Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[inocente]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

Not for me thanks, I'm expecting AG's hazelnut chocolate to arrive any minute.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by inocente

Not for me thanks, I'm expecting AG's hazelnut chocolate to arrive any minute.

Go ahead.

Knock yourself out



Sarah x

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by inocente

Stop making personal remarks.

Done!

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by inocente

No. I already pointed out that you don't get to answer a question with a question, it's CAF rules and common courtesy. When you stop prevaricating and answer my questions from #306, already asked and unanswered before, you get to ask me questions. Common courtesy.

Okay.

Here's your question:

So I ask again - do you think Numbers 31 (kill all the men, boys and women but keep the remaining 32,000 virgins as plunder, all in the name of the Lord) is inspired by an unchanging Almighty God, and how do you know, what super-duper surefire process do you use?

Yes, I do believe that it is inspired by an unchanging Almighty God. And I know this--and the ONLY way I know this is--because the Church has discerned for me what's inspired and what's not.

As St. Augustine said, paraphrasing, "I would not know the Gospel were it not for the Catholic Church."

Through all the words of the Scriptures, inocente, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely, as the Catechism so eloquently proclaims.

So I take the Word of God in its entirety and do not dismiss the ones that make me uncomfortable.

For that would be creating a god in my own image.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by inocente

you get to ask me questions.

So now here are mine:

Regarding how you know what's inspired and what's not, given the promptings of the Holy Spirit...

I'm curious, whether it's NOT a feeling you get, but some other method you use to discern that the Spirit has told you something is theopneustos , does it have to occur each and every time you read the verse, or is the Spirit talking to you, once, on each verse sufficient?

And, if you didn't hear the Spirit talking to you the first 10 times you read, say Numbers 31, but then on June 14, 2012 you read it and suddenly the Spirit tells you that it is inspired, you can believe that it is inspired on that day, but it wasn't on June 13, 2012?

How does that work?

Also, if I give you a list of Scriptures could you please tell me which ones are inspired and which ones are not?

Would you be willing to offer us your list of what's inspired and what's not?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

Lol.

I don't get why you're getting so hung up on this.

Because I love that it gets atheists all in a tizzy, and that they have no response except for all the responses that, in other arenas, atheists have so much derision for--

-I just know he exists because I feel it in my heart (Sair)
-I could tell you but you wouldn't believe me--I've had my own personal encounters with this entity (you)
-I know because reason alone tells me he exists (Poseidon)

These are all the reasons that Believers have proffered for a belief in God that you all reject as ree-DANK-ulous.

And yet here you are proffering them as apologia for your very own Phantom Entity.

If I send you my information, or if one of the brave men and women who got sick of the no atheists in foxhole stuff and actually posted pictures of themselves on their website, with banners saying they are atheists, were to die for their fellow soldiers, I've already said I firmly believe you, or I should say certain Christians, would just say one of two things:

It's not agape because only people of faith can have that, even though the Church took the word and redefined it. The Church does not own the word, or the language.

Or, as has been said to me here in a thread, God was working through them even though they don't believe in God.

Well, it's not unlike the proofs that Believers have provided to atheists for God's existence in which you (a collective you here) respond with your own refutations.

Why do you get to provide refutations for our proofs/arguments/evidence, but we don't get to refute your alleged evidence?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

Not when the books were being agreed on in the very beginning, they were all one.
Sarah x

Yes, we were all one--in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. But they had their own canon.

As the Orthodox, and Catholics all believe in the same God, and Holy Spirit, and Jesus, and have valid apostolic succession and the same sacraments, and claim miracles that neither Church denies of the other, why would the Holy Spirit inspire the Orthodox to have Machabees 3 as an inspired book, and not Catholics

Well, clearly, from a Catholic's perspective it's because they are wrong and have not submitted to the vicar of Christ as it pertains to the canon of Scripture.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

The Spirit doesn't mess around with arguments over literal interpretations of the Bible.

The discussion with inocente isn't about whether something ought to be interpreted literally or not, but whether something that's in the Bible is inspired or not.

According to inocente, not everything in the Bible is inspired.

I just want to know how he knows which verses are inspired and which aren't.

The Holy Spirit apparently has let him know which ones are and which ones aren't.

So I want to know
-how does the Holy Spirit let him know this?
-which verses are the inspired ones and which ones aren't?

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Because I love that it gets atheists all in a tizzy,

Actually, it doesn't.

Atheists on the whole couldn't care less about any Christian Saints, or whether they can prove that some one who doesnt believe in God can be as brave as some one who does.

But it's seems it has you in a tizzy to ensure this can never be done, and I don't know why because I've already said what I know you'll say anyhow:

*****It's not agape because we've hijacked that word for ourselves and it only applies to Christians

*****It was God working through him or her anyhow, even though they didn't believe in God.

That's been said to me here, which I thought was interesting.

These are all the reasons that Believers have proffered for a belief in God that you all reject as ree-DANK-ulous.

Atheism is a position on a single issue question. It's not a way of life Atheists don't go around declaring they did what they did because of their atheism, like religious people do claiming it because of their faith.

One look at some of the humanitarian forundations set up in memory of those who gave their lives for others, such as Rachel Corrie or the Amy Beihl foundation, and you'll see it's not an issue of faith but of doing the right thing. Human empathy with human suffering.

Linda Beihl was responsible for the release of her daughter's killers, and she forgave them, and reconciled to them. She went further and gave two of them a job in her foundation, and said they were like sons to her, and she loved them with all her heart.

When asked she stated for the record she was not a Christian.

Something you claimed only a Christian could do.

As I said, atheists do what's right, because it's the right thing to do.

Well, it's not unlike the proofs that Believers have provided to atheists for God's existence in which you (a collective you here) respond with your own refutations.

With respect, no proofs for a Deity have been established, that would satisy atheists. If they had been, there wouldn't be atheists.

Why do you get to provide refutations for our proofs/arguments/evidence, but we don't get to refute your alleged evidence?

Hey, refute all you like, all day long. As I said above and in another post, even if it were irrefutable, Christians would just claim it was God working through them anyhow, or, while it was nice what they did, it wasn't Agape, as if the Church owned that word and had global authority for it's usage

And it actually doesn't matter anyhow. No atheist I know of does good in the name of their Atheism - they just do what's good, because it's the right thing to do.

But people of faith do what's good, because they are commanded to by their Deity.

Now that's a whole world of difference right there.

And if someone is going to claim they are going good in a Deity's name, because this Deity commanded them to - love one another as I have loved you - or that others are doing good in this Deity's name even though they don't believe in it, then the burden of proof rests with the claimant to prove this Deity.

So far, you've not established that that is the case.

Sarah x

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Well, clearly, from a Catholic's perspective it's because they are wrong and have not submitted to the vicar of Christ as it pertains to the canon of Scripture.

Does the Catholic Church say the Orthodox are wrong for having Macabees 3 in their Canon?

Since both ''faiths'' recognize, or at leas don't deny, each others sacraments, apostolic succession, and I think a Pope called the Orthodox and Catholic faiths 'two lungs of the same body'' that seems an odd statement to me, but I don't know.

Has the Catholic Church declared them to be in error for their canon, or is that your own supposition?

Sarah x

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Well, clearly, from a Catholic's perspective it's because they are wrong and have not submitted to the vicar of Christ as it pertains to the canon of Scripture.

My understanding from what I've been reading on this site, is the Eastern Catholic Churches submit to the vicar of Christ, are in full communion with Rome, and yet their Canon is also different, and includes Maccabees 3 as canonical, along with Maccabees 4, Esdras and Psalm 151

Sarah x

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Yes, we were all one--in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. But they had their own canon.

So the Holy Spirit inspired the Roman Catholic Church to have one canon, but inspired the Orthodox to have another canon

Sarah x

[AlanFromWichita]

I have six kids. The first four went K-12 Catholic school; the youngest two are still in Catholic high school.

The oldest is the youngest Grand Knight our parish has ever had, plus he cantors and lectors at Mass and I'm teaching him organ so he might start playing Masses, too. He's the symbol of an active Catholic.

The others are involved more or less. One is married to a Hindu, at both Hindu and Catholic weddings -- and will raise the kids Catholic (#1 is on its way). One is agnostic and one atheist. One cantors for me at 8 AM Mass, and she and the remaining one went with me and my wife to clean the Church Saturday.

And you know what? I don't feel a bit of grieving over all of it. The kids have a love and spirituality that transcends their current group identification. And I know most of the reasons they feel the way they do, and it isn't because they are ignorant about the Church. I've seen to it that they aren't. I would welcome them back, but I am not afraid for their eternal fate. Even the non-religious ones can still run rings around the morality and service of most of the kids their age who still call themselves "Catholic." I do not believe they will lose their reward,.

And YES, saying "spiritual but not religious," DOES mean something. A spiritual person will do acts of selfless love ostensibly without doing it in the name of another -- or an Other. A spiritual person may obtain fruit of the spirit through Christianity or through other ways.

Alan

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Okay.

Yes, I do believe that it is inspired by an unchanging Almighty God. And I know this--and the ONLY way I know this is--because the Church has discerned for me what's inspired and what's not.

So if the Church has discerned this for you, and you believe the Church, then would it be fair to say, you don't actually know what is inspired and not inspired, but you believe what the Church says is inspired and not inspired?

Which is quite different from you saying you KNOW something is inspired or not.

It appears you don't, but you proclaim what is inspired because someone else told you (the Church).

Which is fair enough from a Catholic standpoint as I understand this is the Catholic position.

Sarah x

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

So if the Church has discerned this for you, and you believe the Church, then would it be fair to say, you don't actually know what is inspired and not inspired, but you believe what the Church says is inspired and not inspired?

Which is quite different from you saying you KNOW something is inspired or not.

It appears you don't, but you proclaim what is inspired because someone else told you (the Church).

Which is fair enough from a Catholic standpoint as I understand this is the Catholic position.

Sarah x

I'm not convinced that "know" means the same to us all.

Let's take a look at a definition for "faith" from Hebrews:

Heb 11:1-3

Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. Because of it the ancients were well attested. By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

So faith is evidence of things that are not accessible through the usual six worldly senses. Whether it applies to invisible phenomena whose effects are visible, could be debated or may be individual. But note that the faith is, in fact, the evidence -- so one who has faith can "know" even that which cannot be proven to those who do not have faith.

For example, I "know" that my wife loves me. It has not been clinically proven, but I have enough circumstantial evidence over a 27 year period that I would stake my life on it. So I'd stake my life on a vague term that has not been proven conclusively and doesn't mean the same to others. Silly? Maybe -- but I'm doing it.

OTOH, I don't "know" for sure that any given bishop is honest, and I would not stake my life on it unless I knew him quite well.

But as far as being inspired, I wonder what it is about the Holy Spirit that's keeping Him from actually having the worldly situation under control. If nothing is, then how is anything NOT "inspired?" If the HS does not have things under control, then Jesus came for nothing because what He's left to guide us is defective.

Alan