More Than One "god", More Than One Path...

[SJP]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1341482' date='Jul 26 2007, 03:55 PM']Maybe I am not understanding your question. Let's start it from this direction.
Besides my reasoning capacities, my accumulated experiences, my own informational resources and the time to research them, my curiosity and desire to know GOD, and my interest to consider and understand others viewpoints; [b] [i]What else do I need [/i][/b]to lead me to the belief that there is a BEing as the GOD that I describe?[/quote]


How have your reasoning capacities led you to your beliefs about God?

How have your experiences led you to your beliefs about God?

I'm basically attempting to determine how it is that you have come to believe what you do about God. What from reason, and experience has led you to your present conclusions?

As Aloysius stated earlier, we affirm an ontological principal which causes all (including time) to exist, and we call that "God". For us God is the causation of the existence of everything, necessitated by [b]logic[/b].

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes:How have your reasoning capacities led you to your beliefs about God?
How have your experiences led you to your beliefs about God?
I'm basically attempting to determine how it is that you have come to believe what you do about God. What from reason, and experience has led you to your present conclusions?[/quote]

Prayer and meditation helps considerably. Visiting and talking with people of different religions and experiences and understanding why, how and what they believe about God and His relationship to humankind. Comparing what is written about God to what I know from my existence and accumulated experiences. It is a basically a process of elimination of what works and what doesn’t and like I mentioned earlier, faith can not be a part of this process.

[quote]SJP writes: As Aloysius stated earlier, we affirm an ontological principal which causes all (including time) to exist, and we call that "God". For us God is the causation of the existence of everything, necessitated by logic.[/quote]

And Aloysius has a fine understanding for God’s beginning but it is only when Aloysius attempts to contain or equate this god into a publication, an organization or to apply attibutes to this entity that this logic seems to break away.

[Aloysius]

all this logic comes straight out of the Catholic Tradition. If this logic is sound, it gives great creadance to the claim that the Catholic Church, which has been saying these things since the beginning, is in possession of Divine Revelation. If the things I believe based on logic are true, it would be a pretty ridiculous coincidence that a combination of the Hebrew faith, a first century palestinean jew's teachings, and the entire gentile world would produce such a truth if they were not what they claimed to be.

like if someone said "I have a phD in physics" and then proceeded to tell you all sorts of advanced physics concepts with complete accuracy, it'd be very unlikely that such a person did not have the phD he claimed to have.

everything you say STARTS with the PRESUPPOSITION that God exists. If God does not exist, all your points are moot. And since you've made no logical establishment of the existence of God, no arguments based upon what everyone in the world thinks god is or what experiences anyone has of what they believe is this god have any meaning. the question is: does god exist at all, or is he a figment of human imagination. evidence points to the latter when the argument for god is all the things you have proposed.

I can go through quite a list of attributes of God on pure logical necessities based upon what the definition of what He is. His ontological basis of all existence, His eternity, His immutability, his supreme personality, his interior relationship.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: all this logic comes straight out of the Catholic Tradition.[/quote]
This being my point exactly. There are too many dependencies on unconfirmed evidence to sustain a logical argument. There are no concerns that the Bible and religious organizations are real ( I can touch and re-visit both of them) but there may exist a concern about why logically God would need these devices to express or extend Himself. In terms of the Bible, I have had discussions where the authenticity of the Bible has been debated on translation alone. It wasn’t the words or how carefully they were transcribed that I was debating but if the words had actually come from (a One True) God. Another point that I have had discussions with is the historical accounts of the Bible (Moses or Ezekiel come to mind) when it was not the historical integrity that I was trying to debate (in other words if these things actually happened) but whether or not these accounts actually involved (a One True) God or another god. Unverified Biblical examples of a communion with God could very well fall under the figment of someone’s imagination.

A lot of these logical assumptions also rely on heavy dosages of faith. The hope and the trust of what one knows must depend on these teachings in order for one’s current existence to have meaning or purpose. The GOD that I am describing does not rely on this human meaning or purpose for its existence (for example, if religion A is proven false that does not mean that GOD does not exist). This in no way implies that one’s approach is logical but only implies that it will it take even longer to faithfully fit that square peg in a round hole. Starting with the supposition that what one knows must me the Truth and going backwards is not only detrimental to belief and understanding but this kind of reasoning is only going to produce excuse after illogical excuse when one’s understanding hits all those historical bumps in the road.

Which brings me to the GOD that I describe. It seems to me that the GOD I describe cannot match the hope or expectancy of what some religions believe because in doing so would invalidate their teachings or established doctrines. Is this a logical way to reason or resolve one’s beliefs? The possibility of the GOD that I describe does not rely on the existence of books or organized religions for its beginnings, existence or behavior but relies an Itself and seems to have extended the same existence and opportunity equally to all other entities. The path to the GOD that I describe is dependant on one’s desire to discern how much they want to involve their existence to know about this GOD and not by which organization one belongs to or which publication one puts faith into. This seems more logical to me than the jealous, wrathful, punishing god that some people are proposing who requires obeyance or who would Eternally damns us if we do not. I am not saying that a God like this could not possibly exist but there does not seem to be enough logical or empirical evidence in my current experience, existence or understanding to suggest that this God does exist (for anyone). If this evidence did exist, I would always be willing to consider it.

Edited July 28, 2007 by carrdero

[jeffpugh]

Greetings Carderro, it's been a few days since I've been on PM, but it's good that this thread hasn't advanced too fast, so I was able to keep up with it. I just want to say, that by no means does the Church try to put God in a box or limit him. It's impossible. All we can know about God really is what he's not. There are few aspects of God that we can positively know, one being that he is love, and another that he became Man without ceasing to be God, as he historically revealed himself. Before accusing these things as limiting, it is best to think about how a God who is complete in being NEEDS to create. You know, there is absolutely no reason for our existence, except that God has a bounty of love. Now, just through a few logical facts, we've negatively (that is, by finding what God is NOT) understood why we are in existence! Anywho, I think it's good that you're looking to see what others say about God, but as long as you are open to knowing Him, you will be brought to the fullness of revelation, that is the Church. You may scoff at what I say at first, but I mean, I don't think you've given US a chance yet. You can easily access 2000 years of writing about who God is. Writing from our Church fathers, saints, etc. Anywho, I hope I haven't taken away from the topic in any way. I'll keep paying attention to this one for a while. I'll be praying for you.

+

[carrdero]

[quote]Sacred Music Man writes: I just want to say, that by no means does the Church try to put God in a box or limit him.[/quote]
[quote]Sacred Music Man writes: Anywho, I think it's good that you're looking to see what others say about God, but as long as you are open to knowing Him, you will be brought to the fullness of revelation, that is the Church.[/quote]

Does the Church support and encourage other people’s revelations, knowledge and understanding of GOD and can these personal revelations be openly considered and if accepted, introduced into the Church’s teachings and doctrines?

[quote]Sacred Music Man writes: There are few aspects of God that we can positively know, one being that he is love, and another that he became Man without ceasing to be God, as he historically revealed himself.[/quote]

Sacred Music Man, did you just say that you positively knew about these aspects?

[quote]Sacred Music Man writes:You can easily access 2000 years of writing about who God is.[/quote]

If a person was choosing a path to get to know GOD, in your personal opinion, who do you feel it would be easier to get an audience with? GOD or the Pope?

[jeffpugh]

Dude, you always get an audience with God. I may never get an audience with a pope, but I can still be Catholic, and I can still come closer to our Lord. Heck, if you want an audience go to your local Church and visit the tabernacle. He's right there. Like RIGHT THERE! Alleluia!

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1342946' date='Jul 28 2007, 05:58 AM']This being my point exactly. There are too many dependencies on unconfirmed evidence to sustain a logical argument. There are no concerns that the Bible and religious organizations are real ( I can touch and re-visit both of them) but there may exist a concern about why logically God would need these devices to express or extend Himself. In terms of the Bible, I have had discussions where the authenticity of the Bible has been debated on translation alone. It wasn’t the words or how carefully they were transcribed that I was debating but if the words had actually come from (a One True) God. Another point that I have had discussions with is the historical accounts of the Bible (Moses or Ezekiel come to mind) when it was not the historical integrity that I was trying to debate (in other words if these things actually happened) but whether or not these accounts actually involved (a One True) God or another god. Unverified Biblical examples of a communion with God could very well fall under the figment of someone’s imagination.

A lot of these logical assumptions also rely on heavy dosages of faith. The hope and the trust of what one knows must depend on these teachings in order for one’s current existence to have meaning or purpose. The GOD that I am describing does not rely on this human meaning or purpose for its existence (for example, if religion A is proven false that does not mean that GOD does not exist). This in no way implies that one’s approach is logical but only implies that it will it take even longer to faithfully fit that square peg in a round hole. Starting with the supposition that what one knows must me the Truth and going backwards is not only detrimental to belief and understanding but this kind of reasoning is only going to produce excuse after illogical excuse when one’s understanding hits all those historical bumps in the road.

Which brings me to the GOD that I describe. It seems to me that the GOD I describe cannot match the hope or expectancy of what some religions believe because in doing so would invalidate their teachings or established doctrines. Is this a logical way to reason or resolve one’s beliefs? The possibility of the GOD that I describe does not rely on the existence of books or organized religions for its beginnings, existence or behavior but relies an Itself and seems to have extended the same existence and opportunity equally to all other entities. The path to the GOD that I describe is dependant on one’s desire to discern how much they want to involve their existence to know about this GOD and not by which organization one belongs to or which publication one puts faith into. This seems more logical to me than the jealous, wrathful, punishing god that some people are proposing who requires obeyance or who would Eternally damns us if we do not. I am not saying that a God like this could not possibly exist but there does not seem to be enough logical or empirical evidence in my current experience, existence or understanding to suggest that this God does exist (for anyone). If this evidence did exist, I would always be willing to consider it.[/quote]
It boils down to an unbroken tradition of thousands of years of salvation history, theology, and philosophy vs. the (often quite irrational) personal opinion of Carderro.

I know where I'd lay my money.

While often Carderro claims there is insufficient evidence for one to place faith in the Catholic understanding of God, where's the evidence for Carderro's "god"?
I really haven't seen any presented.
It seems the "God" of Carderro would require quite a lot of faith to believe in.
Are we simply to accept his word for it?

[Guest nurseken]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1331159' date='Jul 16 2007, 04:44 PM']Dear In His Light,

Let me begin by saying that I admire your love for mankind and your aversion to judgmental hatred. Let me say that everyone can learn from such an attitude.

Yet I must say that beyond these wonderful things, your philosophy leads to a very dark place. First of all, if there are many gods out there, then we run into a real problem when we try to define "right" and "wrong." When it is up to the individual to determine their own reality and spirituality, what is to prevent someone from saying that murder is right or that compassion is wrong?

You could say that this is an unrealistic scenario. I am afraid it is not; I wish it were so. Look at history, and you will see people like Hitler and Stalin who encouraged murder and forced people to abandon compassion.

You could agree with me that this is wrong, but on what grounds do you say so? Is it simply your personal spirituality that disagrees with Hitler? If so, why should Hitler give a hoot about that? Why is Hitler bound to what you, by your sentiments and egalitarian mindset, feel is right and wrong?

In this situation we have mere men sharing their opinions. Whose opinion will prevail? The strongest: your philosophy leads to an absolute rule of the strong, not the virtuous.

Only when there is One God who out of his nature defines right and wrong do we have grounds for defending the defenseless, for promoting justice and peace, and for calling goodness, truth, beauty, and love "good". If a Hitler arises, I can say more than, "I do not like Hitler; he does not make my tummy tingle in that oh-so-delightful way. Therefore, let us fight him so that our definition of right and wrong can be imposed. Even though this will only last until we are deposed and replaced by a yet newer version of right and wrong, I feel like I want to do this."

I can say, "According to the Law of God Hitler is committing crimes against the dignity of human life and we have an obligation to denounce him and defeat him. I would rather stay at home and live comfortably, but I know that I must defeat this tyrant and establish the Law of God which is unchanging and unending. The Law which gives us freedom and brings true peace and love."

Do you see the difference here?

You have a set of moral principles which you have inherited from your age. I would call most of those principles good: compassion, respect for others, ideas of justice and fairness. You never question those principles and are almost unconscious of them. But do not let yourself think that these principles are universally accepted or guaranteed. Tomorrow we may have a new fad that encourages slavery and violence. It has happened before. I am sure in that time there will be people who say that there are many "wonderful" gods of war and slavery that anyone can worship and be considered equally valid. To that you can say nothing.

In a nutshell, if we have the power to define our gods, we have the power to define right and wrong. If we all have the power to define right and wrong, then we have no grounds for saying that murder is wrong and that compassion is good. Those statements would be as arbitrary as saying "that glass is not half-empty, it is half-full." This leaves a gigantic problem unsolved and, to be frank, will "beaver dam our souls and end our species."

I would agree with others who have posted here and I will echo their recommendation: Read C.S. Lewis' [i]Mere Christianity[/i]. In addition to the recommendation, I will offer to buy it for you if you promise to read it. I am serious: promise me you will read it, send a private message to my profile here, and I will buy you the book and have it sent to you.

God bless you,

Philip[/quote]
Hello, this is Ken, my first time on the forum. I am nonCatholic, raised Lutheran, now Unitarian Universalist. I would say in reply that we have already been defining our gods and right and wrong all along. It seems to me that in the earliest days of humanity especially when we bacame farmers and settled down into villages our ancestors realized they had to have some ground rules to prevent chaos and so humans could thrive so the rules "don't kill or rape or steal other people's stuff evolved. I am sure that if you posit a god or goddess who is going to get you if you break the rules, that would give it more force, but that does not mean there IS a god it just means gods are useful tools for crowd control. Napoleon said "religion is great stuff for keeping the common people quiet" For more about the evolutionary theory of morality I recommend "The Science of good and evil" by Michael Shermer I have read parts of Mere Christianity and was not impressed.

[Socrates]

[quote name='nurseken' post='1344829' date='Jul 30 2007, 09:21 PM']Hello, this is Ken, my first time on the forum. I am nonCatholic, raised Lutheran, now Unitarian Universalist. I would say in reply that we have already been defining our gods and right and wrong all along. It seems to me that in the earliest days of humanity especially when we bacame farmers and settled down into villages our ancestors realized they had to have some ground rules to prevent chaos and so humans could thrive so the rules "don't kill or rape or steal other people's stuff evolved. I am sure that if you posit a god or goddess who is going to get you if you break the rules, that would give it more force, but that does not mean there IS a god it just means gods are useful tools for crowd control. Napoleon said "religion is great stuff for keeping the common people quiet" For more about the evolutionary theory of morality I recommend "The Science of good and evil" by Michael Shermer I have read parts of Mere Christianity and was not impressed.[/quote]
Hi Ken. We don't get alot of UUs on here.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly is the difference between the UU and the atheist position?

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes: It boils down to an unbroken tradition of thousands of years of salvation history, theology, and philosophy vs. the (often quite irrational) personal opinion of Carderro.

I know where I'd lay my money.[/quote]
I never considered my REALationship with GOD equivalent to opening an bank account. Spirituality is not a gamble.

[quote]Socrates writes:While often Carderro claims there is insufficient evidence for one to place faith in the Catholic understanding of God, where's the evidence for Carderro's "god"?
I really haven't seen any presented.
It seems the "God" of Carderro would require quite a lot of faith to believe in.[/quote]

No faith required. The belief is either True or it is Untrue. Why would I hope it to be True? What could I possibly gain by adding faith?

[carrdero]

[quote]Sacred Music Man writes: You can easily access 2000 years of writing about who God is. Writing from our Church fathers, saints, etc[/quote]
[quote]Sacred Music Man writes: Dude, you always get an audience with God. He's right there.[/quote]

Then what would one need with writings?

Edited July 31, 2007 by carrdero

[123]

One would need the writings of the saints, early fathers, and doctors of the Church for many reasons.

1. Understanding the evolution of the Church throught the ages.

2. Proof of Sacred Tradition and Succession.

3. Its always best to keep yourself sharp with the writtings of those that have come before us and know more than most of us about our Faith.


Catholics surround themselves in the elders and saints that have gone before them. Men and Women like St. Teresa, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and so on. These men and women have made the church and helped the Church to be what it is today.

[quote]I never considered my REALationship with GOD equivalent to opening an bank account. Spirituality is not a gamble.[/quote]

Neither do we, Socrates was just using an expression. Your relationship with God is none of our business. Your salvation must be worked out with your own fear and trembling (Philipians 2:12)

Edited July 31, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[SJP]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1344784' date='Jul 30 2007, 10:18 PM']While often Carderro claims there is insufficient evidence for one to place faith in the Catholic understanding of God, where's the evidence for Carderro's "god"?
I really haven't seen any presented.
It seems the "God" of Carderro would require quite a lot of faith to believe in.
Are we simply to accept his word for it?[/quote]

Excellent point! I too am waiting for carrdero to provide evidence for his beliefs.

[Guest nurseken]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1344840' date='Jul 30 2007, 09:27 PM']Hi Ken. We don't get alot of UUs on here.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly is the difference between the UU and the atheist position?[/quote]
Some UUs are atheists others are theists and others like me are pantheists or panentheists and I think there are a few polytheists. I think all statements about the existence of gods and goddesses are human opinions so we should show humility and admit we could be wrong in whatever opinion we hold. Some UUs are "strong atheists" saying there is no god. Others are "weak atheists" saying the evidence I have doesn't support saying there is a god. I don't think any UUs believe in the traditional male theistic god of mainstream Christianity except as some sort of a symbol. Ken