The Liberal Agnostic Secular Humanist Four-Year Old

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leela
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not understanding your argument, Leela. Are you saying that since most people aren’t ________, then it can’t be true?

Or are you saying that since there’s so many religions, each claiming to be true, then that proves that none are true?
I’m saying that even if I believed that one of the world’s religions were true, I would have no way of deciding which one it is. Any set oif standards that I would use to reject all the other religions would cause me to reject Christianity as well.
 
I’m saying that even if I believed that one of the world’s religions were true, I would have no way of deciding which one it is. Any set oif standards that I would use to reject all the other religions would cause me to reject Christianity as well.
Well, ok.

What does that have to do with whether the majority of people in the world are Christian?
 
Well, ok.

What does that have to do with whether the majority of people in the world are Christian?
I was only pointing out that humanity is far from consensus on the truth of any religion. The choice is not simply Christianity or not. It is Christianity or Islam, or Mormonism or Buddhism, or Hinduism or …

…and we are not forced to choose any of these. Maybe none of them have it right.

If you believe Christianity is true, then you must be applying some standards of evidence that would convince you that Islam and every other religion is false. What are these standards?
 
I was only pointing out that humanity is far from consensus on the truth of any religion. The choice is not simply Christianity or not. It is Christianity or Islam, or Mormonism or Buddhism, or Hinduism or …
I’m sure you know that the Catholic understanding about truth considers “consensus” irrelevant.
If you believe Christianity is true, then you must be applying some standards of evidence that would convince you that Islam and every other religion is false. What are these standards?
The standards would be faith and reason.
 
I was only pointing out that humanity is far from consensus on the truth of any religion. The choice is not simply Christianity or not. It is Christianity or Islam, or Mormonism or Buddhism, or Hinduism or …

…and we are not forced to choose any of these. Maybe none of them have it right.

If you believe Christianity is true, then you must be applying some standards of evidence that would convince you that Islam and every other religion is false. What are these standards?
**My experience of love is that it’s real-it’s huge, vast, transcendent. My experience of evil is that it’s also real-and transcendent in the sense that it’s unnatural-not a part of the way I’d expect the world to work if it ran by order/truth/reason. But my understanding of the universe in general is that it is ordered, non-chaotic, non-random, which points to the existence of a mind basic to and behind it all. Catholicism addresses these issues among others either in ways other religions don’t come close or at the very least much more fully or exhaustively than the rest.
 
I’m sure you know that the Catholic understanding about truth considers “consensus” irrelevant.

The standards would be faith and reason.
Faith as a standard gets us nowhere, since people of other religions also claim to have faith that their religion is true.

What seems more reasonable about Christianity than other religions?
 
Faith as a standard gets us nowhere, since people of other religions also claim to have faith that their religion is true.

What seems more reasonable about Christianity than other religions?
Refer to my last post for the response to that. You must have missed it.
 
Faith as a standard gets us nowhere, since people of other religions also claim to have faith that their religion is true.
That is true.

I’m just saying that a seeker of truth can not rely only on reason if she wishes to contemplate the truth fully.
What seems more reasonable about Christianity than other religions?
Well! To answer that question I would have to refer you to the writings of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas…not to mention the beautifully rich encyclicals Fidest et Ratio and Veritatis Splendour. Oh, and my favorite contemporary author who speaks to this is Peter Kreeft. And, of course, CS Lewis.

I’ll try to get you some sound bites from their writings…
 
That is true.

I’m just saying that a seeker of truth can not rely only on reason if she wishes to contemplate the truth fully.

Well! To answer that question I would have to refer you to the writings of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas…not to mention the beautifully rich encyclicals Fidest et Ratio and Veritatis Splendour.

I’ll try to get you some sound bites from their writings…
Did these writings really convince you that Cathoicism is superior to all other religions, or did you go into reading them already thinking so.

Have you read the counterparts to these autors in other religions? Personally, I am about as interested in reading Aquinas as you probably are in reading Joseph Smith, the Dalai Lama, or the Rig Veda.

I’m just asking what convinces you that these other religions are false.
 
Refer to my last post for the response to that. You must have missed it.
You said, “I can tell you that not one prophecy made By Jesus was ever wrong and many are occurring in these days.”

Do you mean these?

From Matthew 24:

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.



24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.



34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I would have to say that those things did not all happen in that generation, and the ones that could be said to have happened are not exactly uncanny in their specificity.
 
Beautiful words on why Christianity is more reasonable than other religions from Fides et Ratio:

By this Revelation, then, the deepest truth about God and human salvation is made clear to us in Christ, who is the mediator and at the same time the fullness of all Revelation”.

In order to express the gratuitous nature of the love revealed in the Cross of Christ, the Apostle is not afraid to use the most radical language of the philosophers in their thinking about God. Reason cannot eliminate the mystery of love which the Cross represents, while the Cross can give to reason the ultimate answer which it seeks.
 
34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Wasn’t this a reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, less than a generation after Christ’s death?
I would have to say that those things did not all happen in that generation, and the ones that could be said to have happened are not exactly uncanny in their specificity.
Specificity is irrelevant, really. Christ’s prophetic ability was not his primary mission. Neither was healing the sick and curing the lame, BTW.
 
Did these writings really convince you that Cathoicism is superior to all other religions, or did you go into reading them already thinking so.
Yes, they really convinced me that Catholicism is True. I did not go into reading them thinking it was already so. Many I read in college, and like every college student, I read them with an air of skepticism.

Indeed, as I read everything today I use discernment and critical thinking.
Have you read the counterparts to these autors in other religions?
I have read many authors in other religions, and lots of atheist authors as well. Kooky, kooky, kooky.
I’m just asking what convinces you that these other religions are false.
The pure reasonableness of Christianity…the earth-shattering beauty of Christianity… the sheer intellectual faculties of Catholic thinkers such as Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm (no other writers of other religions even come close to these giants)… the experiential aspects of my life…all convince me of the truth of Christianity.

Do other religions have rationality and beauty and intelligence? Certainly. But only to the degree that they participate in the Truths of Catholicism.
 
It is very clear at this point that the Catholics in this thread will continue to insist on labelling their children Christians,
We will continue to call our baptized children Christians because it’s Catholic teaching that we should. 🤷

Your exasperation is puzzling–it’s like you’re coming to this Catholic forum and saying, “It’s very clear at this point that Catholics in this thread will continue to insist on calling themselves Christians.” Yup, that’s what we believe.
 
You said, “I can tell you that not one prophecy made By Jesus was ever wrong and many are occurring in these days.”

Do you mean these?

From Matthew 24:

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.



24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.



34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I would have to say that those things did not all happen in that generation, and the ones that could be said to have happened are not exactly uncanny in their specificity.
nop. Among other things you completely forgot about revelations as an example. And if you read the OT prophacies going centuries prior to the life of Jesus Christ, you would see how only His life could be referenced in those prophacies. There are many things you will never be able to use logic to explain away, but these again are only a part of what constitutes the foundation of Christianity. If you read deep enough into it, you would see it is only a grain of sand.
 
I have read many authors in other religions, and lots of atheist authors as well. Kooky, kooky, kooky.
I think I should clarify. Many things I read were kooky. Some were not. I really loved the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, although I haven’t read anything he’s written in many, many years.
 
Did these writings really convince you that Cathoicism is superior to all other religions, or did you go into reading them already thinking so.

Have you read the counterparts to these autors in other religions? Personally, I am about as interested in reading Aquinas as you probably are in reading Joseph Smith, the Dalai Lama, or the Rig Veda.

I’m just asking what convinces you that these other religions are false.
I haven’t read the Rig Veda or much of the Dalai Lama but I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita, the Epic of Gilgamesh, sutras too numerous to count, the writings of Krishamurti and a host of other gurus, the Koran, a little Joseph Smith, a fair amount of JW literature, etc. I didn’t necessarily think any could tell me much more than I already knew but the bible somehow stuck with me as having something authoritative to say. And later I began to hear the same voice in Catholicism, to my own surprise. And this conviction continued to grow stronger. I can’t speak for people of other faiths-only for myself-but I’d thrown everything I’d been taught as a child out the window before I began to believe in the truths put forth by Christianity-and I didn’t particularly care which, if any, religion held the truth.
 
Did these writings really convince you that Cathoicism is superior to all other religions, or did you go into reading them already thinking so.

Have you read the counterparts to these autors in other religions? Personally, I am about as interested in reading Aquinas as you probably are in reading Joseph Smith, the Dalai Lama, or the Rig Veda.
Again, you make unwarranted assumptions. Why wouldn’t Christians be interested in reading important writers and thinkers from other traditions? You sure seem to know a lot about what we think!

Edwin
 
Huh?

What about the prophecies I quoted? Did Jesus return in their generation or not?
Among other things you completely forgot about revelations as an example.
I thought you wanted to talk about prophecies made by Jesus rather than John.
And if you read the OT prophacies going centuries prior to the life of Jesus Christ, you would see how only His life could be referenced in those prophacies. There are many things you will never be able to use logic to explain away, but these again are only a part of what constitutes the foundation of Christianity. If you read deep enough into it, you would see it is only a grain of sand.
Can you give me an example of one prophecy that you find interesting.
 
Huh?

What about the prophecies I quoted? Did Jesus return in their generation or not?
He was there, in their generation.
This is from another thread:

There are two ways of looking at it, depending in the definition of “generation”.

If we take “generation” as we typically think of a generation, Jesus’ prophecy refers to the destruction of the Temple, which was built purposely to be a representation of the universe/world.

If we take “generation” to be something marked by the covenants, then generation refers to the body of time between the Redemption and His second coming, in which case, the prophecy is one of an undetermined date of fulfillment.

In Catholic theology, prophecy is often a both/and situation. Jesus was not only predicting the fall of the Temple, but also the wiping away of the old earth/heaven and the creation of the new earth/heaven at Judgment. By tm30
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4096353
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top