The false belief that religions are more or less equal

[Steve_Andersen]

Madaglan:

…Ok, so this is what my mom told me. She told me that she is glad that my sister and I have both found comfort in our religious beliefs. In other words, she sees a religion as on par with a social club. It doesn’t matter if the church to which you belong is the one and only Church; so long as it makes you feel better, I’m happy, is what she seems to be saying.

OR perhaps she was saying that having her children belong to a church is preferable to them not belonging anywhere.

Just like someone being glad their kid is reading a comic book because at least it means they’re reading.

Perhaps your mother is glad that you and your sister are at least grappling with spiritual questions.

Madaglan:

I wouldn’t mind this personal incident; but it seems to be a common problem growing in this country. I think that the constantly splitting nature of Protestantism, and each Protestant church’s need to advertise their church with special effects, is to blame. Until just recently in this century one was a Lutheran, an Anglican, a Baptist, a Presbyterian, etc. primarily because one believed in what that group taught. I’m sure that most of the people who switched churches did so because they truly believed that the church to which they switched was better representative of what Christ and the apostles taught.

However, in our present age, it seems that people jump around in Protestant churches because of the ambience rather than doctrine. The Lutheran or Presbyterian liturgy is too archaic for many; so they join some Evangelical Free church which features Christian rock bands every Sunday. Unfortunately I believe that, as more and more Christians join these stimulating churches, the more and more these Christians will lose the central beliefs of Christianity, which thank God we Catholics review every time we go to Mass. Unfortunately, many Catholics, along with more traditional Protestants, are being attracted to these spectacular services.

Perhaps if you don’t find your services stimulating then you should switch parishes

I would think that even now many people attend the church they do because it is the one they were born into. This was probably especially true in pre-modern times when most people were born, lived, and died within a few square miles.

I agree with you that some of those generic non-denominational churches are more sizzle than steak and I find the “praise choir” (?) empty and annoying

Would I prefer everyone to be an RC…sure just like I would rather see people read literature than comic books
BUT at least they’re reading
They’re going someplace regularly, they’re standing up with their friends and family, and they’re searching.

It’s a start.

All religions may not be equal but barring some extreme occult beliefs it is probably better than nothing.

As for churches advertising….faith alone doesn’t pay the bills. Even with the Truth, if you don’t have bums on seats (or pews in this case) you’re out of business.

Madaglan:

What do other people think about these more spectacular services? Do you see them as a danger to present and future Catholic youth? Will future Catholics see the Mass as too “boring” compared to these more modern services?

Well, personally it is some of the more “modern” aspects of the mass like some of new cadences and the (hate to admit it but it is true) awful music that turn me off. But it really comes down to the quality of the sermon. Choirs and tambourines may get folks in the doors for a while but sooner or later you’re going to need something a little more serious to keep them.

Sure McDonalds sells a lot of burgers…and I suppose it provides a minimum nutrition but there will always be fine restaurants for those who hunger.

 

[hecd2]

Alterum:

hecd2:

My question is this - in all this maze of belief and disagreement, how do I as a rational alien, unburdened with the bias of being born into this faith or that, come to the conclusion that any one of these deeply held convictions should hold sway over all the others. What are the criteria that I should apply, and in applying these criteria, why should I come to the conclusion that the mainstream version of Catholic belief represents truth and all others are mistaken? Why?

The next morning, I wonder what I’m doing face-down in a sandbox. As I slowly recall what occurred the day before, I find my thoughts racing once again. Deciding that a Power Ranger – if there are in fact Power Rangers – is not such a big deal, I head for the door. As my hand reaches for the knob, the door swings back and there stands some fat kid with stained shirt and a “Billy” name tag holding an undeniably wrestled-over Blue Power Ranger.

Then I tell myself (smugly?) that next time I have to deal with a Power Ranger theft, remember that all groups stories “aren’t equal in the sense that ‘one is as good as another.’"

Dear Alterum,

Thanks for this lively and entertaining parable. You were one of only two people who made any kind of an attempt to answer my question. I’m not really surprised by that. It’s a question that I have been asking for years and I really haven’t found a compelling answer to it. So it’s not surprising that everyone else chose not to try.

Entertaining as your parable was, I wonder what you were trying to say. Are you suggesting that we can distinguish between the true and false religions by

• reference to the most populous religion? That accolade has changed over time and will change in the future. Simple popularity is not a good measure of truth.
• considering which one is most ‘consistent’?. Well, that wouldn’t necessarily be Catholicism which is a very recent invention in human history, and which would be considered by some as a breakaway cult from Judaism . But why is consistency a guide to truth? People have consistently been wrong about many things!
• that they ‘seem right’, which is I guess what every adherent to every religion ever would claim.

Now then, if we accept that all religions are not more or less equal, how do we tell which one embodies the truth?

By the way - what’s a Power Ranger?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Trust in God:

Hi Alec,

Hi Jennifer, you won’t mind me commenting a little on your reasons, will you? This is just my take on them and fully recognise that you’ll see them quite differently.

1. There is only One God. This Truth is attainable if you need to discern it, such as the Greek philosphers did.

I’d say that the existence of God is not a plainly discernible truth, never mind the existence of one God.

1. He communicated with His creatures through the Word and the Holy Spirit in the written word of the Bible. These Truths are evident in the the written word. IF you need to study them, you can find it yourself or you can believe it as told to you by others of more learning, just as we believe that there are atoms in all things, things we common people have never seen but believe.

I can demonstrate the existence of atoms in a school laboratory with equipment worth a few 10s of bucks. Whereas, it seems to me that the bible is a wonderful collection of literature from the Middle East containing the history, myth, songs, poetry, politics, law and prophecy of a small but influential tribe. There is nothing, however, to indicate that it is any more the inspired word of God (which being we haven’t actuually agreed necessarily existed) than are the Bhagavad Gita or the rest of the Mahabharata, the Quran, the Talmud, the Veda, or the Book of Mormon.

1. The religion Judaism was instituted by God to His creatures for mankind’s redemption.

So you say. How do I know that’s true?

1. He sent His Only Son to redeem His creatures.

Ditto

1. His Son, His Only Son instituted a church. I repeat. A , singular, church. He walked, talked, taught by word, by example and by His presence, His disciples and His apostles. These things He gave to them were truths which reveal ONE TRUTH , which is He.

How do you know this other than through faith?

1. Thus, only two religions were instituted by God.One was fulfilled by Christ and the other is the Catholic Church.

Whoa there! Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We haven’t agreed that God exists yet, so evidence from Her claimed action in setting up two religions is important to you, but seems to me to be a circular argument.

If your desire is true and you seek the TRUTH, you will find it. They (the pollsters) claim there are over 33,000 christian denomination. I challenge any real seeker of TRUTH, to see if the church you practice your faith at can be traced back to a man or a group of men, at which point, ask WHEN in time was it? If somehow you find that your historical search doesn’t leads you back directly to Jesus Christ, then you may want to evaluate YOUR faith.

Aha! - I’m not talking only about Chistianity - I am asking how we know, amongst all the religions of the world from animism to Zoroastrianism which one has the truth.

Are you following a false shepherd because maybe a hundred twenty years ago your great-great grandfather got ticked off at the priest who had strayed from the path, THE WAY and decided he was going to fix it himself or other reasons.

Well, actually, I am not following a shepherd at all, since I do not consider myself or other humans to be sheep. Iwas born into the Catholic faith.

The Catholic Church is the only one which can do that. It is the only one that has kept ALL the truths revealed by the Son.

But why do we think the Son has special status to reveal truth?

With humility, I submit this,

Jennifer

Thank you Jennifer. I hope you don’t feel I’ve been too harsh. What you have put forward are wonderul reasons for you - they just don’t work for me. That’s my failing and your blessing.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[ppcpilot]

Everything in this universe is too fine tuned to not have been designed. There has to be a creator. If I take a bulldozer apart and throw all of the pieces into an ocean, wait a billion years, will that bulldozer put itself back together again to form a new bulldozer? I don’t think so. And so it was with the original building blocks of life.

I think the burden is on you to prove to me that a creator does not exist.

 

[hecd2]

ppcpilot:

Everything in this universe is too fine tuned to not have been designed. There has to be a creator. If I take a bulldozer apart and throw all of the pieces into an ocean, wait a billion years, will that bulldozer put itself back together again to form a new bulldozer? I don’t think so. And so it was with the original building blocks of life.

I think the burden is on you to prove to me that a creator does not exist.

Dear Pilot

1. What exactly is so fine tuned that a creator is necessary?
2. The bulldozer analogy is irrelevant as bulldozers don’t self-replicate with modest error.
3. If I start with fluctuations in the scalar field of inflation, I get the observed anisotropies in the CMB and ultimately the observed stars, galaxies, galactic clusters etc. Oceans arise on minor planets in this cosmology. So the thing you want to throw your buldozer into is explained by naturalistic evolution of the starting conditions of the universe.
4. All of this is, anyway, irrelevant to this thread which is about how we can know which of the hundreds or thousands of different faiths represents the truth and how we n know that. Have you got any insight into that? No-one else seems to have.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[Grolsch]

Once again I recommend reading GK Chesterton. He has such wonderful insights.

The Everlasting Man:

dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html

Orthodoxy:

dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/

No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open. The Buddhist saint has a sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The mediaeval saint’s body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. There cannot be any real community of spirit between forces that produced symbols so different as that. Granted that both images are extravagances, are perversions of the pure creed, it must be a real divergence which could produce such opposite extravagances. The Buddhist is looking with a peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with, a frantic intentness outwards. If we follow that clue steadily we shall find some interesting things.

 

[lindalou725]

Well said, Jennifer :clapping: It just seems so logical to me. The bible clearly shows Jesus setting up A Church–only one. This Church is also his BODY (remember when Paul was knocked off his horse and Jesus said, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME? We know that Saul/Paul was persecuting Christians) and Jesus takes it PERSONALLY when someone attacks his own.

Jesus also said, “He who rejects you, rejects me.” (Apostolic teaching) and this teaching was handed down from the apostles to the people. And the Apostles laid hands on others to carry on the work.

Read the early Church Fathers. The reformers of the 16th century had their own idea’s and tried to force them on the people, but Christ said that his Church would last till the end of time. No other Church has that promise. No other Church has been around since the time of Christ.

Read Church History and , by all means, read what happened in the Protestant “reformation”.

I want the WHOLE truth as Jesus originally gave it to us. The bible was not even assembled into book form for the first 3 centuries! Even then, it was HAND WRITTEN and cost too much for the average person–who was usually illerate anyway.

Up until the invention of the Gutterberg press in the 1400’s, people were not “people of the book”. They were “hearer of the word” and reciepients of the tradions passed down to them.

Learn the faith–i’ts your responsibility. :yup:

Lindalou

 

[patricius]

Hmm. I forgot about this thread for a few days. Looks like I missed some good stuff.

hecd2, I think it might be a mistake to expect to judge religion entirely on a rational basis. I understand that once we leave rationality (even if we do so only partially) we can’t “prove” anything. But if we look at religion exclusively through a rational lens, then we aren’t seeing everything that religion undestands itself to be.

The proof that human beings aren’t wholly rational is inside each one of us. We have emotions, and they often impel us to irrationality. We experience beauty and wonder and joy and awe. The first decision one has to make in a consideration of religion is whether to discard these things. If you do so, then not only are you never going to be able to judge between religions, you are never going to understand what the idea of religion is supposed to be.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you (in your capacity as a ‘rational alien’-- I like that, BTW) are rationally convinced of the existence of extrarational experience. The fact is that religion claims to be such an experience. Sure, it has rational components, but the characteristic that distinguish religion from secular philosophy is its supernatural, extrarational component.

If you choose not to discard the experiences of the heart and the soul, then you have a very different basis on which to judge religion. Sure, things like “objective criteria” will always be helpful, and should always be used. But they are, at best, a supplement to meeting religion on its own terms. Until you do that, your search for criteria on which to judge religions will be a very difficult-- in my opinion, an impossible-- one.

 

[javelin]

hecd2,

I really think the only thing that approaches “proof” of the veracity of a Christianity in general are the abundance of miracles that follow the name of Jesus Christ. When things happen that scientifically cannot be, and they occur when the name of Christ is invoked, great credence is lent to the belief that there is a being of great power – power that transcends all of creation itself. If you want to see something amazing, go see the body of someone who died hundreds of years ago, but to whom no natural decay has come. Go see the lump of flesh and dried droplets of blood that have been miraculously, naturally preserved for decades after they changed before the eyes of every person at a Mass in Italy. Consider how great a stretch of reality it would take for thousands to have an identical vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary in a place called Fatima. Even witness miraculous healings of people with crippling conditions or illnesses. All happened in the name of Jesus Christ.

Most importantly, see the historical evidence (the best that can be found) that there once lived a man named Jesus who, about 2000 years ago, preached a gospel of love, claimed to be the very Son of God, was crucified and then came back to life after spending days entombed. There were hundreds of witnesses and no evidence that has countered their claims. He made many enemies in that time – don’t you think they would have found some evidence against him if such evidence existed? In Jesus’ name, wonders have been worked the world around.

Other than that, there is little else that could be considered “rational proof”. All else only rises to the level of conjecture.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Alterum]

hecd2:

Dear Alterum,

Entertaining as your parable was, I wonder what you were trying to say.

Dear Alec,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to all of my posts.

I think it first bears stating that Catholicism is not (outside of a divine revelation) a “provable” religion, in that there is a particular chain of reasoning that one can follow which will prove undeniably that Catholicism is the “right” religion. But as we well know, even if there were, we’d still have people rejecting it. We also know that, in the sense that there is a God who established a Church under which He would like the whole of the human race, there would still be no way of knowing, beyond any conceivable shadow of a doubt, which God this was and which Church He established (outside of a divine revelation; and even then I cannot say whether all would follow). There would be plenty of “false prophets” and plenty of false churches.

I was making none of the points you suggested in providing what I hoped to be a halfway humorous parable; I was however simply pointing out that the Catholic Church is large, consistent, and sincere. This isn’t something many other 2,000-year-old institutions can claim. Rather, if there were any other 2,000-year-old institutions, I doubt they would be able to claim as such

The point of the parable is that if, from our particular vantage point, any number of competing ideologies are ostensibly equal, they needn’t necessarily be equal. Were I a rational telepathic alien foreign to the concept of language, I might as well make the assumption that all these strange earth-people are equal in their communicative abilities; all they can do is open their mouths and make strange sounds. But I’d be disregarding creativity in verbal expression, the various dialects, the various languages, and perhaps most importantly the education that allows a linguist to better articulate his perspective than a twelve-year-old.

Rather than claim that I know the true religion and that it is discernible (which I would glady claim elsewhere in as humble a way as I could, though here it would cause much more debate than the subject warrants), I will say that if the truth simply isn’t readily discernible, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a truth to be discerned.

That is, ultimately, what separates all the disparate religions of any age: truth. For this, I’d just like to consider the concept of moral truth. What do you think about absolute morality? There is a certain moral truth which exists and underlies nature itself, and though our understanding may differ and our opinions change, what does not change is this absolute truth. I’m assuming that you don’t believe in absolute morality, but I’d really tend to think it’s difficult to reject the idea. In any event, this truth, engrained in humanity but no more discernible by a rational alien than the unspoken love between two spouses hundreds of miles away (our alien has one or two things to say about this “love,” but at the risk of offending greater humanity he’s chosen not to voice them) is so clear that it would seem foolish to dismiss it.

But at the same time, it is quite easily dismissed by science and determinism (and randomness ) - by materialism - in the sense that as long as it doesn’t affect the physical world there’s no reason to believe it exists. And, whereas a child might acknowledge something so basic and fundamental and integral to “man,” there are very large debates among very large people using very large words about whether or not such a thing even exists. You know what side I’m on!

 

[Alterum]

I’m getting a little ahead of myself. My point is that the religion which says “God commands us to attach bombs to our bodies, rape women, and force the rest of the world into submission” is not equal to the religion which says, “Love thy neighbor.” Insofar as these religions reflect a certain worldview, one reflects a perverse and distorted idea of how man should interact, and one reflects the truth. Of course, without absolute morality, there is no “truth” and one religion, I suppose, is just as good as another. Especially if you’re a rational alien. Moral truth, however, is not something easily ignored; and if by words and science, far more difficult by conscience.

There are plenty of other arguments to go into now, concerning how God would give us free will and want us to do what is right, how God would guide us and give us a Church that we know we can always follow, about what happens after we die, etc., but none of them can I venture into now. Essentially, I’m simply making the point that in light of moral truth - interpreted subjectively but existing objectively - not every religion is equal.

Then again, I’m sure any religion which deliberately contradicts established fact by claiming that, say, man is really a three-headed chipmunk, would have proved my point.

 

[trogiah]

hecd2:

My question is this - in all this maze of belief and disagreement, how do I as a rational alien, unburdened with the bias of being born into this faith or that, come to the conclusion that any one of these deeply held convictions should hold sway over all the others. What are the criteria that I should apply, and in applying these criteria, why should I come to the conclusion that the mainstream version of Catholic belief represents truth and all others are mistaken? Why?

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

I believe there are some rational criteria. Jesus was a rational person. (He was much more than a rational person but he was a rational person.) In the face of one very ideological standoff with religious leaders of his time he ended his participation in it with the statement “Time will prove where wisdom lies.” I think that is a valid criteria for deciding where truth may be found. Just wait long enough and it will be obvious. The only problem is we only have so much time. And we have to choose someway of living our life right now.

Jesus presents other criteria that seems perfectly valid and rational by any standard: “A tree is known by its fruit” or more specifially :“A good man brings forth good from his store of goodness while an evil man brings forth evil from his store of evil.”

I think Forrest Gump would concur:“Stupid is as stupid does.”

All this is to say that we can judge a person and their faith by the works that they are inspired by their faith to accomplish. Catholicism looks pretty good with an example like Mother Teresa, but unfortunately she is not the only example we have of a practicing Catholic.

Still, the examples set by those honored by any group do say a lot about the group. If we took all those officially recognized as Saints in the Catholic church we would have a fairly decent group of people. Do other groups compare favorably in that regard? Honestly I can’t say - Mohandas Gandhi is the only Hindu I know of and I have a high regard for him but I don’t really know if he was a typical example of a Hindu saint or not. Does Islam, confucianism, buddhism etc. have people recognized in such ways? I don’t know that either.

A tree is known by its fruit. So is a religion. It seems that a serious determination to decide the relative worth of a religion would be to examine what good (or evil) has usually followed those who adhere to it.

peace

-Jim

PS

A thought that occurs to me is this: What really matters for any individual person is whether or not they bear fruit, not whether the name they call themselves is the same as the name that others who have borne fruit call themselves.

In other words, a muslim or hindu or buddhist or whatever who lives a fruitful life will be much closer to God - even to Jesus- than a “Christian” who fails to bear fruit.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

hecd2:

…

1. All of this is, anyway, irrelevant to this thread which is about how we can know which of the hundreds or thousands of different faiths represents the truth and how we n know that. Have you got any insight into that? No-one else seems to have.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

If you “knew” then it wouldn’t be much of a faith then would it

I know that we can make self-replicating organic molecules by the bucketful in the lab.

I know that given hydrogen and enough time we can get stars, planets, bananas, puppies, and used car salesmen.

But knowing all this doesn’t answer all my questions.

I can appreciate the grandeur of the cosmos and the probability or even inevitability of Life
But when I consider the improbability of ME then my knowledge leaves me a little cold

So I choose to believe in a larger, grander scheme than what we can know and proove.

How would I help a space alien choose a faith? Well in purely rational terms it was the Christian world that produced the renaissance, the enlightenment, and the scientific revolution so it seems to offer a successful worldview and I did post some other reasons previously.

BUT you can’t explain a non-rational thing rationally.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

Madaglan:

My mom said something that really irritates me. She used to be Lutheran, became Catholic, and has fallen into what I would consider apostasy (she claims faith in Christ, but doesn’t believe that those who deny Christ and are yet good people will go to hell. In other words, she does not believe in what is both in Scripture and in the New Testament.) Anyhow, my sister apostasized the Catholic faith about two years ago. She joined some fundamentalist group. At the same time I have been reading more and more of the Bible and of Christian history. Suprise! Suprise! I discovered that Catholicism (or at least Orthodoxy) has remained unchanged in its core beliefs and practices since Christ founded the Church on Peter.

Ok, so this is what my mom told me. She told me that she is glad that my sister and I have both found comfort in our religious beliefs. In other words, she sees a religion as on par with a social club. It doesn’t matter if the church to which you belong is the one and only Church; so long as it makes you feel better, I’m happy, is what she seems to be saying.

I wouldn’t mind this personal incident; but it seems to be a common problem growing in this country. I think that the constantly splitting nature of Protestantism, and each Protestant church’s need to advertise their church with special effects, is to blame. Until just recently in this century one was a Lutheran, an Anglican, a Baptist, a Presbyterian, etc. primarily because one believed in what that group taught. I’m sure that most of the people who switched churches did so because they truly believed that the church to which they switched was better representative of what Christ and the apostles taught.

However, in our present age, it seems that people jump around in Protestant churches because of the ambience rather than doctrine. The Lutheran or Presbyterian liturgy is too archaic for many; so they join some Evangelical Free church which features Christian rock bands every Sunday. Unfortunately I believe that, as more and more Christians join these stimulating churches, the more and more these Christians will lose the central beliefs of Christianity, which thank God we Catholics review every time we go to Mass. Unfortunately, many Catholics, along with more traditional Protestants, are being attracted to these spectacular services.

What do other people think about these more spectacular services? Do you see them as a danger to present and future Catholic youth? Will future Catholics see the Mass as too “boring” compared to these more modern services?

catholictradition.org/true-church.htm

 

[b19mcking]

well, I can maybe see where people can reach this stance on religion. Or I could have the same misinformatrion. The 3 largest faiths, Christainity, Judeaism, and Islam, all claim to have the same human ancester, Abram, or Abraham as he is renamed. That would mean that God or Allah is the same being. So, in mathmatical terms that would make them simular, not equal. Or at least That’s my best answer.

 

[lindalou725]

Steve Anderson:

I just finished reading the site you posted on the one true religion. Fr. Damon said it better than anyone who has attempted to post an answer here. Thank you for helping me to find that site. I want to send it to some relatives who joined other churches. How do I send the site address so they can click on it (as you did)?
Thank You
Lindalou

 

[Steve_Andersen]

err… I don’t think that I sent a link
but if it was really helpful 'I’ll steal credit for it

how to insert a link varries from software to software

some e-mail editors do it automatically
in others you have to format the text as a hyper link or HTML

In this forum’s message posting routine for example there is a button with a globe and links of chain indicating a “link” in the worl wide web. It prompts you for the address and any text you want to use.

you could just copy and paste the site adress from the address line inot your e-mail and they could just cut an dpaste back into their browser

hope that helps

 

[lindalou725]

thanks Steve, I realized after I posted that I had put the wrong last name on the post. Thanks for the info, I discovered by trial that it is done automatically.

God bless!! Lindalou

 

[Origen]

I have some advice for budding apologists.

Don’t get suckered into trying to prove the existence of God on rational grounds. We make no claim that belief in God can be formulated in a little proof that can be carried around in your wallet.

If you look carefully, even St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t claim that knowledge of God was self-evident. His arguments were the weakest, most tenuous arguments possible for the existence of God. He intended to give cognitive support to belief in God because he was of the firm conviction that the facts of faith and the facts of reason could not be contradictory. He was teaching us that belief in God is reasonable, which is not the same thing as logically necessary.

St. Thomas aside, in modern law, there is a concept of a self-authenticating document, such as a title to an automobile. The seal of the State itself vouches for the veracity of the document. One needs no witness or notary to affirm these documents in a court of law.

The pure, unselfish sacrifice of God, as related to us by the early church, is such a self-authenticating seal. Because of the intensely personal and self-sacrificing nature of the passion, we trust that what this man said is true. In the words of Hans Urs van Bulthasaar, love alone is credible.

There is no guarantee. By an act of will, we assent to the truth that has been handed down to us on the basis of the believability of the witnesses to the passion of Christ, and again, on the self-authenticating nature of the act of the passion of Christ itself.

 

[GaryZak]

THIS RIDUCULUS to be CAUGHT IN ,“ABSOLUTES,” only CAN BRING DEPRESSION, for NOT even GOD TRIES to <“BE”> ABSOLUTE TO HIS BELOVED SHEEP, who are/R HELPLESS TO DEfEND THEMSELVES againST SPIRITUAL EVIL!

Want to be DEPRESSED, be so, but I recommend looking for lost SHEEP, NOT beING absolutely RIGHT, or RIGHTEOUS!

MK 9:40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

And IF YOU don’t believe this, then YOU’VE NEVER encountered ANYBODY truly AGAINST YOU with vituperous HATE, and malicious intents!