again wrong on so many levels,
I did not say the Bible was false, and I have not used the Bible whatsoever in my posts. I said chapter and verse are NOT universally applicable in EVERY situation. That is far diiferent than saying it is false.
I have no idea what obscure theory or idea “the Simulacrum and other Cognitive Psychology errors like Confirmation Bias” that your atheists friends have concocted, and I have no intention to waste my time looking it up. I assume it means delusional or imagined as that is what the usual argument is for you folks.
IF all or most the miracle workers and folks who had first hand experiences were frauds or raving lunatics then you might have a point, but the fact is most were well respected and reliable folks.
We can guess that you are a fairly intelligent guy, but there really is no point in tossing it in front of everyone’s face every chance you get. It neither proves your point nor does it make you sound any smarter.
There is a saying IF you can’t convince them with the facts, baffle them with BS.
Plus if you really want folks to understand you, which in itself is questionable, making your web videos about a hundred times shorter would help a lot. Simplicity and brevity is the soul of clarity. Us 'po; common folks don’t have the time and a phd to interpret your rants.
ANd I have cited evidence other than spiritual experiences, there is physical evidence of miracles at many sites. There are the incorrupt bodies of various saints. There is ample evidence of Eucharistic miracles, there is the cloak of St Juan Diego, there were the doctors testimony of St Padre Pio’s hands examined while he was alive, and having disappeared immediately after his death.
BUT you really do not want to investigate any of this, because it falls outside of your limited domain of what is valid for proof. That is the same old arguments that atheists repeat. But that’s okay, you are entitled to stay in the dark. Whenever you are ready to find the truth, it is there for you, it always was.
G
graciew
Guest
Zimm,I watched the videos you pointed out cause you asked for help.Not without effort cause I found them depressive and boring,monotone and argumentative.Precisely the opposite of what my experience of God is.I redicovered God living among simple and loving people working consistently,joyfully and lovingly for the poor.Not becasue they(nor I)were witted,not because it was something extraordinary. It was this joy that brought me back.Wish you the best in your quest.
W
wcknight
Guest
What bugs me is the arrogance and idea that this guys thinks he has all the answers. Here he has been embarassed by his professor having outsmarted him in class, and now he is going to become the messiah of atheiist to lead all us poor misdirected and delusional deists to the truth or reality.
Well, lets consider what that could lead to. Suppose he has a few dim witted converts who buy his speal. They discount eternal punishment and reward and go on a life of self indulgence, crime and immorality. Instead of following an ethical philosophy, they end up commiting atrocities against humanity. SO instead of possibly leading a life following Christ, they end up in Hell instead. That would be worse than criminal.
BUT lets suppose I’m wrong. I convince someone who would have lived an immoral life to live one following the gospel instead. What happens, they die and they go no where, but society as a a result would have had one less criminal. Not that all atheists become criminals, but if even one does not in my case, it would have been worth being wrong. BUT in his case if even one soul is led astray, and God does exist, then he would have cause irreputable harm, if only to the one poor soul who ended up in hell instead of heaven.
SO yes, I’m a bit miffed that someone goes out of his way to potentially lead others astray. Just to satisfy his bruised ego,…poor baby !!
Well, lets consider what that could lead to. Suppose he has a few dim witted converts who buy his speal. They discount eternal punishment and reward and go on a life of self indulgence, crime and immorality. Instead of following an ethical philosophy, they end up commiting atrocities against humanity. SO instead of possibly leading a life following Christ, they end up in Hell instead. That would be worse than criminal.
BUT lets suppose I’m wrong. I convince someone who would have lived an immoral life to live one following the gospel instead. What happens, they die and they go no where, but society as a a result would have had one less criminal. Not that all atheists become criminals, but if even one does not in my case, it would have been worth being wrong. BUT in his case if even one soul is led astray, and God does exist, then he would have cause irreputable harm, if only to the one poor soul who ended up in hell instead of heaven.
SO yes, I’m a bit miffed that someone goes out of his way to potentially lead others astray. Just to satisfy his bruised ego,…poor baby !!
M
mlz
Guest
I give a great “Amen” to the above especially Peter Kreeft for logic and reason. He is an excellent writer. If you truely are seeking truth, then by all means order through Amazon.com any book by Peter Kreeft that seems to address your questions. He is excellent in my view. Also, God will not disappoint you if you truely seek with a true heart trying to find “the truth”. ("T"ruth) I would by far rather visit with you than the many lukewarm, non seeking “Christians”. I will pray for your search.
Love in Him who is the Truth and the Life,
mlz
G
graciew
Guest
On the last day,then,they may want to choose between Jesus and You Tube…
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
A
AtDawn
Guest
Zimm3r, are you still here? Have you reached a conclusion, or where on your journey are you? When you started this thread, you appeared quite desperate. (Unless you used words like Please please help" just to get attension - some people do that.)
I have not yet decided. I recently found these videos and to me, they completely smash the possibility to consider any lutheran or other protestant variant of Christianity, with the possible exception for something like the Quakers.
My journey is, I kind of tried to convince myself of religion. I thought there was some good stuff in there - not all of it, but some. I think the deep spiritual traditions of the Catholic Church has something - the Carmelite spirituality, the Ignatian, and so on. My problem is if I have to involve God for these things to work. Regarding the Ignatian traditions I certainly can make sense of it - or well, of much of it - without involving any kind of deity, at all. Currently I’m leaning towards I probably won’t be able to become a Christian. I feel slightly sad about it but also relieved, at the same time.
Since I am one of the few people here who have watched almost the whole series (almost! the last parts are a little bit to heavy for me. I think one really got to read some books to understand those, not just watch evid3nc3’s videos) I’ll comment. Since I’m actually leaning towards going back to my old view of something inbetween agnostic and atheist (I really couldn’t care less how you formally define those things and define them into subgroups), I’ll be a little bit of devil’s advocate here, when I’m arguing that evid3nc3 makes a fairly good case against charismatic Christianity of superficial Pentecostal type but less so against the Catholic faith.
For those of you who find evid3nc3 condescending, I don’t think so. I think the professor he had these long email dialogues with was. Of course the professor could be an invention, to create a story and putting these views in another person’s mouth - but it doesn’t really matter. Most online atheists do a very bad job of proving that being an atheist doesn’t mean you lack morals and stop caring about how you treat other people. I think he does a fine job here.
evid3nc3’s experience - in case you read this. I’ll speak about you rather than to you, since I don’t know if your are still here and since my main object is to reply to Zimm3r, okay? - of being a Christian is undoubtebly a true one. However, he was a very young Christian. What I hear in his description is that he had the faith of a child; he grew up and matured, but his faith did not mature. His congregation and his pastors doesn’t seem to have been able to really discuss these important things with him. That speaks badly of that congregation, but doesn’t prove anything about Pentecontalism as such - and says very little regarding Catholicism.
evid3nc3 describes his changing view of prayer, as having less to do with asking God for things you want and more about finding out God’s will, as a step towards losing faith. From what I’ve read, I would have thought that most grown, mature Catholics would say “oh, that’s an unevitable step on the spiritual journey”. The Catholic Church harbours a vast spectrum from very childish kinds of faith - of course also in adults, sometimes - to very profound, thinking minds. I live in a traditionally Lutheran country where most Catholics are immigrants. An astounding part of the converts here are very intellectual people. The convert Catholics seem to have signed a subscription for a couple of chairs in our National Academy which, considering how few they are, is truly astonishing. How evid3nc3 would have developed if he had shared his considerations with a Jesuit or a Dominikan who had a Ph.D in philosophy or thealogy, we do not know. We only know that his congregation and his pastor apparently didn’t do much for him, when he came into this chrisis of faith.
Several people have already pointed that out, but anyway. The scientific study of the Bible have severly shaken the Protestant Christianity, dividing it into one biblistic, fundamentalistic wing, where you believe every word in the Bible is true and hence have to read it in a fairly close-minded way not to get disturbed by the oxymorons, and one that interprets the Bible so liberally that in the end, there are Lutheran priests who don’t believe that Jesus literally rose from the death. Catholicism seems like a possible way to find an inbetween. Some Catholic traditions are fond of saying “Christianity is, unlike Judaism and Islam, not a religion based on a Holy Book. Christianity is based on a person: Jesus Christ. The Bible is interesting because you find things about Jesus in it. Not the other way around. To the Muslims, studying the Quran with the same tools you would use to analyse any ancient book would be sacrilege, but the Bible is not holy in that sense.” Catholicism trusts the tradition. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church. (This is where I have problems, since I find many of the values in this modern world to be good, that the Catholic Church says are bad. Also, the people managing the Catholic Church has duing the last 20 years apparently not been able to make correct discernment regarding the importance of protecting their clergy to avoid scandal, and securing the wellbeings of children and youth. But these are very separate issues from the video series.)
I have not yet decided. I recently found these videos and to me, they completely smash the possibility to consider any lutheran or other protestant variant of Christianity, with the possible exception for something like the Quakers.
My journey is, I kind of tried to convince myself of religion. I thought there was some good stuff in there - not all of it, but some. I think the deep spiritual traditions of the Catholic Church has something - the Carmelite spirituality, the Ignatian, and so on. My problem is if I have to involve God for these things to work. Regarding the Ignatian traditions I certainly can make sense of it - or well, of much of it - without involving any kind of deity, at all. Currently I’m leaning towards I probably won’t be able to become a Christian. I feel slightly sad about it but also relieved, at the same time.
Since I am one of the few people here who have watched almost the whole series (almost! the last parts are a little bit to heavy for me. I think one really got to read some books to understand those, not just watch evid3nc3’s videos) I’ll comment. Since I’m actually leaning towards going back to my old view of something inbetween agnostic and atheist (I really couldn’t care less how you formally define those things and define them into subgroups), I’ll be a little bit of devil’s advocate here, when I’m arguing that evid3nc3 makes a fairly good case against charismatic Christianity of superficial Pentecostal type but less so against the Catholic faith.
For those of you who find evid3nc3 condescending, I don’t think so. I think the professor he had these long email dialogues with was. Of course the professor could be an invention, to create a story and putting these views in another person’s mouth - but it doesn’t really matter. Most online atheists do a very bad job of proving that being an atheist doesn’t mean you lack morals and stop caring about how you treat other people. I think he does a fine job here.
evid3nc3’s experience - in case you read this. I’ll speak about you rather than to you, since I don’t know if your are still here and since my main object is to reply to Zimm3r, okay? - of being a Christian is undoubtebly a true one. However, he was a very young Christian. What I hear in his description is that he had the faith of a child; he grew up and matured, but his faith did not mature. His congregation and his pastors doesn’t seem to have been able to really discuss these important things with him. That speaks badly of that congregation, but doesn’t prove anything about Pentecontalism as such - and says very little regarding Catholicism.
evid3nc3 describes his changing view of prayer, as having less to do with asking God for things you want and more about finding out God’s will, as a step towards losing faith. From what I’ve read, I would have thought that most grown, mature Catholics would say “oh, that’s an unevitable step on the spiritual journey”. The Catholic Church harbours a vast spectrum from very childish kinds of faith - of course also in adults, sometimes - to very profound, thinking minds. I live in a traditionally Lutheran country where most Catholics are immigrants. An astounding part of the converts here are very intellectual people. The convert Catholics seem to have signed a subscription for a couple of chairs in our National Academy which, considering how few they are, is truly astonishing. How evid3nc3 would have developed if he had shared his considerations with a Jesuit or a Dominikan who had a Ph.D in philosophy or thealogy, we do not know. We only know that his congregation and his pastor apparently didn’t do much for him, when he came into this chrisis of faith.
Several people have already pointed that out, but anyway. The scientific study of the Bible have severly shaken the Protestant Christianity, dividing it into one biblistic, fundamentalistic wing, where you believe every word in the Bible is true and hence have to read it in a fairly close-minded way not to get disturbed by the oxymorons, and one that interprets the Bible so liberally that in the end, there are Lutheran priests who don’t believe that Jesus literally rose from the death. Catholicism seems like a possible way to find an inbetween. Some Catholic traditions are fond of saying “Christianity is, unlike Judaism and Islam, not a religion based on a Holy Book. Christianity is based on a person: Jesus Christ. The Bible is interesting because you find things about Jesus in it. Not the other way around. To the Muslims, studying the Quran with the same tools you would use to analyse any ancient book would be sacrilege, but the Bible is not holy in that sense.” Catholicism trusts the tradition. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church. (This is where I have problems, since I find many of the values in this modern world to be good, that the Catholic Church says are bad. Also, the people managing the Catholic Church has duing the last 20 years apparently not been able to make correct discernment regarding the importance of protecting their clergy to avoid scandal, and securing the wellbeings of children and youth. But these are very separate issues from the video series.)
A
AtDawn
Guest
The most astounding thing in the videos, that really make me think that evid3nc3 did not tell the exact truth about his deconversion story, is that of all the online atheists he had debated obviously nobody had been able to point out to him that there is sound evidence (although not 100% proof, such is difficult to find) that the Bible was compiled and altered under a period of many hundreds of years. Seriously, I thought everybody know that!?! Now, I don’t think any less of him for making such changes to his story. If the “professor” in reality is a compilation of a bunch of people he met, online and IRL, that is exactly the kind of simplification that all novelists make in order to create a more compelling story. The best way of being a bore is telling a story exactly as it happened, in every detail, from the beginning to the end. You have to analyse, sometimes simplify, sometimes alter the chronological order slightly to make a point clear. At the same time, everybody who does this should accept that this is done in all text but strictly academical ones. No, the Torah wasn’t dictated to Moses like the Quran was dictated to Muhammad. Anyone who based his faith on such simplified beliefs is likely to loose it when he starts examining it more carefully. It should be pointed out that Pentecostal churches are not all the same. Pentecostalism always was built as a loose confederation of very independent churches, very very different to the hierarchical Catholic Church. If there are Pentecostal churches that teach that Moses wrote the Torah, that’s a sound argument against how Pentecostalism is organised.
Regarding the Euthyphro dilemma - whether the good is good simply because God has decided so - early Christian thinkers have not ignored this. I have not read neither Augustine nor Thomas Aquinas, but apparently they found the Euthyphro dilemma a false one. I have not dived into this, but anyone who is truly bothered by it probably should.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
I am sure one will find good books on the subjects, if searching them out. Either evid3nc3’s church was full of superficial people, maintaining a superficial faith where nobody was able to handle these questions - or he just wasn’t able to outgrow his simplifed childish beliefs.
The part about the Old Testament where someone is told to lie doesn’t speak so much to me. Anyone who thinks “it is always wrong to lie” have a flawed conception of morality, since this would make it impossible for them, if the were Germans in early 1940s, to hide and help Jews survive the holocaust. (Please don’t get mad at me, evid3nc3, if you are reading this. I have no evil will towards you, but again: your faith may have been strong, but not very well founded.)
Regarding the Karen Armstrong books, and how Judaism evolved. Well. I haven’t read Karen Armstrong yet, but from what I’ve read her description makes lots of sense. If this shakes someone’s faith or not probably depends on how literally they interpret the Bible.
Robert Green Ingersoll, who wrote "Some Mistakes of Moses, undoubtebly was critisizing Protestant thinking, since his irony of what makes people go to hell or to heaven is inconsistent with what the Catholic Church teaches - either that, or the CC has since evolved. Today, the CC says that you don’t necessarily have to be a member of the CC in order to be saved. There even could be salvation for some non-Christians. “Sola fide”, salvation by faith alone, is a Lutheran teaching rejected byt the CC.
evid3nc3 says he is happier as a non-Christian. I don’t doubt that is true for him. I am highly, highly sceptical against these “born again”-types of Christianity. I find them based on emotions, and since the gifts of God are so obvious to the people around - everyone can see if someone is speaking in tongues or not - they so easily become a competition in “having gifts from the Spirit”. Prosperity theology is an offshoot from this branch, and I consider prosperity theology to be essentially unhealthy.
So where does this leave me? Obviously the Holy Spirit doesn’t do much of micro management in guiding His church. Currently I am thinking that if there is a God, he probably does not care all that much in whether people actually believe or not. Joining the CC would be stupid. I’m a woman and I don’t want to have children. The CC teaches that I can’t ever marry, nor cohabitate or even have a boyfriend. In the world pre-dating contraceptives, this makes a load of sense. Had I lived in 16th century, I’d have to marry and give birth to more children than what is healthy for me, or become a nun. If belonging to the uppermost class in society plus had some proficience and confidence, becoming a nun probably would have been the only way for me to breach out of the patriarchy and lead a somewhat independent life without a father or husband deciding over me. But today… not wanting to have children is not more selfish than wanting to have children. The Theology of the Body doesn’t make much sense, except for (some of) those already immersed in Catholic thinking, in which a woman must either be a lifelong celibate or never be able to take up demanding tasks outside of family since she never knows when she has to leave them, wich approx. six months notice… if you call this “selfish” then what all men take for granted in their life is selfishness.
I don’t exclude the possibility that there is a God. I don’t exclude the possibility that He is something along the lines of what the Catholic Church is teaching but if He does exist, I am 100% sure He doesn’t mind me not going through a conversion, and remaining churchless for the rest of my life.
Regarding the Euthyphro dilemma - whether the good is good simply because God has decided so - early Christian thinkers have not ignored this. I have not read neither Augustine nor Thomas Aquinas, but apparently they found the Euthyphro dilemma a false one. I have not dived into this, but anyone who is truly bothered by it probably should.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
I am sure one will find good books on the subjects, if searching them out. Either evid3nc3’s church was full of superficial people, maintaining a superficial faith where nobody was able to handle these questions - or he just wasn’t able to outgrow his simplifed childish beliefs.
The part about the Old Testament where someone is told to lie doesn’t speak so much to me. Anyone who thinks “it is always wrong to lie” have a flawed conception of morality, since this would make it impossible for them, if the were Germans in early 1940s, to hide and help Jews survive the holocaust. (Please don’t get mad at me, evid3nc3, if you are reading this. I have no evil will towards you, but again: your faith may have been strong, but not very well founded.)
Regarding the Karen Armstrong books, and how Judaism evolved. Well. I haven’t read Karen Armstrong yet, but from what I’ve read her description makes lots of sense. If this shakes someone’s faith or not probably depends on how literally they interpret the Bible.
Robert Green Ingersoll, who wrote "Some Mistakes of Moses, undoubtebly was critisizing Protestant thinking, since his irony of what makes people go to hell or to heaven is inconsistent with what the Catholic Church teaches - either that, or the CC has since evolved. Today, the CC says that you don’t necessarily have to be a member of the CC in order to be saved. There even could be salvation for some non-Christians. “Sola fide”, salvation by faith alone, is a Lutheran teaching rejected byt the CC.
evid3nc3 says he is happier as a non-Christian. I don’t doubt that is true for him. I am highly, highly sceptical against these “born again”-types of Christianity. I find them based on emotions, and since the gifts of God are so obvious to the people around - everyone can see if someone is speaking in tongues or not - they so easily become a competition in “having gifts from the Spirit”. Prosperity theology is an offshoot from this branch, and I consider prosperity theology to be essentially unhealthy.
So where does this leave me? Obviously the Holy Spirit doesn’t do much of micro management in guiding His church. Currently I am thinking that if there is a God, he probably does not care all that much in whether people actually believe or not. Joining the CC would be stupid. I’m a woman and I don’t want to have children. The CC teaches that I can’t ever marry, nor cohabitate or even have a boyfriend. In the world pre-dating contraceptives, this makes a load of sense. Had I lived in 16th century, I’d have to marry and give birth to more children than what is healthy for me, or become a nun. If belonging to the uppermost class in society plus had some proficience and confidence, becoming a nun probably would have been the only way for me to breach out of the patriarchy and lead a somewhat independent life without a father or husband deciding over me. But today… not wanting to have children is not more selfish than wanting to have children. The Theology of the Body doesn’t make much sense, except for (some of) those already immersed in Catholic thinking, in which a woman must either be a lifelong celibate or never be able to take up demanding tasks outside of family since she never knows when she has to leave them, wich approx. six months notice… if you call this “selfish” then what all men take for granted in their life is selfishness.
I don’t exclude the possibility that there is a God. I don’t exclude the possibility that He is something along the lines of what the Catholic Church is teaching but if He does exist, I am 100% sure He doesn’t mind me not going through a conversion, and remaining churchless for the rest of my life.
- Status