Religious foundation authority

[STT]

…By analogy, an artist creates a work. The work “speaks” about it’s origin. From this “speech” we can gain an image of the artist.

This type of approach doesn’t work. We know that things evolve naturally.

Likewise a human being speaks about origin. Our physical and spiritual unity, our whole being, speak about that pure being and existence that creates us…

Spiritual unity with soul? Can you prove that or do you have any evidence in favor of it?

 

[STT]

You can Google the phrase or read this:

gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

Thanks.

 

[ericc]

Yes, there is evidence that the ignorance was imposed by God. God is simply not present to us.

You have not provided that evidence. If atheists claim he doesn’t exist, how can he imposed ignorance on to them? It simply doesn’t follow. Logic fails you.

But if you say God exists and God did or did not do certain things to you, that is a different discussion entirely. Of course you can see where the discussion is leading to.

That is true. That is why I claimed that an atheist is equal to a theist when it come to divine justice. No one can prove or disprove God so everything is matter of believing or disbelieving.

Proof has been given over the centuries. Either through recorded eyewitnesses accounts or though philosophers or through evidence in the natural world. It is up to us to accept whether the proof is adequate or to mentally block out all non-science explanations. The choice is ours to make.

I didn’t see your argument that an atheist is equal to a theist. And I don’t think I commented on that distinction as well. In fact, I won’t claim superiority in any way. I am a bad enough sinner as it is.

Knowledge about God doesn’t come form self. We have some sort of inner knowledge, like feeding our vulnerable children, etc.

The inner knowledge is our conscience. If your conscience is not from your self, where did it come from then? From the point of an atheist, that is. Remember, God doesn’t exist in his world.

He might exist but He is personally and physically absent to us.

Already covered that before. You won’t know it because you didn’t look for him or failed to recognize him. He was physically here with us 2000 years ago. He taught us how to live. You don’t have to be there 2000 years ago just to know that the historical Jesus actually exist.

Because we know by fact, we learn it, that unhealthy life style leads to unhealthy life and vice verse. That doesn’t apply to knowing God.

We know that not knowing God may lead to unhealthy spiritual lives and may be lead to eternal condemnation. So we try to introduce the ignorant to God. The ignorant may choose to get to know him or close doors on him. Either way, the choice is free for them to make.

So you mean that they meet God in person?

Oh yes in the Eucharist.

Because s/he was a good sincere person. Maybe that is enough for God. How do you know?

Because we can’t earn our way to heaven. It is not a business transaction.

Is this your explanation why atheist can earn heavenly rewards? If one don’t believe God exist, and following from that heaven shouldn’t exist either. If heaven didn’t exist in your mind, there is nothing that you do on earth was intended for heaven. So how does an atheist deserve heaven? That is a pretty bad argument for heaven. Even for Christians.

What I am claiming is that a non-sincere person who his/her main aim to reach Heaven might not deserve Heaven either.

Of course. But that is not the subject under discussion.

All I am saying is that we can never be completely sure.

And that is not a very good reason to reject God just because you are not entirely sure.

 

[goout]

This type of approach doesn’t work. We know that things evolve naturally.

Works of art create themselves?
I was under the impression that atheism was a religion of reason…

 

[ericc]

Yes you have quoted from the CCC the exact grounds why some Atheists, Protestants, contraceptors, “adulterers” in irregular marriages etc may still reach their final reward without a change in lifestyle. Invincible ignorance.

You have not provided any evidence that they relied on “invincible ignorance” to reach their final reward. The definitive saving power of invincible ignorance was never been taught by the Church. She suggests it as a possibility, a “may”.

Neither have you identified any atheist, Protestants etc that relied on invincible ignorance to get to heaven. It is a possibility at most. There are no involuntary mortal sins. How many do not know what adultery is? How many do not know what divorce is? How many do not know what abortion is? How many do not know what homosexual sins are? How many do not know what fornication is? Invincible ignorance? No, there is a moral responsibility angle that must be taken into account. Finding excuses for ignorance does not qualify. If someone while still alive is contemplating to use this defense, it already signifies a determination to remain in ignorance. “I better not know” is not going to sound very convincing anyway.

As I say, to think that ALL the above persons can NEVER be invincibly ignorant simply because “they’ve been told” or because their own searching for truth has not yet been fruitful is a common lay misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on conscience. There are many involuntary and psychological obstacles to understanding.

You are trying to marry invincible ignorance and conscience together. They are not the same thing. There is this little thing on “personal responsibility” that you glossed over.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”[59] In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

May I quote back to you the ETWN ref you yourself quoted but may not have fully grasped:

And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

I didn’t miss that. It did not define what entails invincible ignorance at all.

You for example I predict are likely invincably ignorant of the Church’s clear teaching on the nature of invincible ignorance. Despite the somewhat evident fact you have had little or no
Tertiary training in your faith (my apologies if I am mistaken) you try to punch here like a heavy weight on this topic where in fact even experts in theology fear to tread.

If I have voluntarily seek to remain ignorant, that is not invincible ignorance. Example, I am not sure what the teaching of the Church on X is. But I don’t want to find out in case it doesn’t fits my worldview or in case I have to give up certain lifestyle choices that I’d rather not give up. Or there are competing explanations. Not all can be correct. Let me choose what is convenient for me. For the atheist, let me choose the one that has one less god.

There is a moral responsibility to seek the truth. It does not mean that an atheist must be 100% convinced by your arguments for the defense of invincible ignorance to be unavailable.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

I have no tertiary education in theology to speak of and I designate and claim no punching power to my writings other than I did not invent any and are obtained from credible sources. I would be delighted to hear from one such as yourself to show us where does the Magisterium define invincible ignorance that fits the type that you mentioned e.g. “many involuntary and psychological obstacles to understandin”. It would be educational to learn how the Magisterium defines invincible ignorance and how many atheists actually would qualify for it. Perhaps you can give examples of such types of invincible ignorance that you spoke of so that the rest of us can understand what it is exactly you have in mind.

Informing ourselves accurately about the nature of the world, morals, our own faith and indeed the meaning of the existence of God is a life long task for all of us and only terminated at death. Do you not agree?

Agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You have not provided any evidence that they relied on “invincible ignorance” to reach their final reward.

Well I am sorry but I don’t have time to provide you tertiary level Moral Theology 101 and Systematic Theology 101 papers to bring you up to speed with very rudimentary post CCC understandings of our faith that is properly the preserve of our priests and lay theologians and which gives some idea of what is “under the hood” of the CCC.

Suffice it to say your energy and confidence on the topicof conscience far outdistances your grasp of the balanced matters in question. my advice is the same as what I offered Charlemagne III:

“As they say, the devil himself can quote the Catechism to serve his purposes.
The CCC like many seminal works, is a thing of beauty and delicate balance of what may seem to be opposing concepts. It’s easy to cherry pick one side of the harmony to suit our personal prejudices and in doing so ignore the difficult task of harmonising our own inevitable ignorances which is the journey of a lifetime…just as the CCC also states.”

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”[59] In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

Your simplistic understanding of conscience and the need to form it is the same as it always is with those who over-confidently try to punch above their weight. You think you understand, but being self-taught you have no experienced mentor to guide your mistaken understandings of the CCC re conscience.

If you really want to understand where you have gone wrong re invincible ignorance please spend a few days reading the same old false arguments that I did spend time assisting with on THIS TOPIC starting at post #728.

Even though you are an untrained layman I know you still won’t accept my exposition even though I have the equivalent of a Masters in Theology/Philosophy, even though middle of the road Moral Theology Manuals say the same, even though I simply pass on the mainstream views of my Vatican trained professors of the 1980s, even though I have grown up with highly educated scholar priests at my table and even though I have discussed all these issues with my life-long Dominican teacher friends for the last 30 years since my degrees . If this isn’t a likely example of invincible ignorance in a sincere Christian I don’t know what is .

That’s fine. I just wish you might have the circumspect sense of place to see the need to turn down the volume a little on the dogmatic assertions you are making here to atheists. You may find they have a more intuitive grasp of human nature than yourself even with the benefit of a revelation you as yet don’t intuitively grasp.

I won’t be engaging you further on this topic. We don’t share even an agreed/understood set of mainstream theological concepts/vocab that would make discussion efficient or easy and I simply don’t have time to bring you up to speed.

 

[STT]

You have not provided that evidence. If atheists claim he doesn’t exist, how can he imposed ignorance on to them? It simply doesn’t follow. Logic fails you.

It does follow. God, if He exist, can be present to us but He choose not to, by this He left us in state of ignorance.

Proof has been given over the centuries. Either through recorded eyewitnesses accounts or though philosophers or through evidence in the natural world. It is up to us to accept whether the proof is adequate or to mentally block out all non-science explanations. The choice is ours to make.

I didn’t see your argument that an atheist is equal to a theist. And I don’t think I commented on that distinction as well. In fact, I won’t claim superiority in any way. I am a bad enough sinner as it is.

People are scattered. That is a good observation to show that we are not given enough evidence or reason to be convinced.

The inner knowledge is our conscience. If your conscience is not from your self, where did it come from then? From the point of an atheist, that is. Remember, God doesn’t exist in his world.

Conscience is simply subconscious response to a given situation. We accumulate knowledge for such a response through our experiences.

Already covered that before. You won’t know it because you didn’t look for him or failed to recognize him. He was physically here with us 2000 years ago. He taught us how to live. You don’t have to be there 2000 years ago just to know that the historical Jesus actually exist.

The history is full of people who claimed to be God. Think of Mithra, Hors, etc.

Because we can’t earn our way to heaven. It is not a business transaction.

Is this your explanation why atheist can earn heavenly rewards? If one don’t believe God exist, and following from that heaven shouldn’t exist either. If heaven didn’t exist in your mind, there is nothing that you do on earth was intended for heaven. So how does an atheist deserve heaven? That is a pretty bad argument for heaven. Even for Christians.

This I already argued that it is not a right and sincere way to approach spirituality.

Of course. But that is not the subject under discussion.

Well, I think that was the main point that I was making. You want to simply skip it.

And that is not a very good reason to reject God just because you are not entirely sure.

To be sure is a state of mind.

 

[STT]

Works of art create themselves?

I was under the impression that atheism was a religion of reason…

I should used being instead of thing.

 

[goout]

I should used being instead of thing.

Beings create themselves?
And I thought atheism was a religion of reason.

 

[STT]

Beings create themselves?

And I thought atheism was a religion of reason.

Things could pop into existence, so called Big Bang.

 

[goout]

Things could pop into existence, so called Big Bang.

That seems an odd position for an atheist. Things popping into existence…
Seems to violate the rules of reason and science.

 

[STT]

That seems an odd position for an atheist. Things popping into existence…
Seems to violate the rules of reason and science.

That is not true. They are great scientists who believe on that, Stephen Hawking.

 

[goout]

That is not true. They are great scientists who believe on that, Stephen Hawking.

No, there are no scientists who believe created things created themselves without cause.
Sorry. That is not true.

 

[ericc]

It does follow. God, if He exist, can be present to us but He choose not to, by this He left us in state of ignorance.

You choose to be in a state of ignorance. Plenty of people choose not to.

People are scattered. That is a good observation to show that we are not given enough evidence or reason to be convinced.

People are also consolidated. The Catholic Church is a community of diverse peoples and cultures. So you choose to see the scattered people but not to observe the solidarity. This is cherry picking your data. With that methodology, how much confidence could you have in your data? How much confidence could you have in your analysis? You will be in perpetual doubt.

Simple reason being that God does not want compulsion. If he appears next to you with thunder and lightning and choirs of angels, you have no choice but to believe him. Surely you understand that you won’t be left with a choice NOT to believe he exist. But he leaves you with that choice. If he compels you to believe him, you would have complained either way. Correct?

Conscience is simply subconscious response to a given situation. We accumulate knowledge for such a response through our experiences.

And that is knowledge, isn’t it, self-acquired. Your assertion of ignorance imposition by God remains unsupported.

The history is full of people who claimed to be God. Think of Mithra, Hors, etc.

I didn’t object to the statement that people can claimed to be God, a donkey or anything for that matter. What is important is whether it is true. And it is important that one discern the truth. And that can not be determined by avoidance or denial.

This I already argued that it is not a right and sincere way to approach spirituality.

We are talking about your position why you think atheist deserves heaven. I wish you could remain focused. If your final answer is that an atheist by merely being nice can go to heaven, I can accept that is your response since you have put much thought in it. It was a simple answer but Christianity doesn’t work that way. Sorry to disappoint you. I guess you do have the wrong thinking about the Christian faith. With wrong information, you could never make a proper decision to reject or accept it. Perhaps if you do not want to remain in ignorance, you can do something to alleviate that. Rather than go away with that erroneous mind set.

Well, I think that was the main point that I was making. You want to simply skip it.

I reckon that was just a diversionary tactic. But I will participate in a new thread on this point if you care to start one.

To be sure is a state of mind.

You can never be sure that there is no God. You can never be sure that there is no Heaven/Hell either. You can never be sure that there is no afterlife. So what do you want to do with that doubt? Deny it and everything’s fine?

 

[ericc]

Well I am sorry but I don’t have time to provide you tertiary level Moral Theology 101 and Systematic Theology 101 papers to bring you up to speed with very rudimentary post CCC understandings of our faith that is properly the preserve of our priests and lay theologians and which gives some idea of what is “under the hood” of the CCC.

Suffice it to say your energy and confidence on the topicof conscience far outdistances your grasp of the balanced matters in question. my advice is the same as what I offered Charlemagne III:

“As they say, the devil himself can quote the Catechism to serve his purposes.
The CCC like many seminal works, is a thing of beauty and delicate balance of what may seem to be opposing concepts. It’s easy to cherry pick one side of the harmony to suit our personal prejudices and in doing so ignore the difficult task of harmonising our own inevitable ignorances which is the journey of a lifetime…just as the CCC also states.”

Your simplistic understanding of conscience and the need to form it is the same as it always is with those who over-confidently try to punch above their weight. You think you understand, but being self-taught you have no experienced mentor to guide your mistaken understandings of the CCC re conscience.

If you really want to understand where you have gone wrong re invincible ignorance please spend a few days reading the same old false arguments that I did spend time assisting with on THIS TOPIC starting at post #728.

Even though you are an untrained layman I know you still won’t accept my exposition even though I have the equivalent of a Masters in Theology/Philosophy, even though middle of the road Moral Theology Manuals say the same, even though I simply pass on the mainstream views of my Vatican trained professors of the 1980s, even though I have grown up with highly educated scholar priests at my table and even though I have discussed all these issues with my life-long Dominican teacher friends for the last 30 years since my degrees . If this isn’t a likely example of invincible ignorance in a sincere Christian I don’t know what is .

That’s fine. I just wish you might have the circumspect sense of place to see the need to turn down the volume a little on the dogmatic assertions you are making here to atheists. You may find they have a more intuitive grasp of human nature than yourself even with the benefit of a revelation you as yet don’t intuitively grasp.

I won’t be engaging you further on this topic. We don’t share even an agreed/understood set of mainstream theological concepts/vocab that would make discussion efficient or easy and I simply don’t have time to bring you up to speed.

That is a sure strange way to participate in an online discussion. You asked me for the sources where I got my information and I shared that with you. I asked you for that same reciprocity and you throw your paper qualifications at me? Does that earn you the exemption not to respond to relevant queries? If you can’t find the time to participate and share in this post, you shouldn’t. Throwing another link from another post isn’t the most appropriate way to respond and some may think it is disrespectful to the OP who started this thread. Disclosing your knowledge in that other thread mostly will end up residing there and no where else. The participants of this thread may not know about that thread.

And yet a couple of posts ago you stated

Informing ourselves accurately about the nature of the world, morals, our own faith and indeed the meaning of the existence of God is a life long task for all of us and only terminated at death

I am trying to get myself informed since you claim I suffer from invincible ignorance. Since I was told I was wrong, all I want to know from you is why A and not B. Why do you think you are right and others are wrong. And so on.

And you decide to say bye bye without further enlightenment on the topic other than the degrees you have in. What a let down. But bye bye all the same.

Don’t get all flustered. You should show case what you have learned from your degrees and environment. Locking that away isn’t doing much useful work for God. After all you have the chance to get that education which many others may not be blessed with that opportunity. And I do wish you wouldn’t talk down to people less knowing than you. I hope they don’t teach that in theology school. CAF is not a gathering place where everyone here holds advance degrees in theology.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Don’t get all flustered. You should show case what you have learned from your degrees and environment. Locking that away isn’t doing much useful work for God. After all you have the chance to get that education which many others may not be blessed with that opportunity. And I do wish you wouldn’t talk down to people less knowing than you. I hope they don’t teach that in theology school. CAF is not a gathering place where everyone here holds advance degrees in theology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This problem took my attention when I was discussing another topic in another thread. The problem is that most of religious foundation authorities claim that they get their authority from God. How we are informed about God? Through religious foundation. This to me is circular and problematic. What do you think?

God backs up those to whom He has given genuine authority:

1 Corinthians 2
2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

 

[STT]

You choose to be in a state of ignorance. Plenty of people choose not to.

We cannot simply resist the revealed truth and stay in state of ignorance. You say I am in state of ignorance and I say that you too. We simply don’t know the truth.

People are also consolidated. The Catholic Church is a community of diverse peoples and cultures. So you choose to see the scattered people but not to observe the solidarity. This is cherry picking your data. With that methodology, how much confidence could you have in your data? How much confidence could you have in your analysis? You will be in perpetual doubt.

There are about 4,300 religions worldwide.

Simple reason being that God does not want compulsion. If he appears next to you with thunder and lightning and choirs of angels, you have no choice but to believe him. Surely you understand that you won’t be left with a choice NOT to believe he exist. But he leaves you with that choice. If he compels you to believe him, you would have complained either way. Correct?

No, there is no need for force. I just need that God show Himself to me and show me the truth. I am not asking for much.

And that is knowledge, isn’t it, self-acquired. Your assertion of ignorance imposition by God remains unsupported.

We cannot have the knowledge about something hidden from us.

I didn’t object to the statement that people can claimed to be God, a donkey or anything for that matter. What is important is whether it is true. And it is important that one discern the truth. And that can not be determined by avoidance or denial.

What is the truth?

We are talking about your position why you think atheist deserves heaven. I wish you could remain focused. If your final answer is that an atheist by merely being nice can go to heaven, I can accept that is your response since you have put much thought in it. It was a simple answer but Christianity doesn’t work that way. Sorry to disappoint you. I guess you do have the wrong thinking about the Christian faith. With wrong information, you could never make a proper decision to reject or accept it. Perhaps if you do not want to remain in ignorance, you can do something to alleviate that. Rather than go away with that erroneous mind set.

I am not talking about the fact that atheist are allowed to go to Heaven based in the Christian belief. I am saying that the Christian attitude toward atheist is incorrect hence your faith cannot be true. Why? Because we simply don’t know the truth.

I reckon that was just a diversionary tactic. But I will participate in a new thread on this point if you care to start one.

I will try to open another thread on the related topic if when I have time.

You can never be sure that there is no God. You can never be sure that there is no Heaven/Hell either. You can never be sure that there is no afterlife. So what do you want to do with that doubt? Deny it and everything’s fine?

That I agree. But the same apply to a believer: You can never be sure that there is a God. You can never be sure that there is Heaven/Hell either. You can never be sure that there is afterlife.

 

[STT]

God backs up those to whom He has given genuine authority:

1 Corinthians 2

2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

You didn’t get the problem, circularity, did you?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That is a sure strange way to participate in an online discussion. You asked me for the sources where I got my information and I shared that with you. I asked you for that same reciprocity and you throw your paper qualifications at me? Does that earn you the exemption not to respond to relevant queries? If you can’t find the time to participate and share in this post, you shouldn’t. Throwing another link from another post isn’t the most appropriate way to respond and some may think it is disrespectful to the OP who started this thread. Disclosing your knowledge in that other thread mostly will end up residing there and no where else. The participants of this thread may not know about that thread.

And yet a couple of posts ago you stated

I am trying to get myself informed since you claim I suffer from invincible ignorance. Since I was told I was wrong, all I want to know from you is why A and not B. Why do you think you are right and others are wrong. And so on.

And you decide to say bye bye without further enlightenment on the topic other than the degrees you have in. What a let down. But bye bye all the same.

Don’t get all flustered. You should show case what you have learned from your degrees and environment. Locking that away isn’t doing much useful work for God. After all you have the chance to get that education which many others may not be blessed with that opportunity. And I do wish you wouldn’t talk down to people less knowing than you. I hope they don’t teach that in theology school. CAF is not a gathering place where everyone here holds advance degrees in theology.

I have realized from your response that we do not share a common theological vocabulary that would make it either quick or easy to get to the point we might debate points that are actually debatable here. I have pointed you to a thread where persons raised exactly the same objections you just did, even down to cherry picking the same CCC quotes as you did.
I am sorry that you resent this. I have been polite but life is short and I don’t owe you anything further even if you did recognise I had something worthwhile to say. If you do not believe I have anything worthwhile to say then fine, go your own way and be at peace.