We’ve got those, too. A bit further back…you cannot insist that something is true because it cannot be proven false…I’m sure there is a fallacy in there somewhere.
That begs the question.
Well, what about their “credibility” gives you reason to doubt the credibility of the Church? Or what about their credibility gives you reason to doubt God’s providence?
Paul disagrees with you: 1 Cor 2:16
That’s no problem at all. Again the ECF’s bear witness to the constancy of the Catholic Faith.
No it doesn’t. The only thing is “proves” is that man is sinful. That sin is necessarily against God’s will, but that God takes our sinfulness into account in His providence.
Nonsense. God instituted the Church. There is no “competition with other messages” because for there to be “competition” would presuppose that other brands of christianity opposed to Catholic Christianity are equally valid.
The problem with that assumption is that you again assume that all messages are valid without doing anything to determine if that assumption is true. It begs the question.
The objects of faith are by their vary nature objective, as objective as the Source of the propositions which make up the content of faith: God. That there is subjectivity in religion does not negate the objects of faith, nor their Supreme Source.
Correct, I am saying the latter. I can know this on an intuitive level, and at the level of faith, but I cannot objectively know this. The objective truth about Jesus is that there was a man named Jesus from Nazareth who was the son of Mary, who was tried and executed for crimes against the state, and many people believe that this man was God incarnate. That Jesus was in fact God incarnate is a belief. There is a difference.
The same is said of Gautama Buddha and Sri Krishna. I do not have proof that the people who proclaim this are wrong.
I have not seen any negative trending in the level of chaos in the world since the life of Christ. I have seen the term objectivity used a lot on this thread, and I of course have used it in response. To the point, I think if we are objective, we would have to admit that Christianity has brought it’s own chaos into the world, and our church has figured prominently in much of it.
The state of human affairs, and what humankind has made of religion is not a reason for anyone to despair of God. It is however, good cause to rethink our approach.
People have in fact visited a good deal of suffering on other people because of what other people have made of the words of Jesus. This doesn’t make Jesus a liar. Conversely, people have done many good and kind things in the name of Jesus. This doesn’t make the commonly held nature of Jesus true. All of these things are normal artifacts of the n condition
The reason to love God is not expectation of good outcomes, avoidance of bad outcomes, rewards, punishments or the survival of a particular image or concept of God. The reason to believe in God is love. Not love of a concept, but love in the ways that God is manifest in the people and world around us, because that is where God is.
I have met a lot of atheists in my time. From listening to them, I get the feeling that many of them have no problem with spirituality and that perhaps there is something more to them than a physical body. Many do believe that’s all there is, but many I think are simply reacting to being chin-wagged by Christians about a concept of God that is modelled after ancient ear-eastern monarchies, replete with thrones, courts of angels and such. This doesn’t make sense to many of them I have met, because it’s clear that this is a creation of a human concept of God, not a true view of the nature of God.
I completely agree with the essence of what you are saying. Nearly every religion believes it contains the objective truth, without recognizing the personal, cultural, and spiritual subjectivity of its founders and members with regard to their conception of G-d. Tension arises in many people, however, since they have such strong belief concerning the correctness of their own faith, while, at the same time, they realize others who disagree with them are equally strong in their beliefs. Thus subjectivity is decried and objectivity is attributed only to what they believe. It does not make much logical sense but it is most reassuring on a motivational level.
Taken as a whole it is my experience that most people are pretty accepting of other’s beliefs. Unfortunately, the can get charges up by a few firebrand my way or the highway types. It has been very ugly a few times and we are, unfortunately, on the verge again with Islam IMHO.
Good Evening Tonyrey: Thet are not falsifiable, however, from the perspective of objective truth it can be said that such things are contrary to ordinary experience, and as such, we wouldn’t expect to see such a thing in life. Those who disbelieve such things can take that same logic to imply that they never happened at all. We are probably on the short end of that argument from a logical stance.
I think it does actually. What we know of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice or love comes from our own experience of them, and our own experience is a practical observation. While we can’t say exactly love is, we can verify that we have experienced it. Again it goes back to my inclination to insist that experience is really all that matters.
I have never suggested that materialism is more objective than other belief systems, and as I have said before, materialism is simply just another belief system. What I have admitted is that on some points, materialists have a better argument than we do. That said, having reasoned such things carefully over a great amount of time, I personally have landed on the spiritual side of the two camps, and I think I can offer sound reasoning to materialists as to why I have done so.
Good evening Melzterboy: I have often wondered if it’s possible that perhaps all religions have truth, in that each is a unique experience of God from different cultures in different times. My personal belief is that all paths to God actually lead to God. I have read texts from Hinduism where their version of God incarnate (Krishna) said that no matter what God you worship, you are worshiping him, because he proclaims that he is the inmost self of all beings and the origination of all permutations of God and nature. What that implies is that all things are one, and I could argue that this is actually quite viable from a scientific point of view. This is why I don’t mind reading texts from all religions and not at all averse to giving them ample consideration and respect.
Which is a logical contradiction. If its impossible to know anything about God, how can say that since it would require you to know God so well that you can know that He cannot be known. How could you know that God cannot and did not reveal Himself-perhaps even through human reason. What right does your skeptical and so-limited human mind have to limit God in this way?
Wrong. That he was/is God is an objective fact. The act of faith in deciding whether or not Jesus was God incarnate is based upon the subject’s objective investigation of the claims that Jesus made in regards to His divinity and his choice to either believe Jesus or not.
Don’t be absurd. None of them claimed that THEY were the truth. Nor did any of them claim to be divine.
Another absurd non-sequitur. That people use christianity as an excuse to cause chaos in no way follows from Christianity. That comment is frankly quite shallow historically speaking.
Approach to what? Religion? Or human sinfulness? And with what? Your version of religious skepticism? Or universal skepticism?
But if its impossible to know anything about Jesus or what He objectively said, how can you even make this statement, which you are in fact asserting OBJECTIVELY.
(Which again is another objective statement.)
God is not a state of mind, not of our minds or the minds of others. Its not a “consciousness” of collective persons. God is a real Being, God is Being itself, personal and wholly independent of His creation. He is not merely “the love manifest in the people”, he is the source of that love.
Being a former atheist myself and still maintaining friendships with other atheists I can tell you that the idea of “near-eastern monarchies” isn’t the cause of their atheism but are only excuses or intellectual symptoms of a much more personal cause.
I’m not sure that you think God knows all. But if you do, than he wouldn’t have curiosity. For curiosity excludes knowing, since curiosity means to wonder or not know.
I’m wondering if you believe in Jesus. Is there a real Jesus in your mind? Did He come to earth as a Man? Did he choose 12 and speak the things He had in mind? Did He start a church that He said He would be with until the end of time? Did He speak lies?
You are correct in all of your points. God, in my belief, doesn’t know everything, but His knowledge is monstrous. That being said, I believe He is still learning, developing, gaining knowledge. But those are only my views on the subject.
We are created in the image of God, can God create anything greater than himself?
Good evening Petra22: Believing in Jesus isn’t the same in my thinking for being able to answer epistemological questions about God. I believe those have to be looked into by each person through direct experience.
Good evening Amandi: I never said that it was impossible to know anything about God. I said that I think that God is best known intuitively and experientially rather than supposing taht other people, be they saints, prophets, theologians or apologists, officials or institutions pretend that they can know God for you. What I am saying is that my experience has been that God is best known directly.
It is neither humble or arrogant in intent. I am not above or below any other living being, therefore, my opinions simply hold a place.
I am growing weary of covering the same ground with you repeatedly. The fact that you and I believe in Jesus is not proof that Jesus is God. I believe it and so do you, but that is faith and that is subjective. To become an objective fact it has to be vetted by practical experience, or tested. Such things cannot be done in regards to the epistemology of Jesus.
It simply isn’t objectively true. To say so, doesn’t deny it. It goes back to what I said about intuition. I know certain things on an intuitive level and have a very profound and direct experience of God in my own life, but this is not something that I can show other people and demonstrate on a practical level, so while it is a truth for Gary Sheldrake, it cannot be offered as a universal and ubiquitously accepted truth. It is my own experience, and there is a lot of subjectivity in our own experiences if we’re honest with ourselves.
Actually, Krishna did. You can find this in The Bhagavad Gita (Hindu Bible)
While it’s arguable that chaos is not a Christian teaching, I think history tells another story in regards to actual outcomes. Conversely, can you say what calamities in the realm of earthy affairs have been subverted by the existence of Christianity?
How is it that you have come to the conclusion that I’m a skeptic?
I would be most agreeable to staying on topic and on point if you would please.
The approaches of people who proclaim to follow Jesus aren’t necessarily the approach of Jesus. I simply have suggested that people know Jesus for themselves. If you believe that Jesus lives, you shouldn’t find it unreasonable to expect that you can know him for yourself. That is simply what I have said.
I am honestly not being sarcastic when I say that I don’t understand what you just said.
What is your experience of the nature of Jesus? Specifically, how do you know him yourself, leaving out what you have read, what you have been told and what you have been taught to think? What is your experience of Jesus? When did you last see him? If you haven’t seen him for yourself, where have you looked? This is our task, or at least that’s what I think - to see God plainly and directly and to see God for oneself. This life of ours isn’t about someone else’s experience or someone else’s account, and your relationship with God is not someone else’s to manage, nor is it something that can be arbitrated by an institution or it’s officials. And believe it or not, that is a perfectly Catholic position.
Beings are temporal.
I think you may want to consider this with respect to many of the things you’ve told me on this thread Amandi. Is it I who have said that God is this or that, and is it I who have offered objective truths about God? What do you perceive to be the limits that I have placed in God in this discussion? What box have I confined him in? Rather, I think I have let him out of yours, but that too is subjective, because you never really had him in yours. Such things are the machinations of the human mind, and not limits on God.
I didn’t say it was the case for all of them, I said it was the case for many I have met.
Are you speaking from experience and thereby projecting, or do you have some data to share on that?
Is saying that something isn’t an objectively proven truth the same as saying it’s subjective? Such things can also be called positions, theories, beliefs or convictions, but does that make them subjective? Further on, does the subjectivity of an experience make it something less of an experience?
This is incorrect. I said:
Then you said:
Christ came to reveal the Father to us. But you’re saying that its impossible to know that either Christ truly revealed the Father at all to us or that the Apostles properly received the truth about God the Father from Jesus. So therefore it follows from what you’re saying is that its impossible for us to know anything about God.
Why? Why can’t God be known BOTH in the subjective experience of God AND in the objective testimony of the Apostles which was recorded in the Sacred Scriptures and protected by the Church over the centuries?
What do you mean by “vetted by practical experience”? As far as “tested”, it was tested. AND it was recorded.
Does this objective statement also include the Apostles?
How is it possible for people to “know Jesus for themselves” if Jesus as God the Son is not an objective reality?
Frankly, no its not.
Fixed that for ya.
This who just replied to my comment that “God is Being itself” with, “Beings are temporal”.
Christianity has never been solely about an “experience”(whatever that is) of Jesus. Christianity includes this in a sacramental way, but it also includes fact-claims. Whether you deem them true or false they are not claims about things inside our consciousness but about things outside of it. They are about objective truth, not subjective truth; about beings, not just consciousness; about laws, about the resurrection of a real man of flesh and blood.(1 Cor 15:13-15).
Good morning Amandil: It seems that you haven’t understood much of what I have said, so I don’t see much point in continuing. In summary however, the essence of what I have said is that your own experience of God is what is important. That does not lessen the experience of the Apostles, church fathers, theologians, saints apologists or anyone else, but conversely, I don’t think that their experiences diminish or serve as a replacement for our own. Moreover, for me God is not a far off concept to be approached through channels. For me, God is an everyday reality and part of my experience, and I do think that such things as my own experience are the core of what my existence is about. I also understand and accept that you might feel otherwise.Does this objective statement also include the Apostles?
How is it possible for people to “know Jesus for themselves” if Jesus as God the Son is not an objective reality?
Frankly, no its not.
John 20:[26] Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” [27] Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.”
[28] Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
[29] Jesus said to him, **“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” **
Fixed that for ya.
This who just replied to my comment that “God is Being itself” with, “Beings are temporal”.
Christianity has never been solely about an “experience”(whatever that is) of Jesus. Christianity includes this in a sacramental way, but it also includes fact-claims. Whether you deem them true or false they are not claims about things inside our consciousness but about things outside of it. They are about objective truth, not subjective truth; about beings, not just consciousness; about laws, about the resurrection of a real man of flesh and blood.(1 Cor 15:13-15).
There’s two options, either Reality truly exists independent of our experience of it, or reality is only a figment of our imagination with which we can decide what’s true or not true, real or not real.
Either God IS independent of our subjective experience of Him, or we are gods “who know good and evil”(Gen 3) and thus our “experiences”(whatever that means) are “god”.
I know and understand exactly what you’ve said. You can “say” that “you haven’t understood much of what I have said” because as with anyone who holds to the theory of subjective truth you can really say and believe anything you feel because its “true for you.”
And that’s fine if you think or feel that way. But God is an everyday reality whether you perceive or experience Him or not. He will continue to be a reality once you are dead, and He was a reality before you were ever born.
Are you saying that that is an objective fact or just your personal subjective experience?
Are you saying that us an objective fact of just your personal subjective experience?
I’m not saying that I have “viewed the world through the lens from which you view it.”
Good Evening Amandil: I don’t think you do understand what I’ve said, but as I said before, I don’t have any desire to banter with you. To your next point, it has long been my opinion that those who would make broad judgments about what is real and what is not really haven’t given things much thought.
Again, you seem to have concerns with objective truths vs. subjectivity. Both subjective and objective observations can be at once true. For instance, if you were to dress me in shorts and a tee shirt and an Eskimo in shorts and a tee shift and gave us a thermometer on a day that is breezy and 50 degrees Fahrenheit, both the Eskimo and myself could make the objective observation that it is 50 degrees Fahrenheit. At the same time, the Eskimo can make the subjective observation that it’s hot outside and I can make the subjective observation that it’s very chilly outside. All three observations to include the objective observation that it’s 50 degrees Fahrenheit and the subjective observations that it’s hot outside and very chilly outside are valid observations. All are true, yet two are relative to the experiencer. None of this changes the fact that I am quite chilly.
Whether I ever lived at all or lived a hundred years dull of my own experiences has no bearing on the experiences of the Apostles. Their experiences, like those of any creature are unique to them, Mine are unique to me. As for the divinity of Christ, that is a belief.
The Apostles have recorded their experiences of Christ. My experiences of Christ are primary to me, and God has inspired me to be immersed in those experiences rather than in the experiences of others.
My life and my observations don’t diminish the lives, experiences and testimonies of others. They add a small dimension to the glory of creation. Nothing more or less than that.
This entry reveals the fact that I have been duped into carrying on a conversation with someone who is paying little attention. I have repeatedly spoken about the fact that I have my own experience of God, and yet you seem to have concluded that I don’t believe in or experience God. That is the polar opposite of what I have been telling you. My sense is that you get rather excitable when you feel someone is challenging your attachment to certain dogmas, and from there you sort of drift off into another direction. Be steady, I’m not here to shake you up.