Is faith a wholly voluntary act?

[MoreCoffee]

Can you choose to believe Santa exists?
Or are you then fooling yourself, because there is enough evidence that he doesn't?

Yes, I could but it would seem silly

 

[Lamb]

Why do I need one. I can choose to believe that you have blue eyes. I can choose to believe that popsthebuilder has black hair. I don't need a bible verse for that.

Our beliefs come from God's Word. If it's not from His Word then it's most likely just opinion and possibly even NOT TRUE. That's why you need to back up what you state concerning your doctrine with scripture. I find nothing to back up your claims, in fact, I find quite the opposite showing what the truth is concerning faith.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Our beliefs come from God's Word. If it's not from His Word then it's most likely just opinion and possibly even NOT TRUE. That's why you need to back up what you state concerning your doctrine with scripture. I find nothing to back up your claims, in fact, I find quite the opposite showing what the truth is concerning faith.

I don't need bible verses to tell me what colour your eyes are or what colour pops' hair is.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I think you can choose to believe a thing. For example, I can choose to believe something about you. It may be true or not. But I can choose.

You can choose to believe a thing about me based on what you know about me. To do otherwise is to assume. To not do so is to be willfully ignorant.

So yes, people can choose to believe a thing without any influence or justification, but doing so is assumption.

Does that make sense?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

I don't need bible verses to tell me what colour your eyes are or what colour pops' hair is.

Lamm's hair color is not a matter of Christian dogma..... I'm sure you know that. Of course, your point is silly since NO ONE on the planet claims that God's Holy Scriptures to us is the norm or source for ALL information (you won't find a multiplication table in it, for example). Come on, MoreCoffee! And of course YOU are the one who asked for Scriptures suggesting faith is a gift and then revealed you can't produce any to the contrary; YOU desired to see what SCRIPTURE says (before you abandoned that and quoted instead from your singular, individual denomination). Come on, friend!


Yes, non-Catholics tend to not agree that if an individual (such as one person or one church or one demonation or one cult) CLAIMS that whatever it itself currently is teaching (as doctrine) simply be docilicly accepted cuz self currently says it then such is to be done; that it is to be embraced (true or false). We don't agree with that rubric, that epistemology. You know that. It's one of the biggest things that separates the RCC from Protestants. We tend to reject that (part of the reason the RCC excommunicated some Protestants). We hold that truth matters (rather than just docilic surrendering to the unmitigated, unaccountable, God-like POWER of one who claims such for self uniquely and thus lordship and infallibility and unaccountability). As you know, there is a difference in the epistemology of Catholics and non-Catholics. See the thread(s) here on Sola Scriptura. Come on, my friend. And of course, that's a whole other issue for another day and thread.




Leaving your diversions and returning to the issue of the thread:

You raised the issue of whether or not having faith in Christ as Savior is a "WHOLLY VOLUNTARY" achievement of the individual. While some Protestants answered "no" and you as a Catholic challenged that, you then revealed that the Catholic Church actually largely agrees with we Protestants on that, and so now you seem to be waffling - not being able to disagree with your denomination but not willing to agree with Protestants on this either (a bit of a quandary perhaps)?

I already stated that I agree with Scripture that faith is the gift of God and thus that having faith is NOT a "wholly voluntary" human achievement. And I stated (as Lutherans do) that the dynamics of this, how this giving/receiving "cranks out" is MYSTERY and thus we don't theorized about it - much less declare our theories to be de fide dogma - something God must agree with, something declared to be of highest truth and certainty possible, something of highest necessity possible, something that if knowingly denied leads one to Hell. We leave it were God does. And admit we don't know all the details and workings. I'm sure you will continue to disagree with that approach.


Pax Christi


- Josiah


.

 

[Lamb]

I don't need bible verses to tell me what colour your eyes are or what colour pops' hair is.

To know God's salvation for us we need His Word and we find that in scripture (the Holy Bible). So yes, you do need bible verses if you're going to make claims concerning faith.

 

[Stravinsk]

Can one decide to have faith in Jesus Christ; is it a voluntary act that does not require proofs?

For example, one can choose to vote for Donald Trump even if one dislikes him, despises his policies, regards his statements are untrustworthy. Voting is in such a case purely voluntary. To vote for a candidate is to have a kind of faith in them. Of course the example of voting is not precisely the same as believing in Jesus Christ but the principle is similar.

A belief only requires facts and evidence for those who make those things a prerequisite to believing something. This applies to any belief, not just religious ones.

The Gospel story, the teachings of Yeshua, are admired the world over, and not just by those identifying as Christians. I know persons who identify as other religions that admire, or see relevance of teachings such as the Beatitudes, but who do not claim to be Christian. Ghandi is loved by those in India, did not claim Christianity as his faith, but nevertheless showed respect for the teachings of Christ, and the person of Christ.

Thinking about your question I was reminded of this scene from the movie "Amistad". The person holding the book could have only a limited knowledge and understanding of what he is reading - and yet his circumstances together with that limited understanding seemed enough for him. How much does this scene mirror life for the average person in some respect? In ages past when the Gospels were in Latin and not available to everyone?

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the film I think that the black man didn't read anything but he saw the pictures and decided he liked the story he pieced together from them. He believed the story he created from the pictures. Good for him.

 

[popsthebuilder]

In the film I think that the black man didn't read anything but he saw the pictures and decided he liked the story he pieced together from them. He believed the story he created from the pictures. Good for him.

This isn't really a response to the post it quotes.

MoreCoffee, when you consider the substance and veracity of your own faith, what do you consider to be it's origins? Do you consider it to be of your own conclusions wholly? Do you consider to be within your own very substance or being in some way?

Sincerely,

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

This isn't really a response to the post it quotes.

MoreCoffee, when you consider the substance and veracity of your own faith, what do you consider to be it's origins? Do you consider it to be of your own conclusions wholly? Do you consider to be within your own very substance or being in some way?

Sincerely,

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

My faith is an amalgam of my own perceptions what is written in holy scripture and what the Catholic Church teaches. It's my own. It's our own. and it is God's own. That is as it ought to be, I think. I decide what I will accept, I decided to accept the story told by the Church in the works of the prophets and apostles and with the Spirit's life and light as guide. Nothing very mystical in what I am saying yet it is a mystery that God reveals himself in something as mundane as a book and people and rituals and objects. The spiritual in the material. But I am a material being so what makes "it" real for me is matter. I would not understand the spiritual if it did not come to me in the material. So the sacraments the hearing of words spoken the seeing of words in writing and the seeing as well as experiencing ritual and movement in worship makes all the difference between merely hearing about Christ and experiencing him in the community of the faithful.

 

[popsthebuilder]

My faith is an amalgam of my own perceptions what is written in holy scripture and what the Catholic Church teaches. It's my own. It's our own. and it is God's own. That is as it ought to be, I think. I decide what I will accept, I decided to accept the story told by the Church in the works of the prophets and apostles and with the Spirit's life and light as guide. Nothing very mystical in what I am saying yet it is a mystery that God reveals himself in something as mundane as a book and people and rituals and objects. The spiritual in the material. But I am a material being so what makes "it" real for me is matter. I would not understand the spiritual if it did not come to me in the material. So the sacraments the hearing of words spoken the seeing of words in writing and the seeing as well as experiencing ritual and movement in worship makes all the difference between merely hearing about Christ and experiencing him in the community of the faithful.

Please don't be offended. And if you don't want to continue in this line of questioning I would understand.

You say the spiritual as you know it is only observable through materialization of some sort. So my question now is; do you not feel the spiritual at all, or is there an emotional reaction only through the three things that you mentioned (material/physical manifestation)?

What do you consider your conscience to be? Is it perceivable to you. Do you consider it a thing of your own doing or a response to those same manifestations you had mentioned?

If it's hard to follow due to my poor articulation of what it is I am attempting to convey then please give me an opportunity to clarify.


Peace


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Please don't be offended. And if you don't want to continue in this line of questioning I would understand.

You say the spiritual as you know it is only observable through materialization of some sort. So my question now is; do you not feel the spiritual at all, or is there an emotional reaction only through the three things that you mentioned (material/physical manifestation)?

What do you consider your conscience to be? Is it perceivable to you. Do you consider it a thing of your own doing or a response to those same manifestations you had mentioned?

If it's hard to follow due to my poor articulation of what it is I am attempting to convey then please give me an opportunity to clarify.


Peace


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

No, not only "observable" through the material but most certainly helped by observation in material things. That's why Jesus spoke in parables. Spiritual matters are best absorbed by seeing them in familiar earthly things. In fact the physical creation is a reflection of the heavenly spiritual world. One might say that earthly things are analogs of spiritual reality. That is why I often balk at people talking about simile and metaphor as if the reality is earthly and the heavenly is the analog when in truth it is the other way around thus when the Lord says "I am the way" (meaning road or path) he really is speaking the truth he is the way and Earthly paths are an analog of him. He is the way and earthly paths are like him. The same goes for "I am the gate" or "I am the truth" the former being an earthly gate which is an analog of the Gate of Heaven which is Christ the Lord and the latter being an earthly abstraction about correspondence of abstraction to reality - this too is an analog of the Truth of Heaven which is Christ the Lord - earthly reality is an analog of Heavenly Reality which is Christ the Lord. That is why I am astounded by people saying that "This is my body" is a simile a metaphor making earthly bread as sustaining food into something like the sustaining food that is Christ's word (teaching) when in truth it is Christ as The Bread from Heaven that is given in the earthly bread which has become the Heavenly Reality of which it was merely an analog before. So I experience the spiritual in both inner life and in external life through sacraments and rituals. The inner life has its own reality but the understanding of the realities of heaven are drawn from their analogs in earthly creation. Basically Catholic Christianity says with gusto that Matter matters and matter is good while some others see matter is unimportant or even corrupting and as something to be eschewed.

 

[popsthebuilder]

No, not only "observable" through the material but most certainly helped by observation in material things. That's why Jesus spoke in parables. Spiritual matters are best absorbed by seeing them in familiar earthly things. In fact the physical creation is a reflection of the heavenly spiritual world. One might say that earthly things are analogs of spiritual reality. That is why I often balk at people talking about simile and metaphor as if the reality is earthly and the heavenly is the analog when in truth it is the other way around thus when the Lord says "I am the way" (meaning road or path) he really is speaking the truth he is the way and Earthly paths are an analog of him. He is the way and earthly paths are like him. The same goes for "I am the gate" or "I am the truth" the former being an earthly gate which is an analog of the Gate of Heaven which is Christ the Lord and the latter being an earthly abstraction about correspondence of abstraction to reality - this too is an analog of the Truth of Heaven which is Christ the Lord - earthly reality is an analog of Heavenly Reality which is Christ the Lord. That is why I am astounded by people saying that "This is my body" is a simile a metaphor making earthly bread as sustaining food into something like the sustaining food that is Christ's word (teaching) when in truth it is Christ as The Bread from Heaven that is given in the earthly bread which has become the Heavenly Reality of which it was merely an analog before. So I experience the spiritual in both inner life and in external life through sacraments and rituals. The inner life has its own reality but the understanding of the realities of heaven are drawn from their analogs in earthly creation. Basically Catholic Christianity says with gusto that Matter matters and matter is good while some others see matter is unimportant or even corrupting and as something to be eschewed.

You sorta skipped around the talking points I was most interested in.

It isn't matter which should be eschewed, but the desires or the physical self or attainment of the material. You know this.

Could you go back and consider my questions about the conscience please?
If not, that's fine, just make it clear that you have no interest in discussing it so I'll stop asking you about it.

Peace

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

You sorta skipped around the talking points I was most interested in.

It isn't matter which should be eschewed, but the desires or the physical self or attainment of the material. You know this.

Could you go back and consider my questions about the conscience please?
If not, that's fine, just make it clear that you have no interest in discussing it so I'll stop asking you about it.

Peace

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Conscience is learned behaviour. By observation and training we learn about right and wrong conduct, words, thinking. There is no doubt also innate notions of right and wrong with which people are born. The innate sense of rightness is built upon by training and training is provided by one's parents the surrounding culture and religious/moral education.

You wrote "It isn't matter which should be eschewed, but the desires or the physical self or attainment of the material. You know this." And I disagree. Physical desires are not inherently wicked nor ought they be eschewed as if they are ipso facto wicked. And attainment of the material is not necessarily selfish or wicked. The holy scriptures say something quite out of character with our age where selfless denial of personal benefit and personal gain is presented as if it were the pinnacle of godliness when it is no such thing. Consider these words from the holy scriptures But without faith, it is impossible to please God. For whoever approaches God must believe that he exists, and that he rewards those who seek him. [Hebrews 11:6]. Seeking reward in this context cannot be wicked can it?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Conscience is learned behaviour. By observation and training we learn about right and wrong conduct, words, thinking. There is no doubt also innate notions of right and wrong with which people are born. The innate sense of rightness is built upon by training and training is provided by one's parents the surrounding culture and religious/moral education.

You wrote "It isn't matter which should be eschewed, but the desires or the physical self or attainment of the material. You know this." And I disagree. Physical desires are not inherently wicked nor ought they be eschewed as if they are ipso facto wicked. And attainment of the material is not necessarily selfish or wicked. The holy scriptures say something quite out of character with our age where selfless denial of personal benefit and personal gain is presented as if it were the pinnacle of godliness when it is no such thing. Consider these words from the holy scriptures But without faith, it is impossible to please God. For whoever approaches God must believe that he exists, and that he rewards those who seek him. [Hebrews 11:6]. Seeking reward in this context cannot be wicked can it?

No it cannot. It isn't the attainment of the reward, but ones own motives that are to be questioned.

Do you do what you know to be right for the sake of reward for self? If so then you aren't doing what is right, you are doing what you want. They are nearly never synonymous.

Would you agree?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

No it cannot. It isn't the attainment of the reward, but ones own motives that are to be questioned.

Do you do what you know to be right for the sake of reward for self? If so then you aren't doing what is right, you are doing what you want. They are nearly never synonymous.

Would you agree?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I do what is right and I seek God because I not only believe that God IS but also because I believe that God rewards those who seek him. I do in fact have faith because of those two things. I think it is both scriptural and rational to say so. And no I do not agree that if one does what is right with a view to the reward that God gives to those who have faith that such faith somehow makes what is good into something wicked.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I do what is right and I seek God because I not only believe that God IS but also because I believe that God rewards those who seek him. I do in fact have faith because of those two things. I think it is both scriptural and rational to say so. And no I do not agree that if one does what is right with a view to the reward that God gives to those who have faith that such faith somehow makes what is good into something wicked.

The Christ himself declared greed the root of all evil. But doing an action for the reward or abstaining from am action for fear or the consequences alone is okay to you? Both of those are forms of greed. What is right is only so when it is done for the right reason.

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Christ himself declared greed the root of all evil. But doing an action for the reward or abstaining from am action for fear or the consequences alone is okay to you? Both of those are forms of greed. What is right is only so when it is done for the right reason.

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

How is reliance upon God's promises "greed"?

People who create rules where holy scripture gives none are doing what Jesus condemned in the tradition of the elders that eviscerated the Law of God. If God promises rewards, blessings, and whatever else he chooses to give to the faithful then why is it below the standards of Christian faith to believe him?

 

[popsthebuilder]

How is reliance upon God's promises "greed"?

People who create rules where holy scripture gives none are doing what Jesus condemned in the tradition of the elders that eviscerated the Law of God. If God promises rewards, blessings, and whatever else he chooses to give to the faithful then why is it below the standards of Christian faith to believe him?

Woe...I didn't say I don't believe in the promises of GOD, sir. Please don't conflate what I say with any presupposition you may have...please.

I'm only saying that to act a certain way for only a reward or negation of punishment is to not be genuine in your actions.

But you say you can't agree with this?

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Woe...I didn't say I don't believe in the promises of GOD, sir. Please don't conflate what I say with any presupposition you may have...please.

I'm only saying that to act a certain way for only a reward or negation of punishment is to not be genuine in your actions.

But you say you can't agree with this?

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Okay, good, then you do think it is good to believe that God IS and that he rewards people who seek him?