Posted by on February 22, 2011 at 17:13:58
In Reply to: Re: Thoughts about signs and wonders posted by CB on February 20, 2011 at 10:33:18:
CB:
I can understand a flood of doubts on your part—we share a lot in our back grounds—I was never in the Catholic Church.
But after TF, I read up to an extreme degree on church history, doctrinal development, etc., over 35-plus years, at an intense rate, and to a great degree of depth—probably seminary-equivalent; or so I have been told by people out of various seminaries.
An, since my Stepfather is a retired Ivy League Dean of Philosophy/tenured Philosophy Professor of Comparative Religion, I have been extensively coached in that area, too.
But I like that you say that “…a constant prayer/meditation is "Lord I believe, help my unbelief."
Well, let’s see—probability, based on personal witness/observation “to [your] satisfaction.
That, I must say, is a very narrow field, both of the POSSIBILITY of even observation/actual data collection, and a whole lot of problems regarding the nature of probability versus possibility, as IF you have already nailed those things down on just the probability angle a priori, AND the entirely NON SEQUITUR deflection of my personal testimony via a the arguments of a decrepit and historically dishonest religious organization who cannot even deal honestly with pedophile priests in their ranks; much less “rigorously” verify miracles—and they have never ever tried to “verify” Protestant/Non-denominational ones—why should they??.
Respectfully, perhaps your past affiliation with the specifically Catholic “rigor”, as you called it, is what might be hindering the possibility of more faith.
Catholics have always been philosophically fraudulent regarding their “historical” beliefs versus what the Bible plainly says.
Luther, who first stood against them, wasn’t perfect, either; though. He wrote up several other other “Theses” before the famous one, but the only one to get a reaction specified the big rip-off via indulgences—THAT got those greedy German princes motivated—THEN Luther sic’ed them on a peasant revolt, which killed hundreds—money was a big motivator.
Science does not have a closed data field; despite what people claim. The RATIONALIST-MATERIALIST ATHEISTS are only very slightly different from the religious/quasi-secular ones, which, if I read you right, is what the “Lord…help my unbelief” part of you is stumbling on.
Examination via the vetting grid of false premise, incomplete middle, begging the question, and circular argumentation wipes out the veracity/validity of the RM arguments, especially the atheistic kind.
But especially in Physics, “Delta G”, which is left-over lost energy and loss of previous structure and organization occurring in EVERY SINGLE OBSERVABLE REACTION of any kind in both chemistry and physics, plus the post “Big-Bang” measurable data of an ever-expanding universe, plus many , many unarguable actually observable “intelligent design” data, leave RM of ANY kind in the dust; hands down.
By the way how do YOU know that “...claims for miraculous events rarely pass muster…”?
Interesting claim—get out much anymore? ;-)
I’m tickled that you do not discount the possibility of miracles. We call them that. God calls them something that it is His good pleasure to give us.
I do pray that you do become open enough—deep down in my heart of hearts, I feel that God has done these things because it is a way to “restore what the locust has eaten”, because of really bad stuff I was allowed to go through.
Perhaps—I do wish good things for other TF-exers—that’s why I am back. I was too crushed for a while.
I have no humanistic explanation--I don't need it.
God bless!
OT2