Announcement
- Thread starter water
- Start date
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Dear Water,
Arguments for Faith?
Protestants have an irrational hatred of all the Saints, although there is small justification for it. It seems to be hatred simply for the sake of mean spiritedness. But honestly, why should protestants hate Saints who lived and died hundreds of years before the Protestant Rebellion? When exactly do Protestants suppose that the Early Church crossed the line to being so demonic that it could only safely be completely ignored. But all of that is my introduction to Saint Bernard, who lived during the first stirrings of the movement to justify Faith by Reason. Bernard saw Faith as largely a Zen Like Mystery, and mixing it up with Reason could only hurt it. Peter Abelard, the most brilliant Mind of his time offered to debate Bernard on the subject, a debate that Bernard would have refused, except that the Pope, a former Monk to whom Bernard had been Superior, ordered Bernard to the debate. Abelard argued, and then it was Bernard's turn. Bernard looked across the podiums and into Abelard's eyes, and instantly Abelard understood the idea of Mystery. He instantly recanted, and resigned his Chair of Philosophy at the Serbonne and retired to a Contemplative Monastery.
Besides, when has Reason ever convinced an Atheist of anything. You cannot expect Reason to take the place and do the job of a Religious Experience. There was a well known Jewish Atheist in Paris at the time of the Atheistic French 'Enlightenment' Movement -- they used the Term 'Enlightenment' in the New Speak sense of being free of Religious Superstition. Anyway, it was the time of the introduction of the Medal of the Immaculate Conception, from a vision a nun had had of the Blessed Virgin... the Medal came to be called "The Miraculous Medal". On a bet the Atheist consented to wear a Miraculous Medal. It was Our Lady's Promise that anybody who wore The Medal would have some measure of Grace, and that Confidence could increase that Grace, but that simply wearing the Medal was sufficient for some portion. Anyway, the Atheist Jew has a lunch date to meet a business colleage in one of the side chapels of the Notre Dame Cathedral. He was struck with this incredible Religious Experience in which the Cathedral seemed to disappear and he seemed to be out in a beautiful field near a pond and a small Woods and the Blessed Virgin descended from Heaven and had a chat with him. This Atheist went on to become a Cathelic Priest and I believe may have worked his way up to Bishop. Anyway, it was not rational arguments that convinced him of the Truths of Religion. It was the Experience of Religion that made him Religious. There is no other way.
Besides, one philosopher, I forget who, had said that all good arguments are in fact circular... that is how you know they are valid. That is how a good argument checks itself for correctness --- that it can go all the way around and meet itself from where it started.
Arguments for Faith?
Protestants have an irrational hatred of all the Saints, although there is small justification for it. It seems to be hatred simply for the sake of mean spiritedness. But honestly, why should protestants hate Saints who lived and died hundreds of years before the Protestant Rebellion? When exactly do Protestants suppose that the Early Church crossed the line to being so demonic that it could only safely be completely ignored. But all of that is my introduction to Saint Bernard, who lived during the first stirrings of the movement to justify Faith by Reason. Bernard saw Faith as largely a Zen Like Mystery, and mixing it up with Reason could only hurt it. Peter Abelard, the most brilliant Mind of his time offered to debate Bernard on the subject, a debate that Bernard would have refused, except that the Pope, a former Monk to whom Bernard had been Superior, ordered Bernard to the debate. Abelard argued, and then it was Bernard's turn. Bernard looked across the podiums and into Abelard's eyes, and instantly Abelard understood the idea of Mystery. He instantly recanted, and resigned his Chair of Philosophy at the Serbonne and retired to a Contemplative Monastery.
Besides, when has Reason ever convinced an Atheist of anything. You cannot expect Reason to take the place and do the job of a Religious Experience. There was a well known Jewish Atheist in Paris at the time of the Atheistic French 'Enlightenment' Movement -- they used the Term 'Enlightenment' in the New Speak sense of being free of Religious Superstition. Anyway, it was the time of the introduction of the Medal of the Immaculate Conception, from a vision a nun had had of the Blessed Virgin... the Medal came to be called "The Miraculous Medal". On a bet the Atheist consented to wear a Miraculous Medal. It was Our Lady's Promise that anybody who wore The Medal would have some measure of Grace, and that Confidence could increase that Grace, but that simply wearing the Medal was sufficient for some portion. Anyway, the Atheist Jew has a lunch date to meet a business colleage in one of the side chapels of the Notre Dame Cathedral. He was struck with this incredible Religious Experience in which the Cathedral seemed to disappear and he seemed to be out in a beautiful field near a pond and a small Woods and the Blessed Virgin descended from Heaven and had a chat with him. This Atheist went on to become a Cathelic Priest and I believe may have worked his way up to Bishop. Anyway, it was not rational arguments that convinced him of the Truths of Religion. It was the Experience of Religion that made him Religious. There is no other way.
Besides, one philosopher, I forget who, had said that all good arguments are in fact circular... that is how you know they are valid. That is how a good argument checks itself for correctness --- that it can go all the way around and meet itself from where it started.
Dear Leo,
Not arguments *for* faith, but arguments against the alleged circularity of faith.
James,
One often hears that all religious faith is circular. This irks me, for a long line of reasons.
It will take some time and research, but it'll come!
Take heart.
Not arguments *for* faith, but arguments against the alleged circularity of faith.
James,
One often hears that all religious faith is circular. This irks me, for a long line of reasons.
It will take some time and research, but it'll come!
Take heart.
German_Jin
Registered Member
Quote
rotestants have an irrational hatred of all the Saints, although there is small justification for it. It seems to be hatred simply for the sake of mean spiritedness. But honestly, why should protestants hate Saints who lived and died hundreds of years before the Protestant Rebellion?:Quote ~Leo Volont~
Leo,
I am a protestant and I have nothing against the saints or any other religion at that. Consider me polytheistic. It is merely a hatred created long ago by people who feared what they couldn't comprehend. Like the Salem witch trials, just some snoby zealots who couldn't understand that people would have different veiws on religion.
Why not just let people believe in what they want to believe and worship unless it directly affect you. I don't have a problem with Satanics, unless they offer me as sacrifise and bring about the apocolypse. Other then that I don't care where people put their faith.
rotestants have an irrational hatred of all the Saints, although there is small justification for it. It seems to be hatred simply for the sake of mean spiritedness. But honestly, why should protestants hate Saints who lived and died hundreds of years before the Protestant Rebellion?:Quote ~Leo Volont~Leo,
I am a protestant and I have nothing against the saints or any other religion at that. Consider me polytheistic. It is merely a hatred created long ago by people who feared what they couldn't comprehend. Like the Salem witch trials, just some snoby zealots who couldn't understand that people would have different veiws on religion.
Why not just let people believe in what they want to believe and worship unless it directly affect you. I don't have a problem with Satanics, unless they offer me as sacrifise and bring about the apocolypse. Other then that I don't care where people put their faith.
Water,
Faith is simply belief without proof. The primary circular arguments regarding faith tend to be those from religionists who attempt to justify their faith. Otherwise there is nothing inherently circular about the concept of faith. It is not clear what your proposed thread would cover.
Faith is simply belief without proof. The primary circular arguments regarding faith tend to be those from religionists who attempt to justify their faith. Otherwise there is nothing inherently circular about the concept of faith. It is not clear what your proposed thread would cover.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
water said:
Wonderful... that clarified everything.
Maybe you need to re-write your essay so that people know what it is exactly you are talking about.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
German_Jin said:
You say you have nothing against the Saints, but it is the Catholic Saints alone who have shown that they were able to exercise a correct understanding of Christ's Teachings. All other Christians were and are lost, but the Saints, by the Grace they demonstrate in their Miracles, that they not only have Followed Christ, but have caught up to Him. Now, it would only be natural for nominal Christians to be curious about what the Saints had done right. Most Protestants emphatically hate the Saints and offer assertions that their Miracles are of the devil. Then we have mild mannered Protestants who say they don't hate the Saints, but still rather treat them like lepers. Take you, for instance, ... you speak of them as though they are in an entirely different Religion. It seems you think you are too good for them.
That's the whole point. Water is working on a premise that doesn't fit into everyone's little boxes.Leo Volont said:
Water is one of the few people who seems to be looking at both sides to find something useful, instead of sticking to half the evidence and wallowing in the same "you said", "I said", "she said", diatribe.
***applause***
Leo, Protestants object to saints because saint-worship is idolatrous. "Thou shalt have no other Gods than me" said God, and yet the Catholic church deifies people right up to the present day - in fact I believe I'm right in saying that John Paul II has canonised or at least beatified more people in 26 years than all the popes before him. "Thou shalt not make a graven image" - again, nobody worships the statues of Mary or paintings of the Christ - but if you pray to a saint, you often pray at a statue to that saint. It may seem to a person from middle-America or the United Kingdom that I'm exaggerating, but I'm half Italian (formerly Catholic) and I know that in Europe and undoubtedly South America, saint-worship is a very real thing. It was this that Luther used to justify his break away from the catholic church in the first place.Leo Volont said:
That's a non-sequitur. It is only Reason that a skeptical thinker will accept to be convinced, but as you correctly go on to say, Reason can not take the place and do the job of a Religious Experience.Leo Volont said:
That's a very good story about St. Bernard. Isaac Asimov once got irritated with the editor of some esoteric magazine who had attempted to show that Reason was not necessarily the only path to truth. He wrote back to him, "You tell me that Reason is not the only path of discovery. Your argument however consists of attempting to Reason the point. Don't tell me, show me! Paint me a picture, meditate me a meditation, do something that will directly convince me that does not involve the use of Reason." He got no reply.
Last edited:
I think logically, faith is equivalent to assumption, identity, circularity, etc. I don't see why that's a problem. It's undertaken all the time by most everyone. Hell not most, I'd wagereveryone undertakes it at least unconsciously on a virtually constant basis.
That it is circular does not render it invalid. It simply indicates it cannot be proven. Big deal. You can't prove anything to everyone.
Logic doesn't apply to all aspects of being. It applies to the analysis of it. It's removed from it. It's not it.
I smell perfectionism.
I look forward to your argument.
That it is circular does not render it invalid. It simply indicates it cannot be proven. Big deal. You can't prove anything to everyone.
Logic doesn't apply to all aspects of being. It applies to the analysis of it. It's removed from it. It's not it.
I smell perfectionism.
I look forward to your argument.
Last edited:
§outh§tar said:
Anything -- what?
* * *
Cris said:
Hi there Cris! Nice to see you.
VERY nice. I agree.
Circularity problems usually arise when we try to justify something, yes.
There are some old issues waiting ... we'll see.
* * *
Leo Volont said:
The opening post is not an essay, and it doesn't say much anyway.
* * *
cole grey said:
Thank you!
* * *
wesmorris said:
Wow. Yes.
Faith may logically equal those other things, but like you said, Logic doesn't apply to all aspects of being.
This is where it gets interesting.
Haha! I'm just trying to be exact.
Thank you.
True. But faith is not just about any kind of assumptions ...
* * *
JustARide said:
This thread is only an announcement notice anway.
If you succeed, you will be past omniscient, maybe past God. But I don't expect you to. No one does. I suppose everyone is a realist just like me. I admire your courage however. To make an announcement like that takes balls - which you don't have. Best of luck chasing that rainbow.