What I believe now

[mgrfin]

We never thought to put you on suicide watch. You seem to be consumed with drama.

We are not worrying about you cracking yourself up. We are worried about ourselves.

An athetist who takes time out to be in a Christmas play? My, how you put us on.

peace

 

[Magicsilence]

In many ways, I’ll admit I *do *have a sense of pride – one that leaves me upset with myself during my humbler moments. Regardless, I take a terribly long time weighing evidence, and am upset whenever I realize that a judgement I previously made was based on irrational prejudice. I honestly try not be prejudiced, and if ever I say something that *sounds *prejudiced, 9 times out 10 I was simply jesting.

Dear Laurence,

I spent a long time doing the same; yet in just one brief moment, everything I had ever thought to be worthy and part of my bedrock of belief was turned into ash. There was nothing so humbling in my life as that flash of inspiration from God.

I’m serious about the “weighing evidence thing”, too. In case you never heard of it, I’m involved with Extemporaneous Speaking on my high school’s speech and debate team. It involves answering a question about world events with a 7-minute speech, and you only have 30 minutes to write. Well anyways, on more than one occasion I sat writing from one point of view and then changed my position half way through. It’s cost me a lot tournament wise, but I prefer to make an honest evaluation of any situation.

As I noted above, when one places evidence (and relatedly your intellect) as the measure with which to judge reality, it is very difficult to come to God. Evidence is fine in maths and chemistry, and to a certain extent, it is what allows us to evaluate the history of the Christian faith. Yet it is not the path to faith.

Believe me, I’m not some lousy teenager “doing this” to be a rebel/noncomformist/punk. As far as everyone knows in my school and at home, I’m still a devout Catholic.

I think the honesty in your posts is self evident, and to even be thinking about these issues at 16 is really great, and shows a maturity far above that normally found.

So, no, not a lousy teenager, but perhaps one that is still exploring the world, and perhaps (as I did) putting one’s faith solely in the intellect you have discovered.

I have no ‘miracle advice’ that you will comprehend at this stage of your journey without experiencing it yourself. The only exception to this is that you promise to never stop trying.

Thanks for the polite conversation so far.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[Kitty_Chan]

poking back in to see how the thread is doing.

I still have to ask you if you ever considered what Jesus meant when He said test all things. Why dont you read about those in biblical history who have tested God? Toss out that fleece, things like that.

Dont believe what others have found out, be skeptcal of them too, if you are going to be that way. Test all things.

But like I said only if you truly have a open mind. Because to go into it with a presupposed result, will get you nowhere. Only back where you are now.

You should at least arrive somewhere different.

 

[Magicsilence]

Laurence of PA;3082574:

What are you smoking, young man? You’re incoherent and beginning to babble.

So you think your an athetist or an agnostic. What do you want us to do about it? Faith is a gift. You lost it, and you are responsible for that - Not God, not us. And we can’t give it back to you.

Do you want us wandering at a loss, like you? Can we copy your indecision, unfaithfulness, depression, and we will be better?

You descent into hell is no consolation to you or to us. I don’t think it is anything to brag about, that you have found a 'new religion", a ‘new faith’, called godlessness.

You haven’t found anything. You have lost a lot.

With your “think” life begins to taste like cardboard, and you want to take an AK47 and shoot up the mall?

You are not seeking; you have found what you are looking for: nothing.

peace

peace

mgrfin,

Please don’t blast Laurence like this. Faith is indeed a gift from God, but in the consumerist society that we live in, intellectual brilliance can be a haven for those who are appalled at the way in which life surrounds them.

Often, the intellect becomes the only means of escape, and it is certainly very real and tangible. However, it is also altogether too easy to turn a critical eye to faith in an attempt to distance oneself from any perceived illogical ‘ness’.

I believe Laurence is seeking knowledge and understanding about the greater things in life. He currently believes that the evidence he has researched does not point towards God, but that is not for us to judge. How many thousands of atheists / agnostics converts would have sworn blind that they would never believe in God, only to later believe?

I don’t think condemning him to be hellbound explicitly radiates the love that Christ gave to us.

Please try and think about his position, and the way in which your words will be interpreted.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Dear Laurence,

I spent a long time doing the same; yet in just one brief moment, everything I had ever thought to be worthy and part of my bedrock of belief was turned into ash. There was nothing so humbling in my life as that flash of inspiration from God.

I’ve come to disregard what I once perceived as signs. When I see the glint in the eyes of happy, festive people, I don’t see God. When I see a janitor working the late shift cleaning walls so they can bring home food for their family, I don’t see God. I see the goodness and potential of humanity, and it makes me happy, too. Humanity may take comfort in the supernatural, but I take comfort in humanity.

Science, philosophy, maybe even theology: all these subjects are essential for the advancement of a humanitarian society, yet I’ve yet to see how one’s stance in such hotly-contested topics affects much one’s intentions.

If the person right next to me believed that walnuts come from centipedes with crocheting needles, it’s silly and illogical, but why bother witness to him about Walnut Trees? He’s not a biochemist responsible for producing insulin in a laboratory, so he can go on believing centipedes crochet walnuts if that’s what makes him happy. He ain’t killin’ the pursuit of science.

And again with signs: if I were a Muslim, I’d see Allah in everything just as much as I would see Yawheh in everything if I were a Jew. “Allah” and “Yahweh” would continue to be fundamentally different, but I wouldn’t be.

As I noted above, when one places evidence (and relatedly your intellect) as the measure with which to judge reality, it is very difficult to come to God. Evidence is fine in maths and chemistry, and to a certain extent, it is what allows us to evaluate the history of the Christian faith. Yet it is not the path to faith.

I’m not looking for faith, I’m looking for truth. If I was sure Catholicism was truth, then I still wouldn’t have faith in it. I’d accept it.

I think the honesty in your posts is self evident, and to even be thinking about these issues at 16 is really great, and shows a maturity far above that normally found.

So, no, not a lousy teenager, but perhaps one that is still exploring the world, and perhaps (as I did) putting one’s faith solely in the intellect you have discovered.

I have no ‘miracle advice’ that you will comprehend at this stage of your journey without experiencing it yourself. The only exception to this is that you promise to never stop trying.

In Jesus Christ,

Trying isn’t the word. *Searching *is what I will always do.

 

[mgrfin]

I’m not looking for faith, I’m looking for truth. If I was sure Catholicism was truth, then I still wouldn’t have faith in it. I’d accept it.
.

PA, your confused still. Catholicism is true. It is not truth. Only God is truth.

To accept it as true, you need to have faith. Without faith, you cannont accept anything in the spiritual realm. You can’t accept it without faith.

Your cutesy folkism doesn’t work if it is irrational.

Funny thing, I’m not the only one who doesn’t believe you are 16. Come on, own up. Start giving us some of that truth.

Every teenager I know, who is 16, is out with his friends on a Friday night, not trying to impress some old duffers like me.

I am only impressed with the truth.

peace

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Trying isn’t the word. *Searching *is what I will always do.

Do you think if you had faith you stop searching???

 

[mgrfin]

Science, philosophy, maybe even theology: all these subjects are essential for the advancement of a humanitarian society, yet I’ve yet to see how one’s stance in such hotly-contested topics affects much one’s intentions.

UNQUOTE

I guess you are a kid, and think you are saying very deep things. Well, this is not only not deep, it is not true. You have to think out what you are about to say, test it against logic, reason, as little as you immature mind is able to formulate.

Men have been moved tremendously by their pursuit of truth, whether philosophical, scientific or religious.

Philosophers:
Look at the lives of Socrates, Plato and Aristototle. Men who had not the benefit of divine revelation, but came to an understanding of the Supreme Being, with the aid of unaided reason.

For better or worse, the following were deeply affected by their philosophy, as were those around them: Ockham, Machieavelli, Descartes, Locke, Leibntz, Kant, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Jean Paul Satre. The exhaustive list would be thousands long.

Scientists
So, are you also going to tell me that the world’s great scientists were not moved, and changed by their findings, and that they changed for better or worse, the world around them. People who overthrew our ideas about logic, language, learning, mathematics, economics, space and time: Enrico Fermi, Albert Einstein, Wright Bros.,Louis Pasteur, Madame Curie, Jonas Salk, John Keynes, Sigmund Freud, to just name a handful. The exhaustive list would be thousands long.

Saints:
Well you are dealing with our area of interest and expertise. You could start with Jesus Christ, but you might argue to exclude him because he is the Son of God. But, take St. Paul who was knocked off his horse, and changed with the message of the Good News. And, lets not forget the Old Testament, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel.

St. Peter whose love for Jesus led to his crucifixion. And St. Augustine who gave up a prolifigate life, a great philosopher, and the Doctor of Grace. And the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas who Christianized the work of Ariistotle. You have to admire Ignatius Loyola, who set upon a mission to return Europe to Catholicism and founded the Jesuits. There are literally thousands of saints, some who were Doctors of the Church, like Teresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux. St. Jerome who translated the Bible. Many shed their blood for Jesus – how could you say they were not changed by Christianity?

And martyrs from the Canon of the Mass: Linus, Cletus, Clementis, Xystus, Cornelius, Cyprianus, Laurentius, Chrysogni, John and Paul, Cosmae and Damiani

What you wrote was poorly thought out. Please give more credit to mankind, and don’t sell us short.

peace

 

[Deconi]

If the person right next to me believed that walnuts come from centipedes with crocheting needles, it’s silly and illogical, but why bother witness to him about Walnut Trees? He’s not a biochemist responsible for producing insulin in a laboratory, so he can go on believing centipedes crochet walnuts if that’s what makes him happy. ** He ain’t killin’ the pursuit of science.**

And again with signs: if I were a Muslim, I’d see Allah in everything just as much as I would see Yawheh in everything if I were a Jew. “Allah” and “Yahweh” would continue to be fundamentally different, but I wouldn’t be.

You analogies should suffice to point out the error of your limited thinking. In regards the walnuts, you are being selfishly irresponsible to another human. Someday, he will suffer an infectious bite from a centipede whilst trying to extract walnuts from it. But for a moment of your time to suggest the necesity of a walnut tree in his thinking, he may suffer death.

In regards Muslim and Jew, Allah and Yahweh, they do have fundamental differences. But since they are different faith systems of religious beliefs, and if you KNEW that only one of them leads to salvation, and the other to damnation, what would you do? Is your statement “…*** but I wouldn’t be.***” to be your final answer?

I’m not looking for faith, I’m looking for truth. If I was sure Catholicism was truth, then I still wouldn’t have faith in it. I’d accept it.

Many search for TRUTH, just to satisfy their senses that God exists, and this ‘faith’ or that faith is the one. But in the headlong rush, they sometimes disregard what has gone before and those who are BEACONS of the TRUTH being searched for. I know of not one human being who did not suffer The TRUTH. They teach us that TRUTH is a responsibility, not a goal. By their lives and death, they also TEACH US that this TRUTH requires FAITH; Ultimate Faith.

“Happy are they who do not see, but believe.”

I am happy to be one of these for I do not think I can handle The TRUTH. Thus far, there is no evidence that you can either.

 

[Deconi]

i dont get it, how is it logical & physically verifiable that the only proof that God exists is Jesus Christ?

Many have searched for God, but their methods are contrained by the natural laws that confine our existence. Therefore the leap of faith, when they encounter it, is something they are unwilling to make because it defies ‘their’ principles and methods. Even with the understanding that God exists beyond creation, they deny their own logic that ‘nothing can come from nothing.’

Without Jesus Christ and ALL that He is, there is no other physically, verifiable, logical ‘link’ to God, unless the first Adam is found.

Before Jesus, Moses went up a mountain by himself and came down with some writings on rock tablets! Duplicated by Mohammed and Joseph Smith!

Joshua’s prayer and ANSWER has been attacked so many times that many now doubt the sun stood still for a nano-second; and that’s WITHIN Catholicism!

Noah’s Ark is now relegated to ‘religious fundamentalists’ wasting money; not serious scientific search.

Abraham heard a voice and almost killed his son over it. How many in our day claim to converse with The Holy Spirit and being given ‘new’ teachings?

Even ‘Our Lord’ has had a hard time “proving” He actually walked around on this mudhole and detractors like to sing that The Bible is not proof. Ummm…the proof is actually OUTSIDE of Scriptures also! Without Him, The Old Testament is a ‘fable.’ But once He started quoting it, He validated it as ‘our’ history!

Once we are settled that Jesus Christ existed, we then study Him and those around Him and since, to realise not only that God exists but which faith is the continuation of The Old Testament, since that line was unbroken down to Christ. It follows that the ‘New Line’ must also be unbroken. (Logic and Reason)

I am not surprised that the thousand fold denominations of Christianity claim to possess the Light of Christ for He is like The PRISM through which God’s Light shines. Many see the Prism and journey towards it, and many claim theirs is the best way. However, only One Golden Thread leads to the Prism.

That Golden Thread is Catholicism, simply because, He established and commenced IT. Studying Catholicism shows that He gave IT several things as well as The Promise of Guidance and Real Presence! All who have departed from Catholicism still possess SOME of this understanding, but now tell Catholics they’re ‘wrong’ without thought about where their original beliefs and doctrines came from.

 

[Magicsilence]

I’ve come to disregard what I once perceived as signs. When I see the glint in the eyes of happy, festive people, I don’t see God. When I see a janitor working the late shift cleaning walls so they can bring home food for their family, I don’t see God. I see the goodness and potential of humanity, and it makes me happy, too. Humanity may take comfort in the supernatural, but I take comfort in humanity.

Science, philosophy, maybe even theology: all these subjects are essential for the advancement of a humanitarian society, yet I’ve yet to see how one’s stance in such hotly-contested topics affects much one’s intentions.

Spoken like a true teenager I can only hope experience shows you that rationality and modern understandings of human existence are not superior to religion because of their position in time. In fact, the positioning of humanity above God is the ultimate wrong move to make. Atheistic ideals in a ‘no religion, no conflict’ society remain the fancy of a certain number of isolated, wealthy individuals trying to lock out God from their own lives. It may be sophisticated, and the party line of most scientists and politicians (if not explicitly stated, then heavily implied), but it is a shockingly poor alternative to the moral gravity employed by the Church.

I’m not looking for faith, I’m looking for truth. If I was sure Catholicism was truth, then I still wouldn’t have faith in it. I’d accept it.

With this approach, you may never find what you want. What is the acceptance of truth? Faith in it being objectively truthful. And if you were convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, acceptance, without action, is a sorry move for any man.

Trying isn’t the word. *Searching *is what I will always do.

Sometimes, people give up on a search, don’t give up trying, and great things will become reality.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Spoken like a true teenager I can only hope experience shows you that rationality and modern understandings of human existence are not superior to religion because of their position in time. In fact, the positioning of humanity above God is the ultimate wrong move to make. Atheistic ideals in a ‘no religion, no conflict’ society remain the fancy of a certain number of isolated, wealthy individuals trying to lock out God from their own lives. It may be sophisticated, and the party line of most scientists and politicians (if not explicitly stated, then heavily implied), but it is a shockingly poor alternative to the moral gravity employed by the Church.

Of course “no God/no conflict” is baseless. That’s why I’m not making it. I think it’s a said fact that many people need to live under threat of eternal damnation just to do the right thing, but so long as that is true, I’m fine with the moral guidance of religious institutions – to an extent.

 

[Magicsilence]

Of course “no God/no conflict” is baseless. That’s why I’m not making it. I think it’s a said fact that many people need to live under threat of eternal damnation just to do the right thing, but so long as that is true, I’m fine with the moral guidance of religious institutions – to an extent.

Remember, to make that statement, you need a moral framework to place it in (some kind of objective truth), which I believe… you deny

Religious faith is only restricting to those looking in, it is never so for those practicing. Some people, however, do find the threat of eternal damnation sufficiently poignant to pull their brain into check. It is not a case of physical punishment for mutually exclusive similar actions, but a reflection of the soul. One cannot do good, and ignore God.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[mgrfin]

Of course “no God/no conflict” is baseless. That’s why I’m not making it. I think it’s a said fact that many people need to live under threat of eternal damnation just to do the right thing, but so long as that is true, I’m fine with the moral guidance of religious institutions – to an extent.

I am sure some people need to be reminded of hell so as not to sin. I don’t know what ‘many’ means, nor some. It is a very safe statement.

Our nature is such that we fear punishment. If I weren’t afraid of going to jail, I may rob banks for a living.

If you don’t obey your parents, they may ground you.

As usual, PA, you make empty statements. Say something profound, and back it up. All we have heard so far are sophmoric truths.

peace

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Our nature is such that we fear punishment. If I weren’t afraid of going to jail, I may rob banks for a living.

Because of things like this, I have a hard time taking you seriously. Sorry.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Remember, to make that statement, you need a moral framework to place it in (some kind of objective truth), which I believe… you deny

Religious faith is only restricting to those looking in, it is never so for those practicing. Some people, however, do find the threat of eternal damnation sufficiently poignant to pull their brain into check. It is not a case of physical punishment for mutually exclusive similar actions, but a reflection of the soul. One cannot do good, and ignore God.

In Jesus Christ,

You know how many people I *didn’t *beat up today? It’s a pretty big number.

 

[Mirdath]

Remember, to make that statement, you need a moral framework to place it in (some kind of objective truth), which I believe… you deny

Unbelief does not necessarily deny moral absolutism. Many atheists and agnostics are moral relativists, true – but an absolute morality need not be based on divine command. You may not think that such an absolute moral code has a firm grounding, but it is nonetheless absolute.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Unbelief does not necessarily deny moral absolutism. Many atheists and agnostics are moral relativists, true – but an absolute morality need not be based on divine command. You may not think that such an absolute moral code has a firm grounding, but it is nonetheless absolute.

Thanks for the post. It reminds me that I forgot to clarify – as well as I should have – what I intended by explicitly calling myself a relativist.

Magicsilence, as Mirdath just mentioned, people of different affiliations can hold the same basic moral standards as absolute despite their differences of faith. When I personally call myself a Relativist, it is not to say that morality can’t be absolute. Rather, what I am saying is that the underlying grounding for those morals need not be the same.

You may fear God…

Bobby may fear Odin…

I fear for the person I may cause harm to…

Yet we all decide in the end not to steal Tiny Tim’s bowl of soup, don’t we???

I hope that clears up my position a bit…

 

[mgrfin]

Because of things like this, I have a hard time taking you seriously. Sorry.

What a cop-out!

 

[mgrfin]

Thanks for the post. It reminds me that I forgot to clarify – as well as I should have – what I intended by explicitly calling myself a relativist.

Magicsilence, as Mirdath just mentioned, people of different affiliations can hold the same basic moral standards as absolute despite their differences of faith. When I personally call myself a Relativist, it is not to say that morality can’t be absolute. Rather, what I am saying is that the underlying grounding for those morals need not be the same.

You may fear God…

Bobby may fear Odin…

I fear for the person I may cause harm to…

Yet we all decide in the end not to steal Tiny Tim’s bowl of soup, don’t we???

I hope that clears up my position a bit…

And you couldn’t take my position seriously. If morality is absolute, how can the underlying suppositions be relative?
Absolute morality requires absoute underlying grounding.

peace