Questions For Those Who Converted To Catholicism

[bonkers]

Well we agree, science can't tell us all there is to know about the universe. But I don't know anyone who thinks that way, just that the scientific method is the most reliable and effective tool we have for distinguishing between fact and fiction and giving us greater concrete understanding of what reality is. Yes, we're ignorant, our understanding of the universe is finite, but that doesn't mean just because we don't understand something it therefore merits a supernatural explanation. I am satisfied things like evolution and physics and quantum theory go some way to explaining the universe and everything in it can exist without the need for an intelligent creator.

But the scientific method is not the reason I am atheist. My atheism stems from a complete rejection of all religion. I reject Christiantiy the same way you reject every other school of thought, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc.

Becoming an atheist wasn't an act of faith, it was an act of losing faith. I was agnostic for quite some time thereafter, and considered other religions but eventually came to reject all of them. Perhaps there is a creator, but science and reason, while they don't explain everything, at least they're based on criteria that can be taken as reliable and fact. Can you say the same for your religion? What objective criteria do you have for proving the superiority of your religion above all others? What makes you think you're not susceptible to the same wishful thinking, delusion and self deception you would accuse others of?

I suppose my atheism is only faith in the sense I have faith in my ability to think and reason objectively without being blinded by dogma and superstition. But I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth, my arugement is neither do you.

Edited December 13, 2008 by bonkers

[Lilllabettt]

By what you explain to me, I really doubt that you are an atheist. Atheism cannot be defined in negative terms. Atheism does not mean "I do not believe in God." It means, "I believe there is no God." It is not a rejection of other things as untrue, it is an embrace of a belief as truth.

I am not a Christian because I reject every other school or thought (or every other religion, which is what I think you mean.) I am a Christian because I believe Christianity is true. Other religions have truth in them, but I believe Christianity contains the whole truth.

The scientific method is useless for this subject. It cannot tell us anything about the reality of human origins.To even address the question of a creator, we must reach beyond our ability to control and experiment. There is a science which addresses these higher issues, and that is philosophy. Philosophy is a rational system; that is why it qualifies as a science. Ontology, and epistemology ... these are branches of philosophy that deal with the nature of reality, and whether knowledge of "truth" is possible and how "truth" can be proven.

There are many different philosophies; some of them conclude there is no God, others conclude there is one. They are, all of them "reason based."

You did not directly address the question I asked in my last post. I asked if you feel that reason and rationality is at the basis of all things; if it is the grounding of all matter.

I ask because theism is often accused of having an irrational base. Really, nothing could be further from the truth. You have most likely heard of the term [i]logos[/i] before. [i] Logos[/i] is a Greek word, a philosophical term used to denote the force of "active reason" pervading the fabric of reality and animating it.

The Greeks demonstrated the existence of [i]logos[/i] by pointing to the incredible degree of organization in the Universe, the fact that there are physical laws that regulate nature (eg., gravity, e=mc2) and the "intelligence" of things (eg. a flower "knows" how to blossom, a cell "knows" how to replicate)

The question is: does [i]logos[/i] stand at the origin of all things? Or is it merely blind chance, and irrational chaos that brought existence into being? Is the universe infused with and operate on principles of order? Or is it fundamentally irrational?

You may already know, the Christian word for [i]Logos[/i] is Jesus Christ. (This is the meaning of the "logos' in the first chapter of John's Gospel: "In the begining was the Word (translate [i]logos[/i],)the Word ( [i]logos[/i]) was with God, the Word ([i]logos[/i]) was God.")

There is either an intelligent Creator and reason and rationality at the origins of the Universe (theism) or chaos, chance, and necessity are at the origins of the Universe, and reality in its essence, is irrational (atheism.)

When I discovered this, I never doubted the existence of God again; I surely cannot doubt reason, it is right before my eyes. My very efforts to study the question of existence prove to me that reason exists. And if the Universe is explained and ordered and defined by reason, then irrationality (chaos, blind chance, etc.) cannot stand at its beginning.


[quote name='bonkers' post='1726984' date='Dec 13 2008, 11:09 AM']Well we agree, science can't tell us all there is to know about the universe. But I don't know anyone who thinks that way, just that the scientific method is the most reliable and effective tool we have for distinguishing between fact and fiction and giving us greater concrete understanding of what reality is. Yes, we're ignorant, our understanding of the universe is finite, but that doesn't mean just because we don't understand something it therefore merits a supernatural explanation. I am satisfied things like evolution and physics and quantum theory go some way to explaining the universe and everything in it can exist without the need for an intelligent creator.

But the scientific method is not the reason I am atheist. My atheism stems from a complete rejection of all religion. I reject Christiantiy the same way you reject every other school of thought, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc.

Becoming an atheist wasn't an act of faith, it was an act of losing faith. I was agnostic for quite some time thereafter, and considered other religions but eventually came to reject all of them. Perhaps there is a creator, but science and reason, while they don't explain everything, at least they're based on criteria that can be taken as reliable and fact. Can you say the same for your religion? What objective criteria do you have for proving the superiority of your religion above all others? What makes you think you're not susceptible to the same wishful thinking, delusion and self deception you would accuse others of?

I suppose my atheism is only faith in the sense I have faith in my ability to think and reason objectively without being blinded by dogma and superstition. But I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth, my arugement is neither do you.[/quote]

[bonkers]

That is a very long post and I do not have the time, incliniation (or knowledge) to address all your points. Regarding atheism, there are two types of atheists. Strong atheists, who believe there is no god, and weak atheists, who not believe in the existence of gods. I classify myself as weak atheist, meaning I do not believe in the existence of god but I remain weakly open to the possibility a deity may exist (a strong atheist does not). I reject the concept of personal god (theism) who hears prayers, writes holy texts and intervenes in daily affairs.

As I said I agree with you science cannot explain everything there is to know about the universe. I disagree with you science can't touch things like human origins, or that those things are eternally beyond scientific (evolution) investigation. On what do you base this? Even so, if things like love, life, death and friendship are infinitely superior to us, I do not think these things by default merit a supernatural explanation. This is god of the gaps stuff, it is not sound nor convincing. I am seeking positive evidence of god's existence, not that which is derived through our ignorance.

I think you are missing the point here. My atheism does not stem from a blind acceptance of everything scientific, it stems from a rejection of religion and superstitious thought. I cannot accept it as rational because the essense of theism is faith and faith is irrational. Things like prayer, demons, heaven, hell, angels, miracles and personal relationships are emotive things and do not have a rational basis. Even if it were rational, it would still be unreliable without any evidence supporting it.

I'm not sure how you make the link from order to rationality to god? The universe appears to have order, but that doens't necessitate that god is the cause of that order. The appearance of order and patterns can result from randomness, such as in numbers. Even you admit rational thinking does not always lead to truthful conclusions? I would apply the same logic to the order of the universe, which has the appearance of order and rationality, but not does necessitate gods existence as ultimate truth. You can doubt because there are other possibilities. If there aren't, there's no such thing as faith.

It's also presumptious of you to assume all atheists are close minded, which is what you're inferring when you suggest we place an inordinate amount of faith in the scientfic method. This isnt true. Most atheists would accept god as true if evidnece of a god or the supernatual were presented. I personally would revert to Christianity if this were the case.

[Guest]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1721408' date='Dec 7 2008, 03:14 AM']Truth and reason are very important elements of my personal philosophy.[/quote]

(x) thinking truth and reason may not really be important elements of your philosophy


[quote name='bonkers' post='1721408' date='Dec 7 2008, 03:14 AM']Plus I also want to convert everyone to atheism. [/quote]

another reason i need a gun
in case you do it by force

Edited December 14, 2008 by Guest

[bonkers]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1727655' date='Dec 14 2008, 01:24 PM'](x) thinking truth and reason may not really be important elements of your philosophy[/quote]

Huh?

[Guest]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1728276' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:14 PM']Huh?[/quote]


just a friendly jab

If truth and reason is really something that is important to you how can you deny a God who loves you and died for you? You choose not to be catholic because you compare it to other churches that just cant help but make you laugh ? So yet you say truth and reason are important to you but you deny God because of this ? Do you see the stars and the universe ? How can you not believe in a creator if truth and reason are imporant to you ?

Edited December 15, 2008 by Guest

[Guest]

double post

Edited December 15, 2008 by Guest

[Theosis3]

Mortify,

[quote]I'm not even sure what the "Orthodox Church" is, does it include Copts, for example?[/quote]

I understand what you mean. When I first discovered Orthodoxy it seemed as if it was just a bunch of ethnic groups arguing amongst themselves and who were only very loosely tied together in some way or another. Very much the opinion I hear on this forum. However when I hear the Pope speak about them as a 'sister church', it would seem that the fact that it is coming from our Pope shows their is more to them then meets the eye. It is especially difficult in various countries in the west, to learn about Orthodoxy. There are competing jurisdictions, and sometimes an unfortunate ethnocentrism at the parish level. However as I responded in my previous post, this is a problem in administration(i understand the Catholic Church is much more organized in administrative functions vs. the Orthodox Church), HOWEVER"[i]The core of the Orthodox Church does not lie in administration. It is just an abnormal situation that needs to be remedied.[/i]"

[quote]For Catholics visible unity is based on three things, holding on to the same faith, possessing the same channels of grace (sacraments), and being under the same authority.[/quote]
I agree with you 100%, so would the Orthodox Church. The issue here is that the Orthodox would have a different perspective on certain parts. What I mean is the Orthodox Churches believe that they share the same faith with other local Orthodox Churches. This faith might not be as visible or easily defined as it is in some Churches, but I believe that it's there. Then there are the sacraments. The Orthodox would agree that they are all bound together in the sacraments, especially as seen in reception of the Eucharist (as this is a regular and continual profession of oneness of faith). And the Orthodox would agree with you yet again regarding being under the same authority. The Orthodox believe that their primary spiritual authority is God himself, as the Church is theanthropic, and that their secondary authorities are the bishops as successors of the Apostles. The Orthodox look to verses like the following for their ecclesiology:

[i]"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." - Eph. 2:19-22[/i]

The problem we see in the West, especially through the eyes of the Catholic Church is of course the vagueness of their unity of faith. This can be a hindrance at times in understanding the Orthodox unity, I agree with you on that. Like I said, this is something I'm learning firsthand.

In regards to the Catholic Church, there is a certain unity yes. However lets not overlook the fact that there do appear to be some problems in our Church as well, which render the unity of Catholicism to be imperfect in some sense too. For example:

1. There is disagreement on the doctrine of limbo. Some Catholics believe in limbo, according which unbaptized infants will go to a place in hell, but experience natural enjoyment and no pain (?), whereas other Catholics believe that unbaptized infants will go to heaven. I've met both, there is no unity here.

2. In our Catholic church we have the ultra Traditionalists, who do not accept Vatican II or who accept only those parts of Vatican II which are in accord with what the Church taught before Vatican II. Also some of them believe the New Mass to be defective. Also they say that the profane music heard during many Catholic Masses is contrary to what was taught before on sacred music during liturgy.

3. There is a large majority of married Catholics in the United States who reject the teaching of the Catholic Church on artificial birth control.

4. The filioque. This is something I know personally from going to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church. There are Catholics who do not agree on whether or not the filioque should be in the creed. The Roman Catholics have it in their creed, but the Eastern Catholics do not have it in their creed. There is no unity on whether or not the filioque should be in the creed.

5. There is disagreement on capital punishment. Some Catholics approve of it; while others do not.

6. There is no unity on Purgatory and what it is. Some will say that the cleansing is instantaneous, and you will be brought into heaven quickly. Others will say that the pains and suffering of Purgatory are comparable to the suffering in hell. And that the soul will experience a horrible torture by fire for a considerable and extended period of time.

I'm not saying the Orthodox are free of these problems. What I'm saying is that when people say things like above in regards to Catholics and Catholic unity, we have an answer. As you said, the unity is based on the same faith, right? My point here is that just because external divisions are present, does not automatically mean their is no unity. Somehow we understand this when we are defending our Catholic faith, until we don't and use the same arguments to knock the Orthodox. The unity is not solely based on the physical, but on the spiritual. Its the spiritual, that unites us. Unity based on holding the same faith.

Be well.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1728280' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:19 PM'] just a friendly jab

If truth and reason is really something that is important to you how can you deny a God who loves you and dies for you.[/quote]

Because there is no evidence of him existing, nor is their evidence that he loves me, nor that he died for me. These are just claims, unsubstantiated by truth or reason. Vacuous, emotive appeals are not grounded in truth or reason. Show me evidence that he exists (even an objectively verified miracle would suffice) I and I will believe. Until then I reject Christianity for the same reasons you reject all other religions.

[quote]You choose not to be catholic because you compare it to other churches that just cant help but make you laugh ? So yet you say truth and reason are important to you but you deny God because of this ? Do you see the stars and the universe ? How can you not believe in a creator if truth and reason are imporant to you ?[/quote]

Of course my reasons for leaving Catholicism are far more deep and complex than what I gave in my earlier post. It was more a cynical attempt at humouring you.

[Guest]

God will give you faith if you ask for it. I had completly no faith and asked with a sincere heart for faith and recieved it. With faith you recieve grace and that will save you. I would challenge you if you really want to get to know God ask him to save you and ask to recieve the Holy Spirit. These are very real things wether you decide to believe they are or not. If you do these things im not saying God will give you signs but im not going to say he wont either. Once you start a relationship with God coming from a place of no faith its pretty hard not to see some signs. Remember we serve a super natural God and nothing is impossible for him.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Guest

[Giolla]

I was raised Roman Catholic but spent some time as a Anglican and then an atheist but when I converted I went back to the Catholic church because it was the only one I knew and then later found it was the faith that I was looking for.

[Theosis3]

[quote name='Greg' post='1726332' date='Dec 12 2008, 01:39 AM']Theosis,

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Also attending were Russian President Medvedev, Russian Prime-Minister Putin, members of the Russian government, the State Duma deputies, members of the Russian Federation Council, and ambassadors from the U.S., Great Britain, France, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Greece and other countries.

Is the Orthodox Church in communion with these people and groups? I don't believe so.

There was also a Catholic delegation:
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, retired president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and Pontifical Council Cor Unum
Archbishop Antonio Mennini, the Holy See's representative to the Russian Federation
Jesuit Father Milan Zust, an official of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Monsignor Ante Jozif, secretary of the nunciature in Moscow

Is the Orthodox Church in communion with the Catholic Church? No.

Just because someone is willing to sit in the same room with another person does not necessarily mean that they are "in communion."

Greg

References:
[url="http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=43577"]Funeral service for His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II[/url]
[url="http://www.zenit.org/article-24496?l=english"]Papal Delegation to Attend Funeral of Alexy II[/url][/quote]

[i]Just because someone is willing to sit in the same room with another person does not necessarily mean that they are "in communion." [/i]

I agree with you! But I should inform you that the Orthodox representatives not only attended but also [b]participated/con-celebrated[/b]. What this means is that every Orthodox clergy present served in the altar, [b]regardless of his jurisdiction[/b], and all the Orthodox faithful present shared in the Eucharistic meal, regardless of parent jurisdiction. This distinction was not offered to those Roman Catholic or other non-Orthodox delegates who were there. [b]That's the difference.[/b]

In regards to your other post. The Creed didn't come until over a century after Marcion, the final form two centuries after him.

There is no difference on the NT canon among the Orthodox. And the Apostolic Church did well without one for several centuries.

The disputed books do not prove or disprove any dogma not in the rest. The main dispute is with the Protestant on their inclusion, a point easily proven in that a) they are following not the Apostles but the rabbis in their canon. The rabbis are confused because they kept Hanukkah on their calendar but removed (Maccabees) the scriptural warrant for it. Sirach also appears in their Talmud: it got there before they removed it from their canon. b) the Masoretic text that the Protestants use has a canon decided after the rise of the Church, and post dates the received text of the Church.

It was only with the Puritans and the rise of the Evangelical "Bible Societies," that think you can create a Church from the Bible without the context of the Church that produced the Bible, that the Deuterocanonicals dropped from the English Bible. Most other language Bibles have them, even the Protestant ones.

The basic disagreement is over the readable books, whether they are "on a lower footing" than the rest of Scripture, fully canonical, etc. Even though there are disputes between some in the Orthodox Church over the exact status of the readable books, unity still prevails within the Orthodox Church as a whole. As Met. Chrysostomos puts it: "It is not that two attitudes prevail in one Church, but that the two attitudes define and constitute the position of the one Church." [1] In fact, an Ecumenical Council seems to allow for and acknowledge this situation, since the 2nd Canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council approves multiple biblical canons via it's endorsement of various disciplinary canons from the early Church.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1728305' date='Dec 15 2008, 12:39 PM']God will give you faith if you ask for it. I had completly no faith and asked with a sincere heart for faith and recieved it. With faith you recieve grace and that will save you. I would challenge you if you really want to get to know God ask him to save you and ask to recieve the Holy Spirit. These are very real things wether you decide to believe they are or not. If you do these things im not saying God will give you signs but im not going to say he wont either. Once you start a relationship with God coming from a place of no faith its pretty hard not to see some signs. Remember we serve a super natural God and nothing is impossible for him.[/quote]

If you seek faith it will come to you, because the mind will believe whatever it wants to. The same prayer experiment works for any religion. I've already gone through the whole seek faith, salvation thing, I would not want to go through it again until it can verified that the thing I am supposedly communicating with is real and not just a figment of my imagination.

[Guest]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1728330' date='Dec 15 2008, 02:08 PM']If you seek faith it will come to you, because the mind will believe whatever it wants to. The same prayer experiment works for any religion. I've already gone through the whole seek faith, salvation thing, I would not want to go through it again until it can verified that the thing I am supposedly communicating with is real and not just a figment of my imagination.[/quote]

Well first off im crazy but not delusional. God has given me more then one sign to confirm to me that he is legit. Now of course you dont know me so that means nothing to you as it probally shouldnt. But it still doesnt change my experience and my 100 % undoubting in his existance. Now ive struggled before with Gods and things about him. Alot of the old testement stuff has bothered me and even Jesus being on the cross. But that is part of having a relationship with God. Im coming to know Him more and more everyday and I do trust in his goodness and love.
So my point is if you seek God 100 percent with a sincere heart im pretty sure he's going to validate to you that he is real. He loves you and wants you to know he loves you. (not speaking for God just what I think )

Edited December 15, 2008 by Guest

[Giolla]

[quote name='bonkers' date='Dec 15 2008, 02:08 PM' post='1728330']
If you seek faith it will come to you, because the mind will believe whatever it wants to. The same prayer experiment works for any religion. I've already gone through the whole seek faith, salvation thing, I would not want to go through it again until it can verified that the thing I am supposedly communicating with is real and not just a figment of my imagination.
[/quote

Don't you have to believe in something in order to not believe it. Everyone finds their way.