Unquestioning faith Mod Warning in final post

LionelNashe · 26-07-2017 12:08AM

I don't believe in an afterlife, or a creator, since about a year before confirmation. It was a bit traumatic at the time, and it has possibly affected me negatively. Once that foundation goes, if you follow it to its logical conclusions, a lot of stuff that depends on it also goes out the window. However, I'd rather live with occasional moments of despair, and know the truth, than believe a comforting falsehood (no disrespect intended to anyone who has faith - I know this is the Christianity forum). Now I'm in my early forties, and the thought of oblivion bothers me less. I think that must be a normal part of getting older, because otherwise our old-age pensioners would be going around in a complete funk.

hinault · 26-07-2017 12:30AM

LionelNashe wrote: »

I don't believe in an afterlife, or a creator, since about a year before confirmation. It was a bit traumatic at the time, and it has possibly affected me negatively. Once that foundation goes, if you follow it to its logical conclusions, a lot of stuff that depends on it also goes out the window. However, I'd rather live with occasional moments of despair, and know the truth, than believe a comforting falsehood (no disrespect intended to anyone who has faith - I know this is the Christianity forum). Now I'm in my early forties, and the thought of oblivion bothers me less. I think that must be a normal part of getting older, because otherwise our old-age pensioners would be going around in a complete funk.

Scripture, both the Old Testament and New Testament, states that the every human soul is eternal. It is a point made throughout both parts of the Bible and it is a lesson which is repeated throughout.

If the assertion is correct and that every single soul is eternal, then every soul will continue to exist without cessation, and will exist in some dwelling without cessation after physical death.

antiskeptic · 26-07-2017 12:34AM

LionelNashe wrote: »

Once that foundation goes, if you follow it to its logical conclusions, a lot of stuff that depends on it also goes out the window.

Such as transcendent meaning (a.k.a. meaning) and objective morality.

The most cogent atheist I ever talked with was a nihilist. He had followed things to their logical conclusion.

However, I'd rather live with occasional moments of despair, and know the truth, than believe a comforting falsehood

I'm not quite sure how you can declare you know you're right when a Christian is "relegated" to only being able to believe.

You would accept, in fact, that you believe there is no God. Strongly believe, perhaps. There is no way for you to know you are right, save your being omniscient (a.k.a. God)

That's about as good at it gets for you. Strong belief.

There is nothing stopping God, if he exists, from demonstrating his existence to someone however, in which case they would know he exists. They might not be able to prove it to anyone, but they can at least know.

Now I'm in my early forties, and the thought of oblivion bothers me less.

Wait a few years until death reaches its tentacles past those at the end of the conveyor belt of life and begins, unexpectedly to pick off your peers. I've noticed the notion of death beginning to attract the attention of peers of mine in their fifties, who've found themselves attending a smattering of unexpected funerals.

I think that must be a normal part of getting older, because otherwise our old-age pensioners would be going around in a complete funk.

My dad talked of this. He said that life does prepare you for death in the sense that you gradually become aware of it - out there, then it starts, as I say, picking off your peers and getting your attention. But you acclimatise - even if you might worry about it a bit more. Then it's your wave of humans approaching death-zone and you hope you'll avoid it for a bit longer, avoiding the kinds of illnesses associated with age which nobble you badly.

But since we are eternal creatures, there's a kind of agelessness in us. We don't see ourselves (apart from our bodies) as dying. What I've observed, from limited exposure granted, is a marked difference between believers and un. The believer faces forward as the conveyor belt tips them over the edge. Embracing what's to come. The unbeliever faces backward - towards life and the only thing they know. No fear and peacefulness vs. fear and quiet, helpless panic.

I do wonder about the number of death notices in which the words "passed peacefully" appear. Morphine might go a ways towards explaining it.

LionelNashe · 26-07-2017 02:34AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Such as transcendent meaning (a.k.a. meaning) and objective morality.

Exactly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The most cogent atheist I ever talked with was a nihilist. He had followed things to their logical conclusion.

I won't go into it here, because it would bring us too far off-topic, but I think that nihilism is not quite the logical conclusion; it's just a waymarker. You can follow the thread a bit further, and arrive at an outlook that's not so bleak with respect to meaning and morality.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how you can declare you know you're right when a Christian is "relegated" to only being able to believe.

You would accept, in fact, that you believe there is no God. Strongly believe, perhaps. There is no way for you to know you are right, save your being omniscient (a.k.a. God)

That's about as good at it gets for you. Strong belief.

There is nothing stopping God, if he exists, from demonstrating his existence to someone however, in which case they would know he exists. They might not be able to prove it to anyone, but they can at least know.

Do you mean that in the sense that I can't prove a negative? I'd accept that, strictly speaking, I can't prove a negative, but if you were using that to make a case for belief over atheism (which I don't think you are) then it could be used as an argument for belief in anything. If you're just taking issue with my use of language, then I'd rephrase what I said to the following: "However, I'd rather live with occasional moments of despair, and be an atheist, than have a comforting belief in an afterlife."

In either case, I think we can discuss the OP's original question in a hypothetical sense, and then we don't get bogged down in questions of the existence of God, and knowledge vs belief, and so on.

In the hypothetical (for the sake of argument) case that there was no God, the OP says that having belief in God in that situation would be a great gift, like winning the lotto, and would be the rather obvious preference. For me the opposite is the case. If there was no God, then I would prefer to be an atheist than to believe in an afterlife, regardless of any comfort that the belief might bring. I would prefer the truth, no matter how horrible it is.

antiskeptic · 26-07-2017 02:59AM

LionelNashe wrote: »

I won't go into it here, because it would bring us too far off-topic, but I think that nihilism is not quite the logical conclusion; it's just a waymarker. You can follow the thread a bit further, and arrive at an outlook that's not so bleak with respect to meaning and morality.

There's a little box somewhere above here which has "New Thread" marked on it

Do you mean that in the sense that I can't prove a negative?

Nothing as lofty as that. Even proving a positive is fraught. It seems to me that arrival at "God-exists" might well require God's participation. And without his participation, for his participation might involve his terms being met, a person wouldn't even begin to know how to evaluate whether he exists or not. How does one even begin to know whether the tools they are applying in the evaluation have any relevance to the search? You can only begin to think of proving things or not when you have command of the terrain you are engaged in investigating.

if you were using that to make a case for belief over atheism (which I don't think you are) then it could be used as an argument for belief in anything.

I'm not. The only reason I believe is that God turned up. To believe then is a rational thing to do. If God doesn't turn up, then the rational thing to do is retain disbelief. Although people believe on other foundations than that (upbringing and the like), that's the sequence I've seen, both in the experiences of others and all over the Bible.

If you're just taking issue with my use of language, then I'd rephrase what I said to the following: "However, I'd rather live with occasional moments of despair, and be an atheist, than have a comforting belief in an afterlife."

I don't see the significant swing in thinking: you are preferring discomfort over comfort. The only reason to do that is to suppose the discomforting belief truer than the comforting belief (and honourably) prioritizing what you believe true over what provides comfort.

But they remain beliefs both. Your best assessment. Your gut. Since we both have beliefs based on best assessment, gut, whatever, we must suppose ourselves sailing in the same boat. No one of us has the upper hand and our language mustn't start out by supposing so.

In either case, I think we can discuss the OP's original question in a hypothetical sense, and then we don't get bogged down in questions of the existence of God, and knowledge vs belief, and so on.

The OP? (scrolls upwards..)

In the hypothetical (for the sake of argument) case that there was no God, the OP says that having belief in God in that situation would be a great gift, like winning the lotto, and would be the rather obvious preference. For me the opposite is the case. If there was no God, then I would prefer to be an atheist than to believe in an afterlife, regardless of any comfort that the belief might bring. I would prefer the truth, no matter how horrible it is.

I'd have to say I agree with you.

I renovate old things and my way is to dig down until I reach sound foundations and then I build it back up. I couldn't live with the knowledge, even though no one else could see, that I'd built on rot. On a lie.

It costs. Boy does it cost. But that's the way I'm made too. Bro!

NinetyTwoTeam · 26-07-2017 03:50AM

I don't think that the existence of suffering on Earth proves God doesn't exist, or that he is cruel. Much of the suffering is created by man and/or could be stopped by man. Not all, but a lot of it.

For all we know, we had complete knowledge of the suffering that comes with living on Earth and decided to incarnate here anyway. Quite possibly, because it's such a difficult place, a bit of a free for all, that is precisely why we can learn the most here, and accomplish more here.

Like if you want to be a doctor and save lives, you have to go through medical school. It's the only way. If you want to learn, you need tough challenges. Of course, one must wonder what a child could learn from having cancer or being kidnapped and killed, or other horrible things that happen, and I wonder myself. Even something like a toothache, what is the point? It's just pain, no learning other than eat less sugar!

I do believe there is much more than this life, there have been many many cases of near death experiences documented that suggest this. Check out nderf.org it's a compilation of these which makes for very interesting reading for people of any faith.

I don't think there is any need to believe in God 'just in case'. I'd say he wouldn't be much of a God if he turned his back on people for not believing in something that they have no evidence of, in a world where every other thing must be visible/touchable, etc to be considered real. I'd say he would understand why a man could have doubts.

hinault · 26-07-2017 11:04AM

Interesting references to pain. Pain gets a lot of bad press, and unfair press. Without pain, many of us could arguably be in far more jeporady.

What is pain? Pain is actually a warning system in ones body to alert you to the fact that your body is not working as it should be. Therefore pain is a warning system, a protective mechanism. One,s neurological system alerts ones body to the fact that something is the cause of attack, and pain is the manifestation of that attack. Therefore pain could be considered as being a virtue in that context.

Of course pain can be ignored. In the hope that it will go away many of us do ignore the pain warning signals. That bad tooth we have and pains us will be tolerated but only up to a point before the pain becomes intolerable and we have to remove the cause of the pain.

If one believes in the eternal, whatever miseries and pain are endured in this life, the pain in the eternal life created by our own actions/inactions in this life are worth keeping in mind and contemplating. Our eternal fate is in our own hands essentially.

kelly1 · 26-07-2017 11:33AM

Safehands wrote: »

I don't have faith in the type of afterlife that you, or my friend had. I don't believe in miracles. I listen to cliches, which are meaningless to me. And yet, intelligent people, like yourself, do believe and continue to believe. I wonder how.

ok, thanks.

Let's take it to a more basic level. In the OP, you wrote "Today, I don't believe that the God we learned about as children, actually exists".

Would you describe yourself as an atheist or agnostic? What is your concept of God?

antiskeptic · 26-07-2017 10:15PM

Safehands wrote: »

I don't have faith in the type of afterlife that you, or my friend had. I don't believe in miracles. I listen to cliches, which are meaningless to me. And yet, intelligent people, like yourself, do believe and continue to believe. I wonder how.

A light goes on and the mealy mouthed cliches come to life. I can understand perfectly how they sound mealy mouthed, they sounded mealy mouthed and utterly off putting to me before the light went on for me. Roman Catholicism-speak still sounds that way to me.

A parallel:

In college I hated (as I always had hated) maths. Unfortunate for a budding engineer, but there you had it. I used to scrape through with a D every year and put as little effort into the subject as I could.

For my final couple of years, I headed to a uni in London. The very first class I walked into on the Monday morning was maths, a double period of maths to boot. Not only was it maths, it was maths at a level I had no grasp of - it was way beyond what I had come from (and struggled with).

End of that year I got an A in maths. A light had gone on (in this case aided by a get-go uni with folk all around motivated to work - so I got my head down to work). I came to appreciate maths as a most beautiful language, enjoyed being able to command that language and got to see how much could be done in engineering with it. The exam was a joy to sit.

As you say, intelligent people don't believe and intelligent people do believe . It's not a matter of intelligence, just as it wasn't a matter of intelligence, my maths transformation. A light needs to go on so that you see what others see.

God is the one to turn on that light, the switch can't be reached by your efforts.

Safehands · 26-07-2017 10:45PM

kelly1 wrote: »

ok, thanks.

Let's take it to a more basic level. In the OP, you wrote "Today, I don't believe that the God we learned about as children, actually exists".

Would you describe yourself as an atheist or agnostic? What is your concept of God?

Of those two choices I would class myself as an Agnostic. I don't dismiss the possibility that a greater power exists, in fact I rather suspect that we are at a relatively low level, within the "life" structure in the Universe. There is so much we don't understand. We have a need for a belief system. A lot of the time we simply make it up. We understand that we are mortal, that it all comes to an end at sometime. I believe that a lot of what we are taught is not factual, but it does help those who believe in their last moments, that is for sure.

kelly1 · 27-07-2017 12:05AM

Safehands wrote: »

Of those two choices I would class myself as an Agnostic.....

If it's not too personal a question, what were the "couple of events occurred which led me to question my faith"? (From the OP)

Safehands · 27-07-2017 02:10PM

kelly1 wrote: »

If it's not too personal a question, what were the "couple of events occurred which led me to question my faith"? (From the OP)

I was a bishop's nominee on the board of management of a national school. During my time on the board, I saw first hand the way the church worked. Bishops moving on teachers who had transgressed, to other schools rather than getting rid of them. I saw the way some of the clergy lived, dining in the finest restaurants and not acting in a very Christian way, basically being very hypocritical in what they said and how they behaved. I came to realise that this is a very human organisation, with human frailties and faults. They made the rules up as they went along. For example, another good friend was a protestant vicar, part time. He was like me, with a number of children and a lovely wife. He decided to become a Catholic priest, when some issues arose in the Protestant chuch, issues he had a real problem dealing with. The Catholic church welcomed him with open arms. After six weeks training, he is now a priest. He has a career, so he is a part time priest, with a wife and grown up children.
I agree that he should be allowed to become a priest, but this brings up all sorts of issues that the church refuses to deal with.
There are very good people in all churches. There are very good people in loads of organisations, the GAA, the IRFU and the FAI. But those organisations don't pretend to be the representatives of God. The Church do. From what I have seen, they are anything but.
So my faith, in what this Church of men taught, has been hammered.

I hope this answers your question.

antiskeptic · 27-07-2017 09:18PM

Safehands wrote: »

I was a bishop's nominee on the board of management of a national school. During my time on the board, I saw first hand the way the church worked. Bishops moving on teachers who had transgressed, to other schools rather than getting rid of them. I saw the way some of the clergy lived, dining in the finest restaurants and not acting in a very Christian way, basically being very hypocritical in what they said and how they behaved. I came to realise that this is a very human organisation, with human frailties and faults. They made the rules up as they went along.

I came to this conclusion aged around the time of my confirmation. The church and a not insignificant number of it's representatives just 'smelled' bad (bar for the incense smoke they swung around on the odd occasion I found myself in a church.

I had a firm sense of what was right and wrong, what was kosher .. and the church fell on the wrong side of the line.

hinault · 27-07-2017 09:32PM

Safehands wrote: »

I was a bishop's nominee on the board of management of a national school. During my time on the board, I saw first hand the way the church worked. Bishops moving on teachers who had transgressed, to other schools rather than getting rid of them.

It's the Department of Education who offer teachers jobs and the terms and conditions for those job offers.

Safehands wrote: »

For example, another good friend was a protestant vicar, part time. He was like me, with a number of children and a lovely wife. He decided to become a Catholic priest, when some issues arose in the Protestant chuch, issues he had a real problem dealing with. The Catholic church welcomed him with open arms. After six weeks training, he is now a priest. He has a career, so he is a part time priest, with a wife and grown up children.
I agree that he should be allowed to become a priest, but this brings up all sorts of issues that the church refuses to deal with.

What issues do you think need to be dealt with, in the context of your friend being a priest???

Safehands · 27-07-2017 10:35PM

hinault wrote: »

It's the Department of Education who offer teachers jobs and the terms and conditions for those job offers.

Yes, and it was Archbishop's house had the final say on whether she stayed on as a teacher or was let go.

hinault wrote: »

What issues do you think need to be dealt with, in the context of your friend being a priest???

Married priests.

kelly1 · 27-07-2017 10:40PM

So my faith, in what this Church of men taught, has been hammered. I hope this answers your question.

Yes, it does, thanks.

I know it's hard to accept, but the Church is a human institution with a divine "head". Jesus never promised that His followers (including priests/bishops) would live sinless lives. We're human, it's inevitable that we fail.

Fortunately the validity of the Church does not depend on its members being sinless. God's grace still comes via the Church in a special way (the sacraments mostly).

Safehands · 27-07-2017 10:42PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, it does, thanks.

I know it's hard to accept, but the Church is a human institution with a divine "head". Jesus never promised that His followers (including priests/bishops) would live sinless lives. We're human, it's inevitable that we fail.

Fortunately the validity of the Church does not depend on its members being sinless. God's grace still comes via the Church in a special way (the sacraments mostly).

Do you accept that the Church of Ireland is an equally valid Christian chruch?

hinault · 27-07-2017 10:45PM

Safehands wrote: »

Married priests.

Church doctrine is that the sacrament of Holy Orders requires a member of the clergy to be celibate and chaste.

This doctrine is based on Scripture. Scripture says that those who Jesus personally appointed left everything to accept the ministry bestowed on them by Jesus. That example sets the template for doctrine.

But there is a practical reason why members of the clergy remain celibate and chaste.
How can a married priest give everything to his marriage and his priestly vocation simultaneously? He can't. One or other vocation - marriage being a vocation and holy orders being a vocation - would suffer because of the other.

Safehands · 27-07-2017 10:48PM

hinault wrote: »

Church doctrine is that the sacrament of Holy Orders requires a member of the clergy to be celibate and chaste.

This doctrine is based on Scripture. Scripture says that those who Jesus personally appointed left everything to accept the ministry bestowed on them by Jesus. That example sets the template for doctrine.

But there is a practical reason why members of the clergy remain celibate and chaste.
How can a married priest give everything to his marriage and his priestly vocation simultaneously? He can't. One or other vocation - marriage being a vocation and holy orders being a vocation - would suffer because of the other.

I know that this is the traditional thinking.
My Friend is married, with 4 children and he became a priest. So doctrine can be by-passed.

hinault · 27-07-2017 10:53PM

Safehands wrote: »

I know that this is the traditional thinking.
My Friend is married, with 4 children and he became a priest. So doctrine can be by-passed.

Was this done under the auspices of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, by Pope Benedict XVI?

Safehands · 27-07-2017 10:56PM

hinault wrote: »

Was this done under the auspices of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, by Pope Benedict XVI?

I really dont know, I think it was pope Benedict, and I have heard the word Ordinariate being used, so it could have been.

hinault · 27-07-2017 11:01PM

Safehands wrote: »

I really dont know, I think it was pope Benedict, and I have heard the word Ordinariate being used, so it could have been.

If your friend became a priest after 2009, it likely that it was under the Ordinariate.

Safehands · 27-07-2017 11:14PM

OK, you are probably correct. Does that change things? He's married and he's a priest.

hinault · 27-07-2017 11:26PM

Safehands wrote: »

OK, you are probably correct. Does that change things? He's married and he's a priest.

Well it does change things in the context that the Ordinariate is finite, for one.

It's important to set the context here.

The Ordinariate was a fraternal gesture to those clergy in protestantism who, appalled at the policies within the Anglican Communion sought refuge from those policies and accepted the offer of sanctuary from the Church.

This may be a crass analogy. You made mention of the GAA and IRFU earlier in this thread. Correct?

In their time of need, the GAA extended the hand of friendship to the IRFU when the IRFU needed support. That is what fraternal support is. It is a finite arrangement to help people.

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-07-2017 11:41PM

hinault wrote: »

Well it does change things in the context that the Ordinariate is finite, for one.

It's important to set the context here.

The Ordinariate was a fraternal gesture to those clergy in protestantism who, appalled at the policies within the Anglican Communion sought refuge from those policies and accepted the offer of sanctuary from the Church.

This may be a crass analogy. You made mention of the GAA and IRFU earlier in this thread. Correct?
.

I'm printing this and framing it ...it's priceless

antiskeptic · 27-07-2017 11:51PM

hinault wrote: »

How can a married priest give everything to his marriage and his priestly vocation simultaneously? He can't. One or other vocation - marriage being a vocation and holy orders being a vocation - would suffer because of the other.

Marriage could well be expected to make the priest a better priest. Unless supposing divine intervention (in which case, the priest could easily juggle both vocations), I can't suppose a childless priest understanding the grief of parents who've lost a child - in the fullest sense. Nor can I understand a priest understanding the financial, sex and in law struggles of a couple - those three being the top three areas of conflict within marriage. There is also the question of balance - all work and no play. Leave aside the sense of separation priests have with the congregation - they are not one of us: they don't experience what we experience.

What you appear to be saying is that the unmarried priest will have time. But time isn't the only ingredient for successful priest-ing. Indeed, if married priests then probably more priests. Which renders the need to devote all their time somewhat moot.

looksee · 28-07-2017 12:06AM

What I've observed, from limited exposure granted, is a marked difference between believers and un. The believer faces forward as the conveyor belt tips them over the edge. Embracing what's to come. The unbeliever faces backward - towards life and the only thing they know. No fear and peacefulness vs. fear and quiet, helpless panic.

I have to quibble with this. As someone who has had my 'three score years and ten' - though these days and with my family longevity on my side, another 20 is well within the realms of possibility for me - my only sense of panic is that there are still loads of things I want to do before I get too decrepit to do them. If anything the idea that at the end the switch will be turned off and that will be the end of my innings is much more agreeable than any notion that I have to continue worrying whether I have been good enough to get the bonus ending.

Looking at the (admittedly relatively few) people of my family or acquaintance who have passed on, the only anxious ones were the ones that had to worry about the details of final religious obligations. The majority who were either neutral or non-religious did not seem to give that aspect any consideration. I certainly have never heard any reports of 'helpless panic'.

hinault · 28-07-2017 12:10AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Marriage could well be expected to make the priest a better priest. Unless supposing divine intervention (in which case, the priest could easily juggle both vocations), I can't suppose a childless priest understanding the grief of parents who've lost a child - in the fullest sense. Nor can I understand a priest understanding the financial, sex and in law struggles of a couple - those three being the top three areas of conflict within marriage. There is also the question of balance - all work and no play. Leave aside the sense of separation priests have with the congregation - they are not one of us: they don't experience what we experience.

What you appear to be saying is that the unmarried priest will have time. But time isn't the only ingredient for successful priest-ing. Indeed, if married priests then probably more priests. Which renders the need to devote all their time somewhat moot.

I can see the point that you are making.

Let's cut to the chase here: what is the role of a priest? To bear witness to God's message and to try to ensure the eternal well being of souls. That is the role of every Catholic priest. The objective is to save souls.

The precedent of the Apostles sets the example which the Church is commanded to follow. "I will make you fishers of men". That is Jesus, God Incarnate, His instruction to the men He personally appointed. That apostolic succession with it's conditions of leaving everything to follow Him, is applied.

No one else can understand or feel the grief of the parent who has lost a child. Professional say tell us that grief and loss is extremely personal and individual to every single person. That's what the experts say.

Another person who has lost a child might know how another bereaved parent may feel, but no parent who has not lost a child can understand or feel the loss of a parent who has lost a child. So the childless priest cannot feel the loss of the bereaved parent, but neither can the parent who has not lost a child too.

Interesting that you highlighting situations concerning feelings however. In laws and anger, worries about finances, sex. Emotional situations fueled by feelings, anger, revenge, envy.

Maybe Reason rather than Feelings are what is required to address problems?

Safehands · 28-07-2017 09:36AM

hinault wrote: »

In their time of need, the GAA extended the hand of friendship to the IRFU when the IRFU needed support. That is what fraternal support is. It is a finite arrangement to help people.

That is a reasonable analogy.
The GAA realised that their position, in refusing access to the IRFU, was foolish and outdated. They allowed them to play games in Croke Park while Landsdowne was being redeveloped. They saw that this made sense and so, they are continuing it with the bid for the world cup. So rugby will be played again in that hallowed ground, when it is required.

Safehands · 28-07-2017 09:51AM

hinault wrote: »

Church doctrine is that the sacrament of Holy Orders requires a member of the clergy to be celibate and chaste.

This doctrine is based on Scripture. Scripture says that those who Jesus personally appointed left everything to accept the ministry bestowed on them by Jesus. That example sets the template for doctrine.

But there is a practical reason why members of the clergy remain celibate and chaste.
How can a married priest give everything to his marriage and his priestly vocation simultaneously? He can't. One or other vocation - marriage being a vocation and holy orders being a vocation - would suffer because of the other.

Obviously this is not the case. There are married priests who are successful in their married life and in their ministry.

Unquestioning faith **Mod Warning in final post**

Comments

Unquestioning faith Mod Warning in final post