choosing not to be catholic

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MissyP89' date='17 May 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1274070601' post='2111719']
I voted no. The Catholics an individual comes to know here may be the only Catholics they have ever met. And we may be judged by our lack of charity in dailogue in such a way that the person is no longer comfortable with the idea of the Church.

I'm not saying this is the right view, but it's not unreasonable.
[/quote]

Phatmass members may frown at the charity or lack of charity found in some posts, but overall the forum is INCREDIBLY charitable when compared to other forums. In other words, it would be like a breath of fresh air to any forum-goer who stumbled across this place.

[britannia]

The question implies that God can be discerned by reason. I do not think that this is the case.

I was brought up Anglo-Catholic and had a good Roman Catholic education in a convent. This left me with a love of liturgy; and interest in religious thinking; a respect for the principles of Catholic morality(even if I do not always agree on all the details); and a wish that I could believe in God.

I do not believe that Catholicism is inconsistent with reason, any more than I do some other religions; but reason has never (in 45 years) demonstrated to me at least that there is a God: in fact, part of the problem which I have is that it is difficult to believe in something which, by its very nature, cannot be understood. Faith must fill the gap; and I have never been blessed with faith.

I come here because I am still looking and I am concerned that my failure to believe should not be the result of stubbornness. I live in hope of the twitch upon the thread; but my not being a Catholic, surely, cannot be "unreasonable"?

Oh, and I just like Catholics!

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='britannia' date='17 May 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1274104373' post='2111844']
The question implies that God can be discerned by reason. I do not think that this is the case.

I was brought up Anglo-Catholic and had a good Roman Catholic education in a convent. This left me with a love of liturgy; and interest in religious thinking; a respect for the principles of Catholic morality(even if I do not always agree on all the details); and a wish that I could believe in God.

I do not believe that Catholicism is inconsistent with reason, any more than I do some other religions; but reason has never (in 45 years) demonstrated to me at least that there is a God: in fact, part of the problem which I have is that it is difficult to believe in something which, by its very nature, cannot be understood. Faith must fill the gap; and I have never been blessed with faith.

I come here because I am still looking and I am concerned that my failure to believe should not be the result of stubbornness. I live in hope of the twitch upon the thread; but my not being a Catholic, surely, cannot be "unreasonable"?

Oh, and I just like Catholics!


[/quote]


Sometimes a leap of faith only needs to be a very small thing. Have you tried taking this to Jesus in prayer? I didn't have a personal relationship with Him until three and a half years ago when a very holy priest told me that I needed this, but I didn't know how to go about it so I remember pulling the car over to the side of the road and praying to Jesus, saying, "Jesus, Father Paul said I need to fall in love with You, but I don't know how. Will you do this for me, please?" My life hasn't been the same since.

I was raised agnostic, so opening up to Jesus was a big step. First, Our Lady pulled me in subtly with the Rosary, which I had such an attraction to and couldn't understand why, and then the Holy Spirit surprised me by filling my heart at a parish renewal meeting, and then finally, my prayer to Jesus was answered beyond my wildest expectations or hopes. God seduces us in most unusual and varied ways and over a long period of time sometimes.

I will pray for you because it sounds to me like God has already started the seduction on you, but you just don't know it yet!

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dUSt' date='15 October 2005 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1129428903' post='759769']
Well, you said [b]everything[/b]. That's five years worth of debates, arguments and proof. That's a lot of information. Honestly, I don't know how one would be able to read it all and still not believe that the Catholic church is the one true church. That's just me though, and I'm generally very simple minded.
[/quote]

yep...

[britannia]

I do pray: sometimes I even sit in a church to do it; but it hasn't done the trick yet!

Thank you for praying for me: a very kind thing to do

[KnightofChrist]

The rejection of God, and Mother Church is not reasonable. One is truth the other holds and preaches the truth, it is not reasonable to deny either. As it is unreasonable to deny the sky is blue and grass is green.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well I do want to say this:

If it were reasonable to deny the Church, then nobody would go to hell for doing it. So if one is not ignorant of the Truth, and deny it anyway, then yes, I think they're being unreasonable.

[MIKolbe]

to be deep in Phatmass is to cease to be protestant

[kamiller42]

[quote name='britannia' date='17 May 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1274104373' post='2111844']
The question implies that God can be discerned by reason. I do not think that this is the case.[/quote]
I can't say I agree with everything in ex-atheist Lee Strobel's books, but I thought his comparison proving God's existence to investigators proving a crime took place without having been present and using forensic evidence to be pretty good.

If you walked into a room and found someone with a knife in the back, you could discern that more than likely, you're dealing with a murder. Using the evidence on the scene, you can re-create what happened in the room without having actually been a witness of the crime.

So it is with faith. We can look at the perfection in the world around us and discern some higher power had to put all this together. It could not have happened by blind luck. We gather evidence on the scene, our world and the history of it, and at a certain point come to the inevitable conclusion that power had to be a single uncreated Creator. We know he exists even though we have not seen him face to face or existed at the time of creation.

If that doesn't work for ya, simply read some of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='17 May 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1274118797' post='2111969']
I can't say I agree with everything in ex-atheist Lee Strobel's books, but I thought his comparison proving God's existence to investigators proving a crime took place without having been present and using forensic evidence to be pretty good.

If you walked into a room and found someone with a knife in the back, you could discern that more than likely, you're dealing with a murder. Using the evidence on the scene, you can re-create what happened in the room without having actually been a witness of the crime.

So it is with faith. We can look at the perfection in the world around us and discern some higher power had to put all this together. It could not have happened by blind luck. We gather evidence on the scene, our world and the history of it, and at a certain point come to the inevitable conclusion that power had to be a single uncreated Creator. We know he exists even though we have not seen him face to face or existed at the time of creation.

If that doesn't work for ya, simply read some of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.
[/quote]
Some people like St. Anselm's argument too. Personally, I don't, but it's pretty awesome nonetheless. I almost feel like it was one big theological joke.

[Hassan]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='17 May 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1274118797' post='2111969']
I can't say I agree with everything in ex-atheist Lee Strobel's books, but I thought his comparison proving God's existence to investigators proving a crime took place without having been present and using forensic evidence to be pretty good.

If you walked into a room and found someone with a knife in the back, you could discern that more than likely, you're dealing with a murder. Using the evidence on the scene, you can re-create what happened in the room without having actually been a witness of the crime.

So it is with faith. We can look at the perfection in the world around us and discern some higher power had to put all this together. It could not have happened by blind luck. We gather evidence on the scene, our world and the history of it, and at a certain point come to the inevitable conclusion that power had to be a single uncreated Creator. We know he exists even though we have not seen him face to face or existed at the time of creation.

If that doesn't work for ya, simply read some of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.
[/quote]

I've read Aquinas and Strobel in 10th grade. They helped me then but since I have come to see that they give deeply flawed arguments in trying to prove the existence of God. Ditto for Anselm's ontological argument(s) (how many he presents depends on which scholar you ask). Even when I really wanted evidence that God existed I couldn't ignore the problems with them.

When you all make all these platitudes about how the truth can never be reasonably denied it turns a nonbeliever like myself away. I see bold proclamations and very little substance to back that claim up. Alright, you all say it is reasonable. Then where is the evidence? It sounds like you all are saying that it is intellectually reasonable to be a Catholic. That if an individual is sufficiently open to intellectual argument and able to grasp the flow of your arguments, then they must submit intellectually to the Church.

I see little that suggests that to be the case. And I think it turns people who don't have your faith away even more when they are presented simultaneously with the very bold claims make about Catholicisms reasonableness and the sant hard evidence available to support this claimed reasonableness. If you all mean something else then you might want to clarify so people outside your faith don't take things the wrong way.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' date='17 May 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1274124940' post='2112025']
I've read Aquinas and Strobel in 10th grade. They helped me then but since I have come to see that they give deeply flawed arguments in trying to prove the existence of God. Ditto for Anselm's ontological argument(s) (how many he presents depends on which scholar you ask). Even when I really wanted evidence that God existed I couldn't ignore the problems with them.[/quote]
Can you give us a sampler from each showing how deeply flawed their arguments are?

[quote]I see little that suggests that to be the case. And I think it turns people who don't have your faith away even more when they are presented simultaneously with the very bold claims make about Catholicisms reasonableness and the sant hard evidence available to support this claimed reasonableness. If you all mean something else then you might want to clarify so people outside your faith don't take things the wrong way.
[/quote]
What evidence are you looking for which would be sufficient enough to lead you to a conclusion God exists?

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='17 May 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1274116918' post='2111956']
Well I do want to say this:

If it were reasonable to deny the Church, then nobody would go to hell for doing it. So if one is not ignorant of the Truth, and deny it anyway, then yes, I think they're being unreasonable.
[/quote]

I think there are plenty of people who have HONESTLY pursued the truth and reasonable rejected the faith. As I said in my previous post, rejecting the matters of faith is not always a matter of reason...reason cannot get you to assent to the Matters of Faith. Reason (unaided by faith) actually sometimes gets you to the contrary to what the Church teaches...that is why Faith is ESSENTIAL for pursuing the truth. JPII's, [i]Fides et Ratio[/i] is very clear on this. Pure Reason will lead people to think the Eucharist is not the real presence, I mean how many times do accidents exist without the substance of which they are accidents of?! Transubstantiation is not very reasonable, but it is not IRRATIONAl (I am by NO MEANS saying it is not true...only that it cannot be proven true by reason, and it would be rational for someone to reject it)...the ONLY way to try to do philosophy of the Eucharist is by first taking it for granted via Faith that the Body of Christ is really present in the "bread", and then you try to explain how this can be so...it is not surprising that it is only so by way of a miracle. Much of philosophical theology is done by assuming the matters of faith, and then proceeding into the arguments.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote name='Hassan' date='17 May 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1274124940' post='2112025']
I've read Aquinas and Strobel in 10th grade. They helped me then but since I have come to see that they give deeply flawed arguments in trying to prove the existence of God. Ditto for Anselm's ontological argument(s) (how many he presents depends on which scholar you ask). Even when I really wanted evidence that God existed I couldn't ignore the problems with them.
[/quote]

If you learned "Aquinas's" 5-ways in 10th grade, then you most likely didn't really learn Aquinas's 5-ways. The 5-ways are by FAR the most oversimplified arguments in the history of philosophy, and is is incredibly sad. To adequately study the 5-ways you have to be a master at Aristotelian causality (especially efficient causality and final causality...both of which have been utterly misunderstood for centuries), theories of Neo-Platonic relations, a rather rigorous study in medieval theories of modality, to name a few. His arguments PRESUPPOSE all this. If you think Aquinas's argument can be summarized by talking about billard balls or parents and grandparents, or if after hearing his argument you think you can raise the objection "But if God caused everything, who caused God"; then you have utterly misunderstood Aquinas's arguments. It is sad that so many people teach Aquinas so poorly, especially since he said giving a real BAD argument in support of the truths of the Faith does more damage then keeping your mouth shut." (roughly speaking)

I am not begging the question by saying what he argues for is true, but only that so many people think he argues in a certain way when really that is not how he argues at all!... I am slightly doubtful about a few of his ways myself, but we must first really know the arguments before we to to reject them.

I would recommend taking a deeper study at Thomas's arguements I recommend a book by Norman Kretzmann called, "The Metaphysics of Theism" it is a book which focuses real hard on book one of Thomas's [i]Summa Contra Gentiles[/i]...that will give you a real good idea of what Aquinas's arguments are.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Fiat_Voluntas_Tua

[Anomaly]

Hmmm. Read everything here on Phatmass and choose not to be Catholic? Absolutely not unreasonable. Being a participant here since 2000 is a Big part of why I choose to NOT be Catholic. Like Hassan said, it's the unreasonable claims and declarations that go beyond a reasonbale foundation that brings the house of cards down.