Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi!  I am a 15 year old catholic.  I look forward to talking with people on this forum.

I have many questions. Here are three.

First, why did you choose to become a Christian rather than, say, a Muslim, Hindu, or Environmentalist?

Second, why did you choose Ambrose as your screen name? Why not Augustine, Bonaventure, Francis, or others?

Third, what sort of man do you think should be John Paul II's successor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi!  I am a 15 year old catholic.  I look forward to talking with people on this forum.

My first question is why are you looking forward to talking with us? Are you at all interested in Objectivism or are you in here by accident? I am a 15 year old Objectivist and I do not go on Catholic message boards. So what is your purpose here?

A side note: What is the signifigance of your signature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a 50 year old Objectivist. I assume you are unfamiliar with Objectivism
Hello! :blink: I was unfamiliar with objectivism, but I have read the basics of it

La Morte al papa. Or at least his institution. The guy himself really seems worn out.

B)

First, why did you choose to become a Christian rather than, say, a Muslim, Hindu, or Environmentalist?
Why? Because I believe it to be the only real religion to make sense. First of all, manmade philosophies like taoism and new age spirituality are out. The Greek philosophers were wrong, and we could be wrong too. I can only believe in one which claims divine revelation. Human knowledge, without some help from a higher deity, cannot possibly understand the supernatural.

As for buddhism and hinduism, I can pretty much clearly see that to be a man-made religion undergoing develpoment for 4000 years and nothing more. If the concept of death and rebirth is correct, then how can there be 6 billion humans now who have reincarnated from the few amount of people who have lived in this universe in the past.

Anyone could make it up. It is excellent that it is a monothiestic relgion, that is great, but I dont think Muhammed's religion is true. The fanciful idea that Ishmael is the father of the Arab nation is kind of ridiculous. Also, I dont think Mohammed ever read a bible. He claims continuity between the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians, but his theology on forgiveness of sin is completely foreign to Judaim and Christianity. Also, if you claim Jesus to be a mere prophet only, you havent read the New Testament.

I am not a Muslim because I dont believe a guy can just happen to recieve a revelation from God from the middle of nowhere. Whereas Mohammed is just an ordinary guy who claimed to recieve some special 'revelation', Jesus Christ was born a Jew, the the chosen people of God, out of the stem of Jesse.

I am not a Jew for a simple reason...I believe that Jesus was God, rose from the dead, and is Lord of all. The fact that the Jews decided to no longer accept certain books as scripture shortly after the beginning of the Christian era, the fact that the old Jewish system of animal sacrifices was lost forever at the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the western candle of theMenorah refused to burn continuously, the doors of the temple would open themselves, and the miracle

of crimson string quit changing color, all after Christ ministered on Earth. From Pentecost on, God was ready to include both Jew and Gentile in his holy nation, extending salvation as a free gift from all in virtue of the sacrifice of his son.

I am not Eastern Orthodox or Protestant for many (and complicated) reason.

Second, why did you choose Ambrose as your screen name? Why not Augustine, Bonaventure, Francis, or others?

Because I have been reading about him recently.

Third, what sort of man do you think should be John Paul II's successor?
That is up to God's providence. Hopefully it will be a good guy just like John Paul is.

My first question is why are you looking forward to talking with us? Are you at all interested in Objectivism or are you in here by accident? I am a 15 year old Objectivist and I do not go on Catholic message boards. So what is your purpose here?

For the same reason I like posting on all message boards...I like talking to people of different persuasions.

A side note: What is the signifigance of your signature?

My signature is italian. It is what they say sometimes when the pope comes along. It is basically a cheer of patriotism and support. It can be translated as "long live the pope" or "hail the pope"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello! :blink:  I was unfamiliar with objectivism, but I have read the basics of it

...

Why?  Because I believe it to be the only real religion to make sense.

...

his theology on forgiveness of sin is completely foreign to Judaim and Christianity.

...

Also, if you claim Jesus to be a mere prophet only, you havent read the New Testament.

I suggest you read more about it. Also, be aware that Objectivism and objectivism are not the same thing. Big "O" refers to the writings of Ayn Rand.

Why does your religion make sense? You have attempted to explain why others don't and I happen to agree, but how is yours any different? Wherever did you get the idea that forgiveness of sin was foreign to Christianity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly have not read the New Testament either (or for that matter, much of the Old Testament). If you "believe that Jesus was God [...] and is Lord of all," they how can you (or anyone) be a Catholic? Where did Jesus say to confess your sins to a man (i.e. a priest)? Pray to His mother (i.e. the Rosary)? Deify a man (the pope)? The Catholic church is so anti-Christian I don't understand how the two get confused so often. Once you see how "man-made" your Catholic church is, you are going to need a new -ism. I am so glad you are considering Objectivism. My advice is to alway go to the source; start by reading books by Ayn Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a Muslim because I dont believe a guy can just happen to recieve a revelation from God from the middle of nowhere.  Whereas Mohammed is just an ordinary guy who claimed to recieve some special 'revelation'

Hmmm... isn't the last book in the Bible called "The Revelation of John?"

Didn't God reveal Himself to Moses (in the middle of nowhere)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You clearly have not read the New Testament either (or for that matter, much of the Old Testament).  If you "believe that Jesus was God [...] and is Lord of all," they how can you (or anyone) be a Catholic?  Where did Jesus say to confess your sins to a man (i.e. a priest)?  Pray to His mother (i.e. the Rosary)?  Deify a man (the pope)?  The Catholic church is so anti-Christian I don't understand how the two get confused so often.  Once you see how "man-made" your Catholic church is, you are going to need a new -ism.  I am so glad you are considering Objectivism.  My advice is to alway go to the source; start by reading books by Ayn Rand.

I am probably not becoming an "Objectivist" anytime soon, or any other brand of atheist. Mind you, I was an atheist for a little while, so I understand your arguments (thanks alot Carl Sagan!).

Also, for an "Objectivist", you clearly show very little understanding of Christian history or apologetics. In fact, this is the kind of garbage Id expect to hear from a fundamentalist evangelical. If you want to discuss certain bible passages, we can. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church which traces its lineage back to the apostles. Reading the Bible is not enough, we must study other things from around that time to get a good grasp of what route we should take. Jesus said "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." The See of Peter has always held a place of prominency among Christian Churches. St. Augustine wrote: "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed." St. Ambrose said that Peter was "set over the Church".

Ignatius of Antioch, who was educated by the apostles themselves, wrote this near the end of the 1st century:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue.

And Irenaeus of Lyons, pupil of St. Polycarp, who was himself pupil of John the Apostle, wrote this:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... isn't the last book in the Bible called "The Revelation of John?"

Didn't God reveal Himself to Moses (in the middle of nowhere)?

Yes, but take this into consideration. Moses was chosen by God to lead his people out of Egypt because they were enslaved. He was the son of a Levite, so he was a Hebrew, a descendant of Abraham. The entire history of divine revelation is tied to these people. When Christ came about, he set up the Church, and no longer made distinction among either Jew or Gentile. The Old Testament was written by Jews; the New Testament by Christians. Christianity is the fullfillment of Judaism. With his sacrifice, he did away with the necessity for all of those animal sacrifices. As I have said, Christ is of the seed of Jesse and of David. He was greeted when he entered Jerusalem by people waving palm leaves and saying "Hosana to the Son of David." If a man tgo claimed divine revelation seperate from the Jews or the Church, and then to make a theology opposed to the Judeo-Christian one, that person was faking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgess, I am a christian.  I believe in God.  I believe that the bible is true and inspired by God, as defined by the Council of Hippo (AD 397).

Are you a fideist or biblicist? If you are, I would encourage you to read -- or reread -- John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio. He advocates a greater use of reason as an antidote against not only the irrationality of postmodernist philosophy, but against fideism and biblicism as well.

By the way, Ambrose, some people collect stamps or vintage cars. I collect definitions of reason and faith. What are your definitions of those ideas?

Here is one more question I have always wanted to ask a Christian: Do you believe that translations of Christians' original Hebrew and Greek sacred texts were also inspired by God and thus are totally reliable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I a fideist? I guess, partly. People have wasted their lives in the pursuit of knowledge that only ends at death. Part of my faith is a mystery that I cannot know in this life. What good is the knowledge of man without that of God? Nothing, because everything in this world will one day pass away. Christianity, like other ideas, requires a leap of faith. However, I acknowledge that it is good to use reason to investigate things.

Fideist: Someone who refuses to use reason outside of the bible. He does not even question where his bible came from. Fideism is taking too large of a leap of faith.

Biblicist: Someone who interprets the bible super-literally, without studying where it came from or the people who wrote it. Almost the same as a fideist.

I do not believe that translations are inspired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am probably not becoming an "Objectivist" anytime soon, or any other brand of atheist.  Mind you, I was an atheist for a little while, so I understand your arguments (thanks alot Carl Sagan!).

By referring to Objectivism as a brand of atheism you show judt how little you actually know about the subject. Objectivism is a philosophy of reason, and in my mind that demands atheism. Plus, I ask you again, what are you doing here? If you do not want to be an Objectivist, and you do not seem the least bit interested in becoming one, then what purpose can you have here.

In fact, this is the kind of garbage Id expect to hear from a fundamentalist evangelical.  If you want to discuss certain bible passages, we can.

Oh no, you see, this is not the Catholic message board. Do not come here as a newbie and dictate what we "can" discuss. If you think that what is posted here is a lot of garbage than why come? Unless you are naive enough to think that you can "convert" us, or that we are the least bit interested in having a conversation about your particular collection of fairy tales.

Now, since these boards are for discussing Objectivism, what do you know about it and what have you read that relates to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By referring to Objectivism as a brand of atheism you show judt how little you actually know about the subject. Objectivism is a philosophy of reason, and in my mind that demands atheism.
Objectivism, by its very nature, implies atheism, by saying that man is his own end. For all practical purposes, it is a brand of atheism

Plus, I ask you again, what are you doing here? If you do not want to be an Objectivist, and you do not seem the least bit interested in becoming one, then what purpose can you have here.

Why do you insist on asking me this? I am here now, and thats all that is relevant now. It may because I like sharing my convictions, or maybe its just to kill time.

Oh no, you see, this is not the Catholic message board. Do not come here as a newbie and dictate what we "can" discuss. If you think that what is posted here is a lot of garbage than why come?
Man, get over it. I am posting on this public forum right now, and you dont have the power to shove me off.

Unless you are naive enough to think that you can "convert" us, or that we are the least bit interested in having a conversation about your particular collection of fairy tales.

It would take something quite providencial for me to convert one of you. But if I did I would be happy. The least I can do is share my beliefs with you, so that you may understand them better, and you can truly call youself 'objective'.

Now, since these boards are for discussing Objectivism, what do you know about it and what have you read that relates to it?

Objectivism says that man is his own end. Man lives for himself, since there is no God or life after death. Man can achieve complete happiness by himself Individually, human lives are worthless because they will all cease to exist (this is not explicitly stated but is an implication). Humanity can accomplish great things on its own- and can "tame the universe" if it wishes to do so. It is a very loose philosophy which is atheistic in character.

Bro, I think your posts are getting a little too venomous. Simmer down, if nothing else for the sake of courtesy. Calling my faith a "collection of fairy tales" isnt very becoming.

God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fideist: Someone who refuses to use reason outside of the bible.  He does not even question where his bible came from.  Fideism is taking too large of a leap of faith.

Biblicist: Someone who interprets the bible super-literally, without studying where it came from or the people who wrote it.  Almost the same as a fideist.

My question was, what is your definition of reason and of faith? You didn't answer the question.

Ambrose, what is faith?

What is reason?

Further, I disagree that fideism and biblicism are "amost the same," but you are right to associate them. They share something with each other that they also share with the third leg of the Catholic cognitive trinity, authority: acceptance of claims to knowledge not based on reason.

If I have understood John Paul II's writing in Fides et Ratio, he is saying that reason has its place for studying this world, but that one must rely on the cognitive trinity (my term, not his) of Faith directly in God, Holy Scripture as a moral guide, and the Authority of the Church in helping Catholics understand the other two. One needs reason (only within limits, of course) to help elaborate and explain faith, scripture, and church authority.

Is that your understanding? Did I get it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its funny that you say the greeks were worng...ever read plato? You sound just like him.

"The things of this world will pass away"...Plato says the unchangible (a things intrinsic form) is the only good in the world. Not much difference. I think perhaps talking to any of us would be vain w/o accepting a few basic premises.

We think:

Existance is primary over consciousness..including that of God's. Hence 'faith" is nothing. You cannot move mountains with your mind or heart.

Thus

Everything is causal...if you jump into a lake you will sink..its a law of reality...you will not walk on water because you believe.

Also, you keep refering to the supernatural...big no-no. nothing supernatural has EVER been proven...sensory perception is the basis for all objectivist epistemology. Atoms and metaphysical things unseen that DO exist have been proven by a means of speculation, induction, and validation. God is still a mystery.

i don't mean to be a jerk, but there is no point in talking if you don't first accept these as just a few of the premises of the people with whom you will be discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question was, what is your definition of reason and of faith? You didn't answer the question.
Sorry, I missed that part.

Reason: Man trying to understand the universe on his own. Usually this goes smoothly as long as we are taking about concrete sciences, like chemistry and biology, but when we run into other things which involve the supernatural, we encounter problems, as we cannot understand it on our own without divine help.

Faith: Trusting in the truth contained in God's revelation to man. This does not mean taking a pure leap of faith, of course revelation must be examined, but no matter how much you break it down there is always some leap of faith, which is why it is called faith.

Is that your understanding? Did I get it right?

Yes. While it is fine to reason it out by yourself, lets face it, this kind of thinking produces chaos, as already exemplefied in the many denominations of Protestantism because of Luther's Sola Scriptura. You are not your own island, and by yourself you almost surely will be led astray. The Church takes everyone, from all sorts of opposing convictions, and unites them into one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question was, what is your definition of reason and of faith? You didn't answer the question.

Ambrose, what is faith?

What is reason?

Further, I disagree that fideism and biblicism are "amost the same," but you are right to associate them. They share something with each other that they also share with the third leg of the Catholic cognitive trinity, authority: acceptance of claims to knowledge not based on reason.

If I have understood John Paul II's writing in Fides et Ratio, he is saying that reason has its place for studying this world, but that one must rely on the cognitive trinity (my term, not his) of Faith directly in God, Holy Scripture as a moral guide, and the Authority of the Church in helping Catholics understand the other two. One needs reason (only within limits, of course) to help elaborate and explain faith, scripture, and church authority.

Is that your understanding? Did I get it right?

Burgess, I would like you to know......You da man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bro, I think your posts are getting a little too venomous.  Simmer down, if nothing else for the sake of courtesy.  Calling my faith a "collection of fairy tales" isnt very becoming.

God bless

I apologize for being "venomous" as you call it, not for courtesy, but because I did not give a reason for my claims. I call your faith a "collection of fairy tales," because it offers no proof to any of its claims. If you wish to Objectively prove why the Bible is true then please do so.

Why do you insist on asking me this? I am here now, and thats all that is relevant now. It may because I like sharing my convictions, or maybe its just to kill time.
Why do you find it so hard to answer? Your purpose is very important.

human lives are worthless because they will all cease to exist (this is not explicitly stated but is an implication)....It is a very loose philosophy which is atheistic in character.

In any case, it is statements like this that make me "venomous" in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case, it is statements like this that make me "venomous" in the first place.

Think about it. This is not reffering to objectivism in particular but atheism in general. Once you are dead, there is no point to your life at all, because you are not. So, if you knew you were going to die at 7:00 AM tomorrow, then at 7:01 your life would have no meaning at all because it doesnt exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its funny that you say the greeks were worng...ever read plato? You sound just like him.

"The things of this world will pass away"...Plato says the unchangible (a things intrinsic form) is the only good in the world. Not much difference. I think perhaps talking to any of us would be vain w/o accepting a few basic premises.

Maybe I should have clarified. The Greeks philosophers were wrong about many things. Plato, being one of the better philisophers (IMO), used reason to come to the inevitable conclusions of existance, which is truth and is therefore a part of Christianity. He even scratched the surface of monotheism, but he could never have gotten all the way. This just goes to show that man's reasoning is in vain without divine revelation.

Existance is primary over consciousness..including that of God's. Hence 'faith" is nothing. You cannot move mountains with your mind or heart.

Yes, I agree completely. I believe that Christianity is an objective truth.

Thus

Everything is causal...if you jump into a lake you will sink..its a law of reality...you will not walk on water because you believe.
I agree...but with the exception of divine help. God is omnipotent. He made the laws of existance, he can do ANYTHING imaginable. Even the universe itself is just a product of the thought of God. That is how immense, how powerful he is.

Also, you keep refering to the supernatural...big no-no. nothing supernatural has EVER been proven...sensory perception is the basis for all objectivist epistemology. Atoms and metaphysical things unseen that DO exist have been proven by a means of speculation, induction, and validation. God is still a mystery.

If you are trying to find a forensic proof for God's existance, you might as well stop here. However, when I look at the Ressurection, the documentational evidence is undeniable. And, when I look at the miracles of the saints, it is hard to think that it was all faked. Or when I look at the image of Mary at Guadalupe. Every fiber is colored, the image cannot be replicated by modern technology. OR when I look at the miracles of Lourdes or Fatima. Of course I will never be able to proove that God exists based on those occurences. But, it is hard for me to imagine someone could fake an apparition which prophecised about the coming Cold War and World War 2, and was attended by thousands of witnesses. As Ive said, Christianity requires a leap of faith, although it itself is within the bounds of reason

God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×