my first post

[no_fixd_address]

The Sanity of Catholicism

Catholicism is sane because it

first, it appeals to the intellect and is founded, not on mere sentiment or conjecture, or blind prejudice, but upon the rock of reason.

Secondly, that it provides suitable and effective means to enable the individual to deal with the problems and difficulties of life; that is, it provides a practical working system whereby each one can, with reasonable diligence, save his soul from the contamination of sin, lead a pure, honest, upright life, and thus secure his eternal salvation.

I assert, then, in the first place, that Catholicism is sane, because it appeals to man's intellect and is founded on reason, and does not shrink from or fear the closest critical or scientific investigation.

First let us consider the act of faith, which lies at the root of Catholicism. An act of faith is, in the Catholic sense, an act of reason, an assent on adequate grounds to certain intellectual propositions. Outsiders constantly misunderstand and frequently misrepresent the Catholic act of faith. Hence, to avoid confusion, I will treat the matter in two ways.

First. - I will try to tell you what faith is not.

Second. - Then I will try to explain more fully what it actually is, and to show you how reasonable it is, and how it benefits a sane man to make acts of faith.

[no_fixd_address]

(1) First, then, a Catholic act of faith is not mere credulity or a blind acceptance of the marvellous without reasonable grounds. Non-Catholics often credit Catholics with this kind of thing; they imagine Catholics to be folk gaping openmouthed for any strange story to swallow it down whole.

(2) Nor is faith mere sentimentalism - i.e., accepting things as true because they give you a comfortable feeling. The Catholic, in believing, is not guided by emotion, but by conviction.

(3) Nor, again, does Catholicism appeal, as the Modernists did, to a special sort of instinct whereby one reaches out after the Supernatural - apart from intellectual conviction. Modernists taught that the department of faith was so distinct from that of science that while by faith you believe the Resurrection of Christ to be true, scientifically you might deny its truth; and so with other Christian dogmas. If we Catholics taught that kind of thing we could hardly claim that ours is a sane religious system.

Hence, I repeat, faith is not mere blind superstition, not sentimentalism, not the functioning of a special subconscious faculty, whereby the soul grasps the Divine. No! in the true Catholic sense, faith is conviction. The Catholic says, "I KNOW."

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

We have been through this already or did you already forget? that and I am not in to position to make and coherent argument because I am on so many painkillers right now (I got in to a car accident and messed up my back quite reacently) so at this moment my head isn't clear enough to make any real statement the only thing that is preventing this post (or the last several for that matter) from being full of typos is spell check


so give me a little time here to heal and I will be back in no time :::EVIL GRIN:::

Hmm, my apologies. I did not know you had had an accident recquiring ltos of painkillers.

Sorry. I hope you feel better soon.

[no_fixd_address]

What is Faith?

Now we come to the positive declaration of what faith really is. Religious faith in the reasonable and Catholic sense is an extension or application to the spiritual world of an ordinary intellectual process which all exercise daily, and without the exercise of which our lives as social beings would be impossible.

This process consists in assenting to the truth of propositions on the testimony of others. We may acquire knowledge in two ways - either by direct observation (you see a man knocked down by a car in the street), or through the testimony of others (you read an account of the accident in the evening paper, or learn it from a friend).

The last intellectual operation, whereby we assent to the truth of facts (which are, perhaps, beyond the reach of our Own observation) because other men testify to their truth, plays an incessant part in our lives. It is in this way most of our knowledge comes to us - on the authority of others.

If you reflect on the method whereby people as a rule acquire scientific, geographical, historical, philosophical knowledge, or if you think of the part which books and newspapers play in our lives, you will, I think, admit the truth of what I say.

We each of us investigate a very small portion of the earth's surface on which we live - namely, the part traversed by the tiny track of our perambulations through life. All the other knowledge we have of the world - or of the universe - rests on the testimony of others.

[no_fixd_address]

Get well soon, Anarkist.

[no_fixd_address]

Not Unscientific

Now, who will say that such faith, such willingness to accept testimony, is unscientific, or unworthy of a rational being? Who will suggest that it is not based on sound intellectual principles? It may not be easy for you to trace the process whereby you have come to believe without any doubt in the existence of Jupiter's satellites, or of icebergs in the Antarctic, or of Hitler or Mussolini. The evidence has come through many almost imperceptible channels, but is such that it excludes all doubt from your mind.

If you analyse the process, it comes to this: You convince yourself by direct examination or reasoning of the reliability of the witness; then you accept his testimony as true. Two things must be clear to you about the witness -
(1) That he had ample opportunity to learn the facts;
(2) that he is telling the truth.
In other words, that he is not deceived himself, nor wants to deceive you. In a court of law, the judge and jury must test these two points: Is the witness truthful? Has he knowledge of the facts? Once they are convinced of these two things, then they accept his evidence, and believe his statements to be true.

To a Catholic believer Faith is just this process. It is not conjecture, nor is it credulity. It means assenting to the truth of certain facts on the evidence of a reliable witness, the witness in this case being God Himself. That the facts (e.g., the Trinity, Incarnation, the Real Presence ) are beyond our ken and cannot be directly tested by us is no more a difficulty to our accepting them (when the evidence is sufficient) than my inability to investigate directly the murder of Julius Caesar or the execution of Mary Queen of Scots militates against my belief that these two eminent persons met with violent deaths.

In other words, you can accept what is historically true without all of the evidence, but still accept and belive it to be true. The same goes for things that are above our ability to fully grasp.

Steps in the Process

The steps that lead to Faith are these: -
(1) I assure myself by reasoning and argument that God has actually spoken and communicated knowledge to mankind - that He is a witness to men of truth.
(2) I prove that this knowledge is still available for use, is actually preserved somewhere in the world, is in the keeping of somebody from whom I can obtain it.
(3) I learn the contents of the message, and accept them as God's revelation, on His authority. This last mental act is the formal act of faith. The other two processes, for the carrying out of which we rely on our own intellectual acumen and activity (aided by God's grace), are preparatory, and lead up to the formal act of faith.

Suppose you receive a letter from a friend whose word you trust implicitly. A glance at the handwriting and signature assures you that the letter is actually from this friend. You thereby establish its genuineness and authenticity, and even before you read the letter or know its contents you are assured that your friend has sent you a message, and that you have his message in your hands. This corresponds to the preparatory stages (the praeambula fidei, as theologians call them), described above. Then you read the letter and learn certain facts, which you accept as true on the authority of your friend. This corresponds to the formal act of faith.

[no_fixd_address]

Renan's Folly

But there is a point to be insisted upon with regard to the kind of evidence on which we rely when giving our assent to the propositions that lead to faith. Renan said he would not accept religious truth unless it were proved to him with the exactness of a mathematical theorem. Now, that is a foolish way of talking. Life would be impossible if men followed out this principle in the ordinary details of life.

Take a few examples: - You sit down daily to take your food without hesitation or misgiving lest perhaps it be poisoned. When a man comes to breakfast he does not demand of his wife a mathematical proof - that she put tea in the pot, not arsenic! How does your wife know it is tea? She trusts the grocer. Does she demand an affidavit to that effect? Yet who will say that we are imprudent or foolish, or that we are risking our lives in drinking a cup of tea without previous scientific investigation into the ingredients of the teapot.

Again, you step into a train or a cab, and place your life at the mercy of an unknown individual - the engineman or cabby - about whose antecedents and moral character you know nothing. He may be, and usually is, quite a respectable member of society, with a wife and family and other hostages given to fortune, and has no homicidal tendencies that might induce him to increase the pace, dash the train to perdition, and send you to a speedy death. But how do you know all this?

Do you think it necessary to accost the engine driver or cabby thus: - - "My dear friend, I am about to entrust my life to your care for several hours. Hence, I demand your credentials. Prove to me clearly and scientifically that you are a fit person to take charge of me and my fortunes?"

Think what an average engine driver or cabby would reply to such a demand - or, perhaps, better not try to think of what he would say! You see, of course, the absurdity of such an attitude. But now tell me: why do you trust the engine driver? The cabby? It is really an act of faith. Is it therefore unreasonable? Is it credulity, or superstition, or sentimentalism? Not a bit of it.

You know quite well it is an act of faith founded on excellent sensible reasons, which appeal to the intellect, although the chain of argument by which you arrive at the conclusion that you will trust this grimy gentleman in charge of the locomotive is one which you may find it hard to put into words. And I have little doubt that a clever lawyer could make out a very strong case to prove the extreme folly of ever traveling in a train: the engine driver might go mad, or develop a mania for beating records, and try to hit up the pace of a hundred miles an hour, or he might want to commit suicide by jumping off the train, and leave her to dash on without control, and so on.

Danger!

To give you an example: I knew an elderly gentleman who never in his life would allow a barber to shave him. He said it was too dangerous to allow a stranger to hold a razor so temptingly near to one's throat. Yet millions of bearded, sensible men of every race and clime do actually day by day walk into barbers' shops, submit to the razor, and do not think themselves specially brave for doing so. How would you prove mathematically that they were wise in their action?

Now, I apply all this to the Catholic faith, and I say the argument for the existence of Divine Revelation, and hence the argument on which my act of faith rests, is not a mathematical but a moral argument; but none the less good, strong, and powerful, and one which a reasonable man will accept, and in accepting which he gives evidence of his sanity and soundness of judgement; just as the ordinary man shows his common sense by relying on the testimony of others in the transactions of daily life.

Of course, it will be understood that at present I am not dealing with the special supernatural co-operation of God, which is essential to every act of faith; whether it be His co-operation with the intellect by way of illumination to make that faculty capable of eliciting this supernatural act of assent; or His inspiration of the will, which moves the intellect to produce its act.

This special influence of God on mind and heart constitutes the "gift" of faith. But at present we are considering the matter merely from the side of the human intellect functioning along the lines proper to it, being moved by apprehension of the truth formally to accept or assent to it.

The Catholic Church, then, builds her system on faith; and faith, I repeat, is an intellectual process, founded on intellectual conviction. It is not mere sentiment, not mere conjecture or guesswork, nor blind acceptance of certain catchwords or airy principles, which prove on investigation to rest on sand.

[Lunar Shadow]

all the words of No Fixed Adress are running together time to take a step back away from the computer

[creedsister]

that was long and interesting

[Sincirr]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

sincirr if "God" knows you in the womb then he knows if that "life" will be aborted or not what difference does it make if we are predestined??

Interesting thought. You are assuming though, that the God of the universe has everything the way he sees fit, but with man it couldnt stay that way. God made them with the ability to make decisions and back in the garden of eden a decision was made that affected the rest of humankind.

As I said, we have the option to make decisions, so mothers do too. And they make that decision and I recon it is wrong. And the nation will reap from it The rate of infertility has risen because of it. But thats probably too deep for u 2 understand right now.

Also No Fixed Address: Atheism talk is welcome here, especially if we can build our faith debating about it

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Sincirr)

Interesting thought. You are assuming though, that the God of the universe has everything the way he sees fit, but with man it couldnt stay that way. God made them with the ability to make decisions and back in the garden of eden a decision was made that affected the rest of humankind.

Well again I came from the school of thought here (Protestantism) where every thing is predestined

I mean lets think about this if "God" is all powerful, all loving, all over the place, and all knowing, then he already knows the outcome of EVERYTHING so again I ask what difference does it make if there are abortions or not? I contend that IF there is a god then if he didn't want abortions to happen then he wouldn't have let them happen or even let them continue, either that OR the god I hear Christians discribe and talk about doesn't really exist take your pick.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Sincirr)

As I said, we have the option to make decisions, so mothers do too. And they make that decision and I recon it is wrong. And the nation will reap from it The rate of infertility has risen because of it. But thats probably too deep for u 2 understand right now.

Please do show be reliable stats on this claim of yours. When I say that I mean since the time abortion was legalized. I am not talking about coat hangar abortions I am talking about legal ones.

[no_fixd_address]

Quote:

Well again I came from the school of thought here (Protestantism) where every thing is predestined

I mean lets think about this if "God" is all powerful, all loving, all over the place, and all knowing, then he already knows the outcome of EVERYTHING so again I ask what difference does it make if there are abortions or not? I contend that IF there is a god then if he didn't want abortions to happen then he wouldn't have let them happen or even let them continue, either that OR the god I hear Christians describe and talk about doesn't really exist take your pick.

God does not pre-determine. That is a Calvinoid invention and it is not biblical. However, Calvin borrowed from Catholicism elements that IS biblical. Here are some citations followed by a brief exegesis of the text (I am not going to quote half the bible text, look in yer own)

Eph. 1:5 - Paul teaches that God “predestined” us in love to be His sons through Jesus Christ. "Predestination" means that God knows what we will do before we do it (it does not mean that God determines what we do; otherwise, we would have no freewill).

Predestination is taken from the Greek word "prooridzo" which means to know or declare in advance by God’s foreknowledge. See, for example, 1 Peter 1:2 where Peter writes about the “elect according to the foreknowledge of God.”

The terms “predestination” and “the elect” always refer to God’s knowledge (not human knowledge) because God is outside of time (and humans cannot predict the future). There are two types of "predestination," to grace and to glory. In this verse, (Eph. 1:5) Paul is teaching about predestination to grace, which means becoming a Christian.

1 Pet. 1:1-2 – Paul teaches about being destined by God for obedience to Christ. This is another example of predestination to grace. But there is also predestination to glory.

Rom. 8:29-30 – Paul also writes that we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Now Paul is writing about predestination to glory, which means not only becoming a faithful Christian during our lives, but persevering to the end by conforming our will to Christ's will.

1 Cor. 15:49 – Paul writes that we are conformed in His image at the resurrection, when we shall bear the image of the man of heaven. These are the people who were predestined to glory.

Rev. 3:5 – Jesus warns that He can blot out the names that are in the book of life. This refers to those currently, not ultimately, justified (those who are predestined to grace, but not to glory).

Eph. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:2; Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 15:49 - therefore, predestination is either to grace (which we could lose) or to glory (which we cannot lose). As alluded to above, some non-Catholics confuse the definition of "predestination" (which means God knows what we will do before we do it) and "predetermination" (the erroneous belief that God determines what we will do). But God does not author evil. We choose evil by our own freewill.

Ezek. 18:23-24, 32 - God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Our death is our freewill, failing to respond to His grace. God does not predetermine certain people to hell. God also does not predetermine certain "elect" people to heaven.

We all, as God's children, have been given the grace we need to be saved, but we can decide to reject God's grace.

2 Peter 3:9 – God is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. God wills all to be saved, but our salvation depends on our willingness to repent and receive God’s grace.

Matt. 18:14 - Jesus says it is not the will of the Father that any of the children should perish. But He did not make us robots and respects the freewill He has given us. If we did not have this freewill, we would not be able to love, and if we would not be able to love, we would not have been created in God's image and likeness.

Acts 10:35, 45 - these texts show that non-Christians can also be saved if they fear God, even though they haven't formally accepted Jesus as Savior at an altar call. They just do not have the fullness of the means of salvation.

1 Tim. 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved. But our freewill may choose to reject God's grace. In order for our gift of freewill not to be a sham, God must also give us the freedom to reject Him.

2 Pet. 3:9 - the Lord doesn't wish that any should perish, but come to full repentance.

James 1:13-14 - God tempts no one. Each person is tempted by his own desire. God gives us freewill to cooperate with Him or reject Him.

1 Cor. 10:13 - God permits temptation, but does not author temptation. God also provides us sufficient grace to overcome any temptation.

John 3:16-17 - God so loved the world He sent His Son, that the world might be saved (not that only the "elect" might be saved).

John 4:42 - Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world (not just the Savior of the elect). Some will perish by their own choosing.

Rom. 5:6,18 - Christ died for the ungodly (all of us), and His righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men (not just the elect).

2 Cor. 5:14-15 - Christ has died for all (not just the elect), that those who live might live for Him.

1 Tim. 2:6 - Jesus Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all (not just for the elect). But only those predestined to glory will be saved.

1 Tim. 4:10 - our hope is on the living God who is the Savior of all men (not just the elect).

Titus 2:11 - for the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men (not just the elect).

1 John 2:2 - Christ is the expiation for the sins of the whole world (not just the elect). But not all are predestined to glory because of their own choosing.

1 John 4:14 - again, Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world (not just the Savior of the elect).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sal...#salvation-III

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address)

[color=RoyalBlue]

Eph. 1:5 - Paul teaches that God “predestined” us in love to be His sons through Jesus Christ. "Predestination" means that God knows what we will do before we do it (it does not mean that God determines what we do; otherwise, we would have no freewill). But God does not author evil. We choose evil by our own freewill.

but see if "God" already knows what we are going to chose that means we ARE pre-determined hence no true choice cuz if he knows already what we are going to do what say do we have in the matter?? None he wrote it he has seen the out come (mind you if god exists). We come right back to where we started.

I do disagree greatly with the statement made that god does not author evil. I disagree on many levels...

Just the basic one here right now cuz as I have stated earlier my brain is kinda fried due to pain killers

God created all right? witch means he created Satan (the morning star, the devil, Lucifer, etc) now God knew he would turn against him and become who he (supposedly) is today but knowing all that he made him anyway which willed EVIL. So one could come to the conclusion if it weren't for God evil wouldn’t exist. God Authored the devil hence God did evil.

That’s just the simple argument I will elaborate later when my life (as far as health gets back to norm)

[no_fixd_address]

Quote:

but see if "God" already knows what we are going to chose that means we ARE pre-determined hence no true choice cuz if he knows already what we are going to do what say do we have in the matter?? None he wrote it he has seen the out come (mind you if god exists). We come right back to where we started.

No. Read it again. It’s not that hard.

Quote:

I do disagree greatly with the statement made that god does not author evil. I disagree on many levels...

That is your Calvinoid background coming out. It’s a false paradigm.

Quote:

Just the basic one here right now cuz as I have stated earlier my brain is kinda fried due to pain killers.

Follow the doctor’s instructions with the meds. It’s in Sirach 38 1:15
Don’t waste the pain. Join it with the pain of the suffering Christ. The graces you receive from doing that will blow you away.

Quote:

God created all right? witch means he created Satan (the morning star, the devil, Lucifer, etc) now God knew he would turn against him and become who he (supposedly) is today but knowing all that he made him anyway which willed EVIL. So one could come to the conclusion if it weren't for God evil wouldn’t exist. God Authored the devil hence God did evil.

Free will is not evil. It is a gift. Satan was not created evil, which was his doing, not God’s.

Quote:

That’s just the simple argument I will elaborate later when my life (as far as health gets back to norm)

I offer you a framework that will enable you to deal with the problems and difficulties of life, especially your accident. That does not come from the feel-good escapist arguments you have heard from well-meaning “Christians”, and you can't get it from a book. That you will agree with me on. I challenge you to keep an open mind, and examine with rigor and honest investigation what I am saying.

[Lunar Shadow]

I am not going to sit here and argue Christian semantics there is no point. I am going to be changing gears here pretty soon. just thought I'd warn you.