Substack post du jour.
Theistic Belief and What Inclines Me to It
by
Tags:
Comments
9 responses to “Theistic Belief and What Inclines Me to It”
-
Brother Bill, from your latest “post du jour” …
“I am assuming that one lives in a land in which religious liberty is respected. The costs incurred will then not be worth mentioning.”
Yes, and then look at the costs that believers, or shall we say those who see, are willing to pay in other types of lands !
Their willingness is a very strong argument for the Reality behind their belief.
Much rain here, and very low barometric readings.
Happy Sunday to all, Love,
Catacomb Joe -
In reading this concise and brilliant short essay, I noted that nowhere in it do you explicitly speak of revelation as a source of your theism. By revelation, I have in mind to the four Gospel accounts of the words and acts of Jesus of Nazareth and specifically the long, highly detailed narrations of his death and resurrection. I hold that these documents, whether the testimonies of actual witnesses or the faithful retellings of such witnesses, provide the very best historical evidence that we possess of divine disclosure within the space/time context of human history. I won’t argue this here, but merely affirm it. So, this raises several questions: Have these documents influenced your theistic convictions? The answer to this question obviously touches on the issue of testimony and the value that you place on it, and if you are so inclined, perhaps you could comment on it. Finally, I would be interested to know if regard the Shroud of Turin as an artifact that points in the direction of a unique divine intervention in human history and thus a support for theism.
-
Mr. Caiati, I personally rank the book of Exodus very high as well, as pointing to divine intervention in human history.
— Catacomb Joe -
Vito,
The main sources of my theism are the ones mentioned. Orthodox (miniscule ‘o’) Christian theism cannot of course be true unless a God transcendent of nature exists. But OCT is a very specific form of theism involving as it does Trinity and Incarnation, etc. So for me NT testimony, reports of miracles, Shroud of Turin and the like are less persuasive. I suspect that this is my Athenian ‘prejudice’ at work.
Years ago I was hiking alone in the desert during the time of my mid-life crisis and I ‘received’ a so-called ‘inner locution’: “I am with you.” Given the way I am ‘wired up,’ that sort of immediate personal experience cuts more ice with me than NT testimony or supposedly authoritative magisterial teaching or such external evidences as the Shroud of Turin, which I don’t dismiss but do find less credible than the internal evidence of extraordinary personal experiences, including ones of a demonic sort. On one occasion the message of an inner locution was “I want to tear you to pieces.” One another occasion, while meditating in a dark room, it seemed to get DARKER . . . The most terrifying demonic experiences I have had were at night in an isolated hermitage at a remote New Mex Benedictine monastery (where I will be headed again end of April.) There are more demonic agents hanging around monasteries than around around fleshpots such as Las Vegas, NV. You hunt for live animals, not ones you’ve already killed.
Demonic interference, as I have argued before, is evidence of a sort for the existence of God. -
Thank you for your reply, Bill, for I have long wondered about the weight that you give to NT testimony and the like. As you know, I have a strong skeptical inclination that sits alongside of a strong Christian disposition, so I understand if I do not fully share your hesitations with regard to such evidences. Perhaps my openness to OCT reflects the hold that the teachings and liturgy of the Church (before the decadenza of Vatican II) had on me, a very emotional and aesthetically sensitive kid, during the early years of my life, but I think that it is more than that, since certain passages in the Gospels, along with certain moments in the Tridentine Mass, have been my only access to the type of unusual personal experiences of which you speak. How can I describe these experiences, other than as fleeting moments in which the truth of things is felt in the heart to such an extent that the body falls into a momentary shock and a shadow is lifted however briefly from the mind. In a some cases, the passages of which I speak are no more than one or a few words: In the Gospels, Jesus’ “Mary” in response to the Magdalene’s “Rabboni” or “Jesus wept” upon hearing of his friend Lazurus’ death; in the Mass, the “Dominus non sum dignus” before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. Many would call this foolish, telling me that good poetry or drama can produce the same effect, but I know that neither of these literary forms has anything like the power of which I speak. As for the demonic, I have had no unusual personal contact with it, as have you and, unfortunately, my sister on more than one occasion. But I am aware of its presence, and no day goes by in which I do not employ prayer to protect me from it. Whatever spiritual road we take to higher things, we should ask God for the grace to follow it faithfully.
-
Mr. Odegaard, I am no expert on Genesis or the other early books of the Bible, so I cannot respond to your comment other than by saying that I know the question of the former is passionately debated among exegetes. My own amateur opinion on the matter is that historical events of some kind underpin some of Genesis, but to what extent I am unsure.
-
Mr. Caiati
I am no expert on any of the books of the Bible at all; I just report what rings true to me as a human being, in whom, I believe, the Creator has placed the ability to see Truth.
The verse of Genesis 12:3 can be seen operating in the world even to day, I believe.
And Exodus: you couldn’t make that up; I certainly don’t think so.
All the best you you,
— Catacomb Joe -
Vito,
You make some excellent points @ 11:04. I’ll comment on one of them, the one having to do with the *non sum dignus.* Here is the Latin from the missal we used in our pious Catholic boyhoods: *Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.* “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but just say the word and my SOUL [not servant] shall be healed.” I am quoting from my boyhood memory. The NT basis is Luke 7 and MT 8 where we find *puer,* boy, servant instead of soul. The centurion was asking Christ to come into his house to heal his servant as you will recall.
We note the shift from the NT Latin text to the RCC liturgical text. The latter can be taken in a two-fold sense. The good nuns taught us that “under my roof” means: under the roof of my mouth. But a guy like me, avoiding the conundra of transubstantiation, and sidestepping the question whether *Hoc est enim corpus meum* is to be taken literally or figuratively, takes it to mean: into my mind/heart.
So, often before a meditation session, I pray the liturgical prayer in the second meaning. The ultimate aim is infused contemplation. But more on that later.
I also before a meditation session invoke whatever guardians and spiritual allies there may be to ward off the demonic agents that can reasonably be supposed to be hanging around waiting to enter a mind that has opened itself up, a mind cleared of mundane distractions. The invocation is based on the supposition that these preternatural rascals are vastly more powerful than we are. One must not mess with them. We have it on good authority that one will get far more than one bargained for.
And so religious liberty cannot be so widely construed as to allow Satanism or, for that matter, Sharia-based Islam. Toleration has limits!
Leave a Reply to Joe Odegaard Cancel reply