The Holy Trinity

Quote: FrGamble

No I have lots of other evidence that you already know.

Nope, you don't.

Nuff said on the subject that
we haven't already said
eleventy two times. This is
the broken record of broken
records subject now..

(I wouldn't hold my breath on
Dalex, he may be done. Again.)

Hey FrGamble - it's been a long time since I have posted (I self-banned for about 2 years and am now back) and I hope you are doing well

I have a question -- how do you reconcile the fact that a lot of the Bible is paraphrased from stories of other "religions" and societies, including origin stories, a great flood, virgin birth, etc.

Evenbob, dropping the whole religion talk I've been thinking about you a lot as I reread Jack London's great book "White Fang". Have you read it? I bet you would love it.

Quote: aceofspades

Hey FrGamble - it's been a long time since I have posted (I self-banned for about 2 years and am now back) and I hope you are doing well

I have a question -- how do you reconcile the fact that a lot of the Bible is paraphrased from stories of other "religions" and societies, including origin stories, a great flood, virgin birth, etc.

Welcome back, look forward to a discussion.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't think there is but I await to hear your response.

We live in two very different worlds.

In yours, you choose what you believe to be true.

In mine, there are no choices to be made. If something is true, the steps followed to establish that truth can be repeated over and over again to reverify the truth. Unknowns remain unknown, blanks remain unfilled.

In yours, you have selected what to fill in the blanks with. Other religions and philosophies have filled in the blanks with the same things, similar things, or completely different things.

The answer all of you have for the differences is "we are right, they lack complete understanding so they are partially incorrect or have an imperfect understanding". All sides say the same thing. All sides have logical or philosophical arguments to back them up. No sides have the ability to demonstrate that their understanding is the most accurate, the most perfect.

So again, in short, with the lack of any ability to determine which version of the "truth" is correct, people are selecting their version of the truth. Maybe they like it. Maybe they were brought up that way. Maybe they were coerced through social pressure to believe what they believe.

So to get back to faith, the things I have faith in I have no choice but to believe them. Other matters of faith are believed in by choice, believed in by faith (which is rather circular) .

Believing that food is safe, an airplane can fly, or that somebody loves me (something completely intangible) are the first kind.

Believing Jesus is God and part of a holy Trinity is an example of the second kind.

I absolutely believe those two kinds of faith are different.

Quote: FrGamble

Secondly, to start down any road to knowledge always involves some little leap of faith. To start a relationship with someone is a little leap.

Good example of something you hope to be true, and may even choose to believe to be true, but might not in fact be true at all.

An example of the 2nd kind of faith.

Having that kind of faith in one thing in no way validates having the same kind of faith in something else.

Is your argument seriously that "you need to take a leap of faith to start a relationship therefore god is real because that takes a similar kind of leap of faith and you did the first so you have no choice but to take the other" ?

Quote: Dalex64

We live in two very different worlds.

As I read your response I kept thinking that the two worlds sound like science and art. Like science and religion these two worlds are not against each other, in fact for all of us they overlap.

In the world of science the truth is compelled upon us by the scientific method. In the world of art you have lots of choices and you not forced to chose anything. Some people may dislike the Mona Lisa or think the proportions are off on the Pieta. Others may vehemently disagree, while others love comic book art. How do you demonstrate which ones are objectively better or most perfect?

There are of course ways to judge art, but some things appeal to lots of different people for strange reasons.

In philosophy and religion there are similarities to both science and art. Philosophy and religions need to internally make logical sense and they cannot contradict known facts from history or science. However, religion rises to the level of art in many ways and for many of the reasons you have mentioned some appeal to others and some do not. That is understandable. It is even understandable that some people chose to have belief systems that do not pass the logic test or the scientific one (ex. Atheism or Mormonism). It becomes very hard to demonstrably show to someone that their belief system is inaccurate or imperfect. It can't be tested by the scientific method.

The problem you rightly point out is that religion is making a objective truth claim, while the lover of the Mona Lisa is making more of a personal truth claim. In your parlance religion is claiming faith of the first kind (that one has no choice in) while art lovers are claiming faith to be of the second kind (believed by choice and personal opinion).

So I agree that these two kinds of faith are different I think you have just mislabeled religious faith.

The big question then is how or why do people determine what their religious views are. It is more of an art than a science. It involves looking at scientific and objective factors but there is also personal history and values and subjective feelings that are part of it. This doesn't mean that religion can't be or is not true it is just that you arrive at it through a different means than the scientific method or your personal fancy. Both of these combine to create our own religious journey. I believe that there is one truth found in the Catholic church and I desire to help people discover that truth for themselves. We know through logic that A cannot equal not-A; therefore we know that both me and Muslims for example cannot be right. At the same time can I say that Muslim who was born in a Muslim country and was taught falsehoods about the Church his or her whole life is wrong? Objectively yes, but subjectively no. That is one of the beauties of forums like this where people can discuss issues of faith in a medium that can lead to new discoveries or learning and maybe new thoughts about religion.

Now I know Evenbob and I have been a piss poor example of this and that this forum, as much as I like it, is not specifically a religious one but being forced to write things makes it easier to learn and discover and defend our religious beliefs in a way that is more disspasionate than the conversations we see raging around us about stuff like politics (and religion).

Quote: Dalex64

Is your argument seriously that "you need to take a leap of faith to start a relationship therefore god is real because that takes a similar kind of leap of faith and you did the first so you have no choice but to take the other" ?

No my argument is that there are many things that blur the line between your two kinds of faith. Not everything can be believed in because you have no choice and it is proved by the scientific method and certainly not everything can be believed because you want to believe in and chose to. A relationship with someone is a good example you can't enter into a relationship with mathematical certainty as to how it will work out nor do you enter into a relationship through a leap of faith with an unknown stranger. Maybe this is why in Christianity it really all boils down to a relationship with Jesus Christ, a living and real person.

So you say that religion does not belong of the "second kind" of faith as we have labeled it here.

Describe to me how I have no choice but to believe the Catholic version of the truth, and by corollary that I have no choice but to disbelieve the Muslim version of the truth.

I am positing that the two kinds of faith are not as separate as you present them. The first kind of faith, the one you have no choice in, has as its object objective truth. It claims that this is true no matter what. The second kind of faith is more of your personal choice or preference, what appeals to you as subjective truth.

I don't know what your religious beliefs are but if you are convinced that Catholicism is true then you have no choice but to believe in it and claim that Islam is incorrect. How you come to this faith is not just through science and history, though that has a part to play for sure. You also come to religious faith that claims to be objectively true by your own personal history, upbringing, research, experiences, prayer life, morality, and even things like aesthetics.