subjective man, objective God?

[theculturewarrior]

That is, if Jesus left us orphans.

[Guest jdawg83]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='May 14 2005, 08:53 AM'] But I was blind and now I see. [/quote]
What colour do you see the sky? Maybe you see it pink, but to a Muslim brother he might see it blue, and a Hindu red etc. Do you see the obvious flaws in your logic?

[theculturewarrior]

I'm trying to find where I made an assertion based on logic in the text you replied to. I see with eyes of faith.

[theculturewarrior]

Let me clarify that thought.

If I see that the sky is pink, and somebody else sees that it is read, and somebody else sees that it is blue, it is reasonable to suppose that at least two of us, possible three, are wrong. It is also reasonable to suppose that our perceptions have deceived at least two of us, and that the sky has a color that is universal and transcends our ability to perceive it. In the case of God, the objective Truth, he transcends our ability to comprehend it. The Truth can be known.

[Guest jdawg83]

Doesn't make sense. How can the "Truth" be known if he transcends our ability to comprehend it? You see the sky one colour, and everybody else sees is something else. However, if the sky has a universal colour and we cannot comprehend it perhaps there is no sky at all.

[philothea]

Truth is a person, and you can know Him, even if He is beyond comprehension.

I think that's what tcw is saying.

[theculturewarrior]

Truth is indeed a Person! (In fact, he is Three Persons in One Divine Godhead). And a if Truth is a Person, he can reveal himself to us.

And he has, and he has revealed to us that he can be tasted, touched, felt, loved and experienced in the Eucharist. The Truth can be known. It can be experienced.

[Guest jdawg83]

Yeah but it's all relative you see. The Eucharist is just wafer, but the beliefs you impose on it make it real for you and give it meaning. Similiarly, Buddhists come to "enlightment" through deep meditation and reflection, Muslims, Hindu's, Jews all have their own beliefs regarding God, but their convictions are just as strong as yours. Non-Catholic Christians don't take the Eucharist, but their fervour for God and the Bible is an obvious testament to the strength of their faith. I don't think placing all your faith and conviction in a peice of wafer is either reliable nor credible.

Edited May 15, 2005 by jdawg83

[theculturewarrior]

I don't place my faith in a waifer. I place my faith in the Body of Christ. But these are issues of faith. I'm sure the Eucharist has been defended to nth degree on this forum, and if you search the forum for "Eucharist," you may find more definitive knowledge of your chosen religion than I will give here.

The issue is subjectivity vs. objectivity. Let's scrap the sky since you don't seem to get that. Let's talk about the Pope. If a protestant says that the Pope is the anti-Christ, and an Orthodox says no, he's not the anti-Christ, but he is the figurehead for a graceless heretical Christian Sect, and a Catholic says that the Pope is the infallible heir to Saint Peter, don't at least two of these statements have to be wrong? How can three contradictory statements be true at the same time?

[Guest jdawg83]

TCW, what is it you are arguing? You say you were once blind but now you can see. Is that a subjective or an objective statement?

[Myles Domini]

Whether or not people believe things to be true if they have no objectivity it doesnt matter. What non-Catholics believe about the Eucharist, for example, is irrelevant because the Eucharist is what Catholics proclaim it to be. Catholic philosophy does not work from the Continental Rationalist premises that one cannot apprehend the truth of the nomena. Catholic philosophy works from the premise that not only can one know truth and that moreover we can have the truths apprehendable by natural means confirmed for us by Truth Himself.

Catholicism does not accept different types of truth or different levels of truth, the one thing recorded to have angered St Thomas Aquinas is when Sieger of Brabant accused him of doing this. What we know about God we know from God and we know objectively. There is no element of unknowing. What we could not understand philosophically was confirmed by the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and love given to us by God. We dont accept that for some God is a Trinity and for others God is not, or that God is ontologically distinct from the universe for us, and emanationist for others. These are contradictory statements and logic dictates one must be wrong.

Just because a Nazi believed non Caucasians were not people it doesnt mean they are not. Just because someone adheres to a subjective stance it doesnt give it validity. Anti-realism is incompatible with Catholicism but the philosophical presumptions that underpin your reasoning have thus far prevented you from seeing this. In short, if God exists (and He does) then He is a being with predicates. Just as if I exist I am a being with predicates. I cannot be 5ft 7inches to one person and 7ft 5inches to another, not objectively. I will be one or the other. Likewise God cannot be something to some and something to another.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='jdawg83' date='May 16 2005, 02:44 AM'] TCW, what is it you are arguing? You say you were once blind but now you can see. Is that a subjective or an objective statement? [/quote]
The objective shines into the subjective with rays of Faith and Reason.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='jdawg83' date='May 16 2005, 02:44 AM'] TCW, what is it you are arguing? You say you were once blind but now you can see. Is that a subjective or an objective statement? [/quote]
I see the objective Truth with subjective eyes. The sky is blue, by the way, with white clouds and a yellow sun.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='theculturewarrior']If they blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch.[/quote]

You keep saying that you can see, but those that are blind (as you claim them to be) have no way of knowing whether or not you actually see. Trust in others will lead to that ditch. I'm sure you wouldn't trust every person claiming to see to not be blind.

If someone follows you and you end up being blind yourself, then both of you will fall into the ditch. How do you know that you can really see? Why is this information objective?