"Required to believe". An odd concept?

[AntiTheist]

Of course you mean physical evidence which is the realm of science. But consider that science depends on inductive reasoning, so that certain claims or ideas will be left out because they may not even have been discovered yet. So, in the final analysis, the results may not be correct (as happened before).

Sure. Our only option is to make the best conclusions based on the best evidence available to us at the time. If you have a better way to proceed, I’d like to hear it.

Ahhh. . . I can say the same thing that “we don’t need to ‘see’ things to know they exist – we believe evidence of their existence, which does not have to be visual.” Like an Intelligent Designer???

I’m not going to discuss the nonsense of “Intelligent Design” with you, except to note that it’s entirely different than experiments that demonstrate that electrons manifest.

One is a colossal argument from ignorance (“I don’t know how this could have evolved – therefore, god”), and the other is an actual gathering of data that unequivocably demonstrates that electrons have tangible, observable effects on the world.

Think about the saints who had the stigmata, the various revelations like Divine Mercy, Fatima, Lourdes?) How do you explain supernatural events? Hallucination?

How do you explain the Hindus who have had visions of their gods? The ancient Vikings who had visions of their gods? Etc, etc. It’s obvious that not all religious “visions” can be right, that some of these visionaries must simply be mistaken. That being the case, I see no grounds for thinking that any of these daydreams are not mistaken.

The gospels were preached by word of mouth and little by little written down but not in a whole volume. It was the Council of Carthage, held in 397 A.D. that settled the Canon of New Testament Scriptures. Should that lessen their authority just because someone didn’t walk around with a scroll and ink like a reporter following Jesus around?

Their authority is lessened by the fact that no contemporary author mentions Jesus at all. We have no eyewitness accounts of him and not the slightest idea of how accurate the gospel legends are.

This is not a sensible basis upon which to believe in magic.

My suggestion would be to read the four gospels first and then the letters of St. Paul and the apostles.

Why do you assume that I have not read these texts?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Thank you for ignoring my arguments, Anti-Theist. It’s a real blessing to know I’m the only one you didn’t challenge.

I proudly present you the Not Completely Anti-Theist cookie for failing to attack by arguments. Wear it proudly.

 

[4Horsemen]

One is a colossal argument from ignorance (“I don’t know how this could have evolved – therefore, god”), and the other is an actual gathering of data that unequivocably demonstrates that electrons have tangible, observable effects on the world.

There are other arguments these days since the time of Aristotle. For example, the classical Big Bang model which was superceded by the contemporary Big Bang model, which, in turn, was mitigated (for reasons I won’t go into) by the discovery of Borde, Guth and Vilenkin that every inflationary model universe (and/or multverse) must have a beginning.

Then there’s the teleological argument (from design) although it went out of favor during the time of Newton but is seemingly making a come-back along with Aquinas’ Uncaused Cause argument, and the notion of simplicity, which is capable of explaining fields. And, of course, the idea of constants and then twentieth-century philosopher Bernard Lonergan’s proof (which I won’t bother to explain).

How do you explain the Hindus who have had visions of their gods? The ancient Vikings who had visions of their gods? Etc, etc. It’s obvious that not all religious “visions” can be right, that some of these visionaries must simply be mistaken. That being the case, I see no grounds for thinking that any of these daydreams are not mistaken.

Any highly emotional leader or partaker of a religious system can work themselves up into a lather and see things or be lacking chemicals in the brain or whatever. Think of the Mormon leader and other religious fruits and nuts, even Christians who think they see the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast. At Fatima, Our Lady predicted a miracle for October 13th which was seen for up to 40 miles around. Maybe more. So you’re right. “Some of these visionaries must simply be mistaken.” (For Catholcis, it is apparent that Garabandel and Medjugorje are false).

Their authority is lessened by the fact that no contemporary author mentions Jesus at all. We have no eyewitness accounts of him and not the slightest idea of how accurate the gospel legends are.

What about Flavius Josephus?

1. (63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.

Why do you assume that I have not read these texts?

Actually, I just read a new Pew Survey on Religion that found atheists knowing more about the bible than Catholics. I’m thinking of starting a thread on it if there isn’t one already. This one may be dying.

One question: What do you tell your children (if you have any) about where they go when they die? They just vanish? Of course you can just let them know that they will just go into a hole, that their lives are no more relevant than a fly or mosquito or the family dog. Or maybe they can go into an urn to decorate the mantelplace. Hopefully the cat won’t knock it over. (There was a funny movie a while back with just that happening. LOL!!!)

 

[4Horsemen]

Thank you for ignoring my arguments, Anti-Theist. It’s a real blessing to know I’m the only one you didn’t challenge.

I proudly present you the Not Completely Anti-Theist cookie for failing to attack by arguments. Wear it proudly.

He probably doesn’t have an answer to things profound and eternal verities other than “nothingness”, which, of course, is nothing. Drab, dull, nothingness.

 

[Light1111]

By mutually exclusive do you mean in our eyes or in the eyes of God?

Yes.

Question: If God is the Creator of all that is, all that ever will or could be;
if we all are His children;
then is it the case that, even if in a round-about way, all of our behaviors and thoughts belong to Him, on some level? Even taking free will into account?

If this is the case, then does that mean, in a certain sense, that all things are “true?” Meaning, apparently conflictual, or mutually-exclusive ideas, can simultaneously exist, and each hold at least a kernel of inherent truth and “reality”? In a way, how can even a thought occur to an individual, if it doesn’t have some root in reality? Some root in God?

Perhaps this is too philosophical for this discussion, but your points made this question spark up in my mind. I wonder if in God’s omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent view, it’s impossible to see “true fault” or error with any belief, idea, thought, that a person might hold. If it’s possible to think something . . .it had to come from somewhere.

I could be far off the mark on this, but at times I think that by virtue of God being the creator of all things that exist, He is, in a sense, the Author of all – even the contents of minds, spirits, hearts, and religions, the world over. Nothing could exist, if it didn’t in some way match a deeper truth that comes from God.

I know this idea appears to conflict with essences of evil witnessed the world over, and throughout human history, and yet, to my mind, that very split or dichotomy is what I am addressing. I don’t see any way out of the fact that even that which comes from the apparent darkness must find ultimate origins in and with God, as He is the ultimate Author of All.

Is this compatible with Teachings? Even taking the “Devil” into account–isn’t he subject to God’s dominion, too?

 

[AntiTheist]

Any highly emotional leader or partaker of a religious system can work themselves up into a lather and see things or be lacking chemicals in the brain or whatever.

Absolutely, but that being the case, on what grounds do you decide to accept any of these “revelations” as genuine? In other words, if you admit that “spiritual experiences” can be delusions, how then do you know that the spiritual experiences that you consider genuine are actually so?

From where I sit, I don’t see any grounds to accept any of them as genuine.

What about Flavius Josephus?

Not a contemporary.

Additionally, the passage you cite has been suggested to be a fraud (as it is rather odd that a Jew would write that Jesus “was the Christ”).

One question: What do you tell your children (if you have any) about where they go when they die? They just vanish?

Though I don’t have children of my own yet, I know other atheists with children, and they’ve done variations of the “there was a time when you didn’t exist – one day there’ll be a time when you don’t exist again, so let’s make the most of the time we have” bit.

Frankly, I think the best approach is honesty: I’m going to tell my kids that nobody knows what happens when you die. I’m going to stress the “let’s make the most of the time we have” part, and when they’re a little bit older, I’ll be sure to educate them on the most contemporary research into the brain, which suggests that personality and everything that comprises what we call “I” is rooted in brain activity (to the extent that serious brain injuries have been known to change the personality and that some subjects have actually had “split personalities” induced).

The fact that we won’t be around forever makes life more precious, not less, and it takes a warped, life-denying mind to think of it any other way.

 

[AntiTheist]

Thank you for ignoring my arguments, Anti-Theist. It’s a real blessing to know I’m the only one you didn’t challenge.

My eyes skipped over your post because you ineptly used the “quote” feature, making it look on first glance as if you had simply quoted my text and nothing more.

I read your post, and I don’t see anything remotely resembling an argument of any kind. I saw some knuckle-headed attempt to say, “You’re only good because you grew up in a Christian society!” which is both pretty silly and demonstrably false – for example, I know people who grew up in Asia and various non-Christian societies, and their ideas of the “good” are quite similar to my own.

And now you make a childish post clamoring for my attention, all because I didn’t answer a camouflaged post that lacks any substance.

But hey, at least you got to be mentioned in one of my posts. You can cross that one off your “bucket list” – keep reaching for those stars.

 

[Tietjen]

You can consciously make a decision that this or that entity has the authority and the wisdom to know what they are talking about, and to believe what they tell you. We do this not only with the Church, but also with pretty much every other aspect of our lives.

We make a decision of which news sources we choose to trust, and whether or not to trust what our teachers and parents tell us.

We choose which experts in our field of employment to believe, when we are receiving job training - if one group seems to be reliable and experienced, we go with whatever they tell us to do, without nit-picking the details, most of the time.

If you’re the cook in your household, you know which recipe books you trust.

I know of very few people who spend their lives becoming personally expert in every single category that affects their lives. At some point, we all put our trust in experts.

It’s no different with religion - if you have put your trust in the Catholic Church, you will believe the things that it teaches. If you don’t, then yeah - you need to become something else - and then be consistent in believing whatever they tell you to believe.

Exactly! I am of the opinion that one CAN chose to believe “X” based on the trust they place in the source for the belief. For example, if I were left to decide on my own, using my limited knowledge and understanding concerning the issue of ABC; I very well may be a proponent of artificial contraception. My limited reasoning tells me that no life is being taken, no physical pain is being brought upon another, and no general harm is being done. However, because I love and respect the Church I suppress what “I think is okay” and defer to Church teaching. It’s kind of like when I was a young child and my parents told me “never talk to strangers.” I didn’t have the knowledge to understand why I shouldn’t speak to them (my parents didn’t tell me that some people might try to steal me, kill me, or worse - I suppose they didn’t wish to scare me). However, I believed and obeyed what they taught me because I loved and trusted them to look out for my welfare. Now, the Church is my mother and I know that regardless whether I completely understand the reasons behind what she instructs, I know that she is looking out for my welfare and I accept her authority willingly.

 

[TarkanAttila]

My eyes skipped over your post because you ineptly used the “quote” feature, making it look on first glance as if you had simply quoted my text and nothing more.

I read your post, and I don’t see anything remotely resembling an argument of any kind. I saw some knuckle-headed attempt to say, “You’re only good because you grew up in a Christian society!” which is both pretty silly and demonstrably false – for example, I know people who grew up in Asia and various non-Christian societies, and their ideas of the “good” are quite similar to my own.

And now you make a childish post clamoring for my attention, all because I didn’t answer a camouflaged post that lacks any substance.

But hey, at least you got to be mentioned in one of my posts. You can cross that one off your “bucket list” – keep reaching for those stars.

You say they come from Non-Christian societies. But they did come from religious societies. (And all religion is, to some degree or another, a reflection of Christianity and thus worship of God, according to Nostra Aetate, anyway.) Almost all of the world is still religious in some way or another whether you like it or not. Take the underground groups in atheistic countries like China and the Former Soviet Union for an example. Plenty of them. In fact, I can’t say as I know of a basely atheistic state on the globe - at least not one that is coarser and less welcoming in exchange for being smarter (though not wiser).

And I’m willing to step up to the plate and say, “Yes. Part of the reason I’m here is to annoy you.”
http://kindalame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/trollface.gif

But it’s also because I find atheism to be the spiritual equivalent of chain smoking every day for the rest of your life. You don’t acknowledge your own supernatural, God-given spirit, and in doing so it sticks out from you like a sore thumb needing tending.

A finite lifespan on this Earth, BTW, is precious regardless of the factor of an afterlife, unless you believe everyone will go to Heaven or are an O.S.A.S. Christian. Catholics are neither. Earth’s a chance for you to prove your spiritual mettle and prepare yourself for the afterlife. Earth’s the boot camp for the Soldiers in the Army of the Lord.

 

[4Horsemen]

Absolutely, but that being the case, on what grounds do you decide to accept any of these “revelations” as genuine? In other words, if you admit that “spiritual experiences” can be delusions, how then do you know that the spiritual experiences that you consider genuine are actually so?

From where I sit, I don’t see any grounds to accept any of them as genuine.

Even the Church is very meticulous about supernatural sightings, visions, and the like and very few are confirmed as true. When there are obvious miracles that cannot be denied (such as incredible healings at Lourdes–even today) or prophecies that come true (such as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the beginning of the second World War, and the prediction of Our Lady that young Jacinta and Francisco would go to Heaven soon, but Lucia must remain on earth to spread devotion to her Immaculate Heart, also, various conversions of atheists and Communists), then the Church investigates to determine authenticity as it did for the aforementioned miracles. Of course there are others such as the visions of Our Lord to St. Faustina to bring to the world the gift of Divine Mercy.

To understand, AntiTheist, you’d need to do some reading, studying, and even a few attempts at prayer. I can only tell you from my own experience as I had already mentioned that I left the Church in my college years but through much effort on my part (and probably God’s as well) I came back, baby step after baby step. I must admit, though, that I did have gracious help in the form of little spiritual gifts which I couldn’t deny.

Not a contemporary.

Additionally, the passage you cite has been suggested to be a fraud (as it is rather odd that a Jew would write that Jesus “was the Christ”).

So, are you saying that Jesus Christ, in His human form, did not exist on the earth? As I mentioned earlier, the messages, miracles, parables, life and death of Jesus was first handed down by tradition before it was written. The same is true of the Old Testament I believe. As for a Jew writing that Jesus “was the Christ,” perhaps he became a Christian, or perhaps he just used the word “Christ” meaning “King” in a human sense instead of divine. Some theologians might be able to answer that.

Another thing. Before Jesus ascended into Heaven, He told his apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit who would remind them of everything. After the Ascension, the Holy Spirit came upon them nine days later, hence, novenas became popular forms of prayer.

Though I don’t have children of my own yet, I know other atheists with children, and they’ve done variations of the “there was a time when you didn’t exist – one day there’ll be a time when you don’t exist again, so let’s make the most of the time we have” bit.

Frankly, there’s nothing disagreeable about that. But a Christian would go further and say that we are made for God and how we live our lives on earth will determine our place in eternity. So live life to the fullest as God has set forth for you (since you can choose but you can’t have everything you choose) and accept what you cannot change.

Frankly, I think the best approach is honesty: I’m going to tell my kids that nobody knows what happens when you die. I’m going to stress the “let’s make the most of the time we have” part, and when they’re a little bit older, I’ll be sure to educate them on the most contemporary research into the brain, which suggests that personality and everything that comprises what we call “I” is rooted in brain activity (to the extent that serious brain injuries have been known to change the personality and that some subjects have actually had “split personalities” induced).

I have no problem with informing my chldren about all the latest in scientific findings and technologies. I’m sure they’d know more about it than me since scientific knowledge increases continuously. Those who study the brain will, hopefully, learn the causes of various ailments as you mentioned. However, if you’re saying this knowledge replaces the idea of a soul created in the image and likeness of God, it does not. Somehow, we are higher than the animals, and it’s not just brain activity.

Also, I would hope you would give your children a well-rounded education and let them know about how spiritual people view these things-- if you want them truly educated. I wish that I had learned more about how people other than Catholics thought in grade school and high school so I would have been prepared to deal with it. (We did learn about heresies, though, so maybe it’s my own fault that I strayed so far from God and His great love for us.

The fact that we won’t be around forever makes life more precious, not less, and it takes a warped, life-denying mind to think of it any other way.

I hope you’re not inferring that I (and my fellow Christians) have a “warped, life-denying mind”. I don’t think that way about you.

 

[4Horsemen]

AntiTheist:

I forgot to ask you an important question.

Do you have a value system or moral code of some kind?

If so, on what do you base it? On the Judeo-Christian Laws (The Ten Commandments), the Code of Hammurabi, your own personal set of laws that are codified, your own personal laws governing each personal act? (In other words, “everything is relative.”)

In addition, did you know you are only one of 4% who claim to be atheist and agnostic combined according to the Pew Survey? Your kids may wonder why they are different, not that being different is wrong. (Sometimes the minority is correct). Still, kids usually don’t like to be too different from their friends. Were you always an atheist? I mean were you brought up in that anti-religion? Or did you decide early on (you seem to be a young dude)?

Although the above are personal question, I think they are relevant to the discussion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

One way or another we are all not really required to believe anything. We believe things individually and then allow others to require things of us. We decide to be Catholic; it’s our decision, not required. We allow the pope to require things of us because obviously we believe in the pope and the things he teaches. One way or another we’re free agents, at least in the beginning, when we allow others to require things of us. So if we let the pope tell us x, y, and z, we are essentially giving him permission to dictate our thinking. As a result, we are doing the thinking to a point.

 

[4Horsemen]

One way or another we are all not really required to believe anything. We believe things individually and then allow others to require things of us. We decide to be Catholic; it’s our decision, not required. We allow the pope to require things of us because obviously we believe in the pope and the things he teaches. One way or another we’re free agents, at least in the beginning, when we allow others to require things of us. So if we let the pope tell us x, y, and z, we are essentially giving him permission to dictate our thinking. As a result, we are doing the thinking to a point.

I basically agree with that assessment, but I just want to,perhaps, stretch it a bit.

If believers are not born into a particular faith or religion, they often choose what seems to suit their lifestyle more than attempting to understand what the faith teaches, its doctrines and disciplines. Protestants tend to flock after an enigmatic preacher for example or seek a church because of its fellowship.

Catholics who want to remain in the Church, although they’ve decided not to believe all the Church teaches, become “cafeteria Catholics” believing what they want. They generally don’t think they are “required to believe” all the Church teaches. Then there are those who decide to leave because, as said in Scripture, they have “itching ears” for something new. As someone mentioned somewhere, these are the seeds that fall on rocky ground.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi 4horse,

I agree with the sentiment. I have a friend who is a hardcore, raging Republican. He’s a 100% red-state down the line talking points believer. He was protestant his whole life. At age 52 he started to realize that the Catholic Church coincided with his GOP beliefs regarding

same sex marriage
gays
abortion
stem cells
pre marital sex
anti-communist
traditional and opposed to innovation
etc.

So he and his wife converted. He has been a hardcore Catholic all the way. When the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops took up Obama’s universal healthcare cause, my friend’s statement was “it’s not from the pope, not infallible so forggggget it!”

Same with the open borders policies of Bush and Obama, not infallible, not mandatory, not buyin’ it!

On and on. He basically became Catholic because it fit HIS mindset that he already had. The things he doesn’t like to hear like “just war” in relation to George W. Bush’s Iraq crusade? Bah, ignore that…so he came to Catholicism to find a religion that suited him. The parts that don’t, they’re not infallible anyway so pooey! He never misses Mass, goes to confession weekly, follows the rules all the way. On other things he tends to just trust the pope in which seems to me to be a “heck, the pope agrees with ME on everything else so I’ll agree with him. Two great minds. He must be right so I’ll follow.”

I’m not so sure that’s kosher and healthy either. And I talk to a lot of hardcore conservative Republicans in CAF that seem to fit this mold!

I basically agree with that assessment, but I just want to,perhaps, stretch it a bit.

If believers are not born into a particular faith or religion, they often choose what seems to suit their lifestyle more than attempting to understand what the faith teaches, its doctrines and disciplines. Protestants tend to flock after an enigmatic preacher for example or seek a church because of its fellowship.

Catholics who want to remain in the Church, although they’ve decided not to believe all the Church teaches, become “cafeteria Catholics” believing what they want. They generally don’t think they are “required to believe” all the Church teaches. Then there are those who decide to leave because, as said in Scripture, they have “itching ears” for something new. As someone mentioned somewhere, these are the seeds that fall on rocky ground.

 

[AntiTheist]

incredible healings at Lourdes–even today

Well, this is a good example because it’s testable.

If the water from Lourdes really has healing properties, beyond that of a placebo effect that can be created by a sugar pill, let’s test it. Take a few hundred patients with terminal diseases of various kinds, sprinkle one group with water from Lourdes and another group with regular tap water. Neither the patients nor the doctors will know which group is getting which water – the water bottles will be labeled with symbols that only the experiment’s coordinators know the meanings of – so the experiment will be double blinded.

Do you think the patients being given the water from Lourdes will demonstrate a remission rate significantly higher than the general population (what we would expect naturally from chance)? Do you think that this experiment can be performed again and again and again, consistently producing results far above those remission rates expected without magic water?

See, if you can demonstrate this – which, obviously you could if this stuff were real – then you would have hard evidence that something is special about this particular water. That, in and of itself wouldn’t be evidence of the truth of your religion, but it would be one heck of start, and all of a sudden you’d have actual scientists seriously interested in investigating other Catholic miracles. You’d have grant money pouring in, people seriously taking an interest in your claims, and you’d be on the road to confirming that your religion is true.

Why do you suppose that such an experiment has never been done and never will?

So, are you saying that Jesus Christ, in His human form, did not exist on the earth?

No. I don’t have enough information to make that claim.

I think that there probably was a person (or people)upon whom the Jesus legends were based (in the same way that a historical king [or kings] probably served as the basis of the King Arthur legends).

I don’t think that there is enough evidence to say that the Jesus who is depicted in the Gospels – i.e. working magical miracles – actually existed. The evidence of a handful of stories passed down by a cult that worshipped the guy isn’t sufficient to confirm that the supernatural accounts are true.

Also, I would hope you would give your children a well-rounded education and let them know about how spiritual people view these things-- if you want them truly educated.

I think that an important part of education is learning about world religions and the roles that they’ve played in history. For example, a working knowledge of the Bible is imperative if you want to understand a lot of literature, even literature written by skeptics and atheists.

Joseph Campbell’s work on comparative mythology provides a nice introduction to world myths, and gives an interesting – if not necessarily correct – framework for thinking about them. That’s a good place to start learning about the myths of various nations.

I hope you’re not inferring that I (and my fellow Christians) have a “warped, life-denying mind”. I don’t think that way about you.

I was implying it, actually, and I didn’t specifically have anyone in mind – other than the people who hold such a position.

 

[AntiTheist]

AntiTheist:

I forgot to ask you an important question.

Do you have a value system or moral code of some kind?

I have personal standards of conduct.

If so, on what do you base it?

On my rational analysis of the situations I face, coupled with my values, which derive from a number of sources, not all of which are rational. For example, as a human being who is part of a race that evolved with a tendency towards cooperative behavior, I have a natural, non-rational feeling of displeasure at seeing someone else in pain. As a result, when I see someone in pain, part of my desire is to alleviate my own discomfort by helping. I weigh this desire against options and (likely) potential outcomes, and I decide upon a course of action.

In addition, did you know you are only one of 4% who claim to be atheist and agnostic combined according to the Pew Survey?

So what? The labels mean different things to different people, and they produce far too much confusion, in my opinion.

You can label me whatever you want. The pertinent fact in this discussion, and all other discussions like it, is that I don’t accept any of the supernatural god claims I have heard.

I don’t go around identifying with labels. They’re conventions useful in discussions like these, and not much else.

did you decide early on (you seem to be a young dude)?

I did a lot of reading and thinking, and I came to the conclusion that belief in supernatural beings is not justified by reason, based on the evidence that is currently available.

 

[a_priori]

Question: If God is the Creator of all that is, all that ever will or could be; if we all are His children; then is it the case that, even if in a round-about way, all of our behaviors and thoughts belong to Him, on some level? Even taking free will into account?

If this is the case, then does that mean, in a certain sense, that all things are “true?” Meaning, apparently conflictual, or mutually-exclusive ideas, can simultaneously exist, and each hold at least a kernel of inherent truth and “reality”? In a way, how can even a thought occur to an individual, if it doesn’t have some root in reality? Some root in God?

Perhaps this is too philosophical for this discussion, but your points made this question spark up in my mind. I wonder if in God’s omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent view, it’s impossible to see “true fault” or error with any belief, idea, thought, that a person might hold. If it’s possible to think something . . .it had to come from somewhere.

I could be far off the mark on this, but at times I think that by virtue of God being the creator of all things that exist, He is, in a sense, the Author of all – even the contents of minds, spirits, hearts, and religions, the world over. Nothing could exist, if it didn’t in some way match a deeper truth that comes from God.

I know this idea appears to conflict with essences of evil witnessed the world over, and throughout human history, and yet, to my mind, that very split or dichotomy is what I am addressing. I don’t see any way out of the fact that even that which comes from the apparent darkness must find ultimate origins in and with God, as He is the ultimate Author of All.

Is this compatible with Teachings? Even taking the “Devil” into account–isn’t he subject to God’s dominion, too?

Hi Light, I’ve read your post a number of times in the last day or two. I think it contains many of those nagging unanswerable questions that have dogged philosophers and theologians since there have been philosophers and theologians. It made me think of Kant’s view of the limitations of reason apart from experience. Professor Lawrence Cahoone of Holy Cross said it very well in a Teaching Company lecture series on The Modern Intellectual Tradition. He said that Kant’s view of reason in this context could be illustrated by a jet with an engine that uses air to function in the atmosphere. If you try to take it into space it will not function. The same with reason. It will only give us so much without malfunctioning and creating illusions. I believe this is true.

This is why my personal take on these matters follows a sort of quantum mechanical model. I am Catholic because it represents an area of higher probability for me on the continuum of philosophical possibilities. But I’ve pretty much resigned myself to acknowledging I know nothing and have no hope of actually “knowing” anything in this life, physical or metaphysical. That’s why faith exists I guess, to give the option of searching for that last puzzle piece.

(There are those here that freak out when people claim to be Catholic but question things. So, I guess I don’t know if I’m Catholic. I go to a Catholic Church and they think I’m Catholic. So who knows?)

It seems from your posts that you take these questions very seriously. To be honest, they keep me up at night sometimes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Light1111]

a priori: thanks for your thoughtful response. These questions keep me up sometimes, too. I’m not upset by these prospects, rather, I find their potential conclusions quite a relief. We argue quite a bit, here on the ground, about this idea or that, and the meat of the argument centers on each person believing that with enough force or evidence, they could be proven “right” – eventually! Sometimes the desire to be “right” is centered in one’s own ego; other times it is the desire in one’s heart to defend a teaching, a belief system, an ideal.

I try to imagine God viewing all of these arguments from His vantage point, where He of course can foresee their origins before either pundit had opportunity to formulate the thoughts; where he can foresee the outcome before it is “decided” by the ground-level contingent; where he can understand every assertion, and the roots of every assertion – and find the kernels of truth, in each, as well – regardless of who “wins.”

I try to imagine God viewing all the various religious people, in their moments of heartfelt worship, as well. The Hindus, the Jews, the Muslems, the Episcopalians, the Buddhists, the Catholics. Since He is God, and knows and sees all – since you can’t really surprise God – since God understands the motivations for every action and inaction – I find it hard to imagine that he ever truly disapproves of anything. Perhaps He looks down and, seeing someone is of a mind that will lead him toward restlessness, anguish, lack of faith, despair – that might give Him a moment’s regret, that here again we see one more child who is bound to suffer in this life, due to (essentially) his pessimistic world view. But God knows what we do not – we might see some outside agitator. God sees the little boy who scarcely felt love, who reached out for compassion and yet did not find it. Does He condemn the adult the boy became?

But even then, God understands. He knows how that fellow got himself into such a bind.

I know that Catholicism states that the only path to God is through His Son, and through the strict dogma of the Catholic Church. I just don’t see God, in His infinite dimensions, being “a Catholic.” I think He has a vantage point that is superior to ours (that’s a given, naturally), and thus, He can’t really find Himself offended by those who worship differently, yet who He finds in deep repose, obviously sincere of heart in their intentions to find Him, and to show their gratitude, their remorse, their sincere adoration, their love.

Whatever teachings those individuals might follow; whatever Good Books they might read; whatever prayers or rituals they might undertake, I find myself deciding that all God can do is witness these quiet moments, and gauge for Himself the true intent of these many men and women the world over who do not consider themselves to be Catholic. Whatever they call themselves instead, I imagine God is above concerning Himself with the specific name or style of that religious practice. Instead I imagine Him smiling, grateful that yet another small group of people are seeking to find Him; seeking to pay their thanks and praise; seeking to let Him know they are down here, worshiping Him.

I’m never surprised to think that humans might argue over this point or that; what I find impossible to imagine is God feeling similarly moved to reject this view point over this other one. He knows where each of us find our justifications, our reasons, our beliefs, our doubts. And because He does know all the myriad circumstances that play out in our lives, leading us to this sacred moment . . .I believe He can simply remain our ever-vigilant witness: our ever-vigilant Father, who loves us to our cores. Faults and all. Doubts and all. Pain-in-the-neck, and all. You cannot surprise God!

 

[PAboy57]

Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

Hi a priori,

My mind only has trouble dialing in on the dogma that my mind and body want to break. The flesh is weak. After reading all the reason behind the dogma I always agree with the Church – but I still have to fight temptation.

I think we are held accountable for our actions. We may think it would be enjoyable to break the rules but we don’t. I’ll call that fighting temptation. We get bonus points for that as that builds treasure in heaven. I think by the grace of God we can actually dial in the mind, understand the dogma and accept it. It takes an open mind to listen and process the logic behind the dogma. If the mind is closed then we refuse to believe in the truth. Trust in mother church goes a long way when it comes to accepting dogma.

God Bless.

 

[PAboy57]

I try to imagine God viewing all the various religious people, in their moments of heartfelt worship, as well. The Hindus, the Jews, the Muslems, the Episcopalians, the Buddhists, the Catholics. Since He is God, and knows and sees all – since you can’t really surprise God – since God understands the motivations for every action and inaction – I find it hard to imagine that he ever truly disapproves of anything. Perhaps He looks down and, seeing someone is of a mind that will lead him toward restlessness, anguish, lack of faith, despair – that might give Him a moment’s regret, that here again we see one more child who is bound to suffer in this life, due to (essentially) his pessimistic world view. But God knows what we do not – we might see some outside agitator. God sees the little boy who scarcely felt love, who reached out for compassion and yet did not find it. Does He condemn the adult the boy became?

Dear Light,

This reasoning will get most people in a heap of trouble. Maybe you can stand alone and do exactly what God wants but most of us need a support system. I choose Catholic because I believe the way they practice is most pleasing to God.

I tried it on my own and I didn’t do very well. I also don’t think that God accepts just any type of praise – read the OT and the guidelines established for worship.

We are born with a sense of right and wrong and God will punish the little boy who becomes a bad man. My 2 cents worth.

Take care.