Ask a Catholic

[jeepnut]

So lately, I feel there hasn't been nearly enough drama around these parts. I'm going to try to shake things up a little. What's better than a religious conversation to get people riled up?

So, I propose a question and answer session. As a practicing Catholic, I will answer any question related to my faith to the best of my ability. I will do my best to give the Church's position as accurately as I can and my own opinion if I feel it is warranted. Since I will be striving to be respectful, I ask you to do the same. As I said, any question is fair game. All I ask is that you ask it in a respectful manner and take the time to read my full reply. Let's get on with the drama! I'll leave you with a quote from Bishop Fulton J. Sheen:

"There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church."

[Teuthida]

http://www.wptv.com//dpp/news/national/People-pray-at-tree-outside-St-Johns-Cathedral-in-Fresno-California-say-tree-weeps-Gods-tears

Not really related but reminded me of some questions I had regarding miracles and saints. Keep in mind I know very little of any aspect of Christianity as a whole.

What's the deal with miracles exactly? Need a certain amount to become a saint right? And then folks pray to saints? Isn't that pretty much polytheism with the saints acting as minor gods?

I guess then I'm also confused by what is considered a work of god compared to that of the devil. Say someone performs something that's seemingly magical. Why are they often accused of being in league with the devil over performing a miracle? And the miracle is what exactly? The work of God right? So why does the person get the credit?

And the trinity. Took a religion class once and I left more confused on this topic. If you could explain it as simply as possible that would be swell.

Apologies if wanted more controversial questions. Well, hmmm...ok, so abortion I can sort of see the logic behind, but why reject contraception?

[Combine 017]

Hahaha, when I first looked at this I forgot what Catholic was and read it as Cat-Holic thinking it was some sort of play on words and thought this was going to be about cats. :p

Whats the deal with God? Do you think hes up in a cloud somewhere or out in space? Or maybe just some average Joe walking around in disguise? And do you think the Devil is down at the center of the Earth? Cause I dont care how evil he is, I think the pressure would still crush him.

[jeepnut]

http://www.wptv.com//dpp/news/national/People-pray-at-tree-outside-St-Johns-Cathedral-in-Fresno-California-say-tree-weeps-Gods-tears

Not really related but reminded me of some questions I had regarding miracles and saints. Keep in mind I know very little of any aspect of Christianity as a whole.

What's the deal with miracles exactly? Need a certain amount to become a saint right? And then folks pray to saints? Isn't that pretty much polytheism with the saints acting as minor gods?

I guess then I'm also confused by what is considered a work of god compared to that of the devil. Say someone performs something that's seemingly magical. Why are they often accused of being in league with the devil over performing a miracle? And the miracle is what exactly? The work of God right? So why does the person get the credit?

And the trinity. Took a religion class once and I left more confused on this topic. If you could explain it as simply as possible that would be swell.

Apologies if wanted more controversial questions. Well, hmmm...ok, so abortion I can sort of see the logic behind, but why reject contraception?

Wow, lots of questions there. I'll do my best to answer them all. And a disclaimer that I probably should have put in the first post. While I am a practicing Catholic and I love to learn new things about my faith, there are still far more things I don't know or can't remember properly so I need to look them up. This takes time which I don't have much of. If it takes me a while to respond to any of your posts, please forgive me.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's dive in.

Your question about miracles specifically intrigues me. It's not something I've thought much about.

I'll start with the saints first however. No, the saints are in no way minor gods. While people do pray to saints and the Church encourages people to do so, do not confuse this with worship. Also, praying to the saints is not a substitute for a relationship with God.

In addition, this can be more accurately understood as praying through the saints. We are not asking the saints to answer our prayers. Rather, we are asking the saints to pray to God on our behalf. Since we believe that the saints are in heaven, we believe that they are the closest to God. This is no different than asking anyone else on earth to pray for you. Any miracle is the work of God. The saint doesn't "get the credit" per se. Rather, if a miracle is proven by the Church to be a result of the intercession of that saint, then that is seen as proof that that saint is in heaven (This is one of the criteria for canonization or sainthood.) In order for a saint to be canonized, two separate miracles must be directly attributed to that saint's intercession. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/12/modern_miracle_when_saints_intervene_nowdays_it_tends_to_be_in_healthcare/?page=1) Notice in that link that the Catholic Church has a rigorous process to determine if something is a miracle or not. It must be not have a scientific explanation. This means the weeping tree in the link you posted would likely not pass muster due to the fact that this behavior seems to be common for these types of trees.


On the subject of miracles, a miracle is a supernatural sign or wonder, brought about by God, signifying His glory and the salvation of mankind. Miracles cannot be performed by the devil. The work of the devil is to deceive mankind. If someone is in league with the devil, they cannot perform miracles! This is something I rarely hear though in Catholic circles. It is more often the realm of some Evangelical Protestant faiths to accuse someone of being in league with the devil. And also, a miracle exists to signify the glory of God. If someone is claiming to perform miracles for their own glory, it isn't a miracle!

The Trinity is a tough one. If you are looking for a simple explanation, you won't find it. The Church teaches that it is a mystery and thus cannot be fully understood by the human mind.

Basically, the Trinity is as follows. The Trinity is comprised of three persons: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is distinct from one another and each is God, but there is only one God, not three. Confusing enough? This video actually does a pretty good job of explaining just how difficult it can be for our human minds to grasp and why it is a mystery.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KQLfgaUoQCw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In addition, Jesus is both fully human and fully God! Another mystery. We can go into that one more deeply at another time if you like.

Let me know if any of the above is confusing. I can try to be more clear.

I was not specifically hoping for controversial topics. Anything is fine, I was just trying to be interesting in my original post.

Contraception is something I'll have to address tonight. I have to leave for work and I don't have the time to flesh out a full response before I go, but I want to give you some response so you know I'm not ignoring you.

Suffice it to say that in order to understand the Catholic teaching on contraception, you must first understand the Catholic teaching on sex. I'll get into that in my next post.

Combine, thanks for your questions. I will respond to you soon.

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Catholic-meeting-e1338206373886.jpg

[jeepnut]

Apologies if wanted more controversial questions. Well, hmmm...ok, so abortion I can sort of see the logic behind, but why reject contraception?

So I just spent the last hour or so typing up a response that I was very happy with and lost it all. This will be attempt number two.


So, contraception? How could the Church be against that? Do they just want us to keep having babies until we are no longer fertile?


First, in order to understand why the Church says no to contraception, we must first understand what the Church is not saying no to. The Church is not saying that you cannot plan your pregnancies. The Church understands that not everyone is capable (either financially or mentally) or desires to have 20 kids. We are allowed to plan our families. The Church simply says that we should not use artificial means to achieve this goal. Why not artificial means? Well, as I said previously, in order to understand this, we must understand the Church’s teaching on sex.


The Church teaches that sex is good and it is one of the gifts that God has given us. Through sex we are able to give of ourselves most completely to another person. No other activity in this existence matches this. When we have sex, we give of ourselves completely to our lover. Anything that prevents this full giving of ourselves misuses the gift of sex. It erects barriers between us and our lover and says I give myself to you, but I withhold this part of my humanity. Condoms and other barrier methods literally put a barrier between us and our lover. We say “I love you enough to share this most intimate experience between two human beings with you, but I want to keep this part of myself separate from you.”


Our humanity is good! God created us and everything that makes us human is good. This includes our fertility. Birth control methods which suppress our natural fertility suppress our humanity! We say to God, I reject this part of my body which you created for me. We use artificial methods to suppress natural functions of the body without a medical necessity simply so we can have sex without the consequence of pregnancy. This doesn’t even take into consideration that some methods of birth control (especially the so called “morning after pill”) can actually prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. If you know anything about Catholic teaching, you probably know that the Church teaches that life begins at conception and is to be respected until natural death. This goes contrary to that teaching.


The great Catholic writer/thinker G.K. Chesterton hated the term “birth control” as he hated all words that were meaningless. He felt that those that used birth control believed in neither birth nor control. Instead they wished for less birth and no control as relates to their sexual desires.


Earlier I mentioned that the Church is OK with natural means to avoid pregnancy. These methods are commonly referred to as Natural Family Planning or NFP and have been shown in various studies when practiced properly to be 95% effective or higher. Basically, a couple practicing NFP works with the woman’s natural cycle to avoid sex during the fertile periods of the cycle and practice sex only during those periods of infertility.

TL : DR version: Our humanity is good. Sex is good. Contraception suppresses our humanity and prevents the full union of husband and wife through sex.

Does that make sense?

[Combine 017]

Do you believe that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? Or that God just decided to put some random bones in the dirt to screw with us and get a few laughs out of it?

[Jason1]

I was raised Catholic, Baptised, went to communion and confession on occasion, ect. I went to Sunday School, but I was never in Catholic school. My dad was actually a Lutheran and went to Church with my grandma, and I went with my mother and my other grandma.

Anyways I pretty much quit going to church or really associating myself with anything Catholic once I was old enough to realize I don't really agree with anything that they practice. That and my parents don't go to church anymore either and also don't really agree with a lot of the Catholic position on a lot of these controversial issues. I am very pro-choice, im a HUGE fan of artificial contraceptives of all types, I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I don't understand why women cant be ordained priests. And don't even get me started on all the sex abuse stuff and cover-ups. What a Joke.

Im not trying to start a flame war here and I respect all opinions but I honestly believe that in its current state the Catholic church is a joke. I know they still do a lot of good things but they really need to get with the times on a lot of these issues. I don't feel like looking for a source for this information but im pretty sure I read somewhere that the number of Catholics in the United States has been dropping drastically. Cant say it surprises me with their stances on a lot of these issues. But I could say the same about a lot of Religions actually.

[jeepnut]

Do you believe that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? Or that God just decided to put some random bones in the dirt to screw with us and get a few laughs out of it?

Yes, dinosaurs roamed the earth from roughly 230 million years ago to about 66 million years ago. Also, the earth is roughly 4 - 4.5 billion years old. The Catholic Church has no issues with science. In fact some of the world's greatest scientists have been Catholic priests, monks, friars, and nuns.

[jeepnut]

Hahaha, when I first looked at this I forgot what Catholic was and read it as Cat-Holic thinking it was some sort of play on words and thought this was going to be about cats. :p

Whats the deal with God? Do you think hes up in a cloud somewhere or out in space? Or maybe just some average Joe walking around in disguise? And do you think the Devil is down at the center of the Earth? Cause I dont care how evil he is, I think the pressure would still crush him.

God is omnipresent. Which means He is everywhere. There isn't really a teaching on the location of hell.

[jeepnut]

I was raised Catholic, Baptised, went to communion and confession on occasion, ect. I went to Sunday School, but I was never in Catholic school. My dad was actually a Lutheran and went to Church with my grandma, and I went with my mother and my other grandma.

Anyways I pretty much quit going to church or really associating myself with anything Catholic once I was old enough to realize I don't really agree with anything that they practice. That and my parents don't go to church anymore either and also don't really agree with a lot of the Catholic position on a lot of these controversial issues. I am very pro-choice, im a HUGE fan of artificial contraceptives of all types, I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I don't understand why women cant be ordained priests. And don't even get me started on all the sex abuse stuff and cover-ups. What a Joke.

Im not trying to start a flame war here and I respect all opinions but I honestly believe that in its current state the Catholic church is a joke. I know they still do a lot of good things but they really need to get with the times on a lot of these issues. I don't feel like looking for a source for this information but im pretty sure I read somewhere that the number of Catholics in the United States has been dropping drastically. Cant say it surprises me with their stances on a lot of these issues. But I could say the same about a lot of Religions actually.

I'm sorry you have left the Church.

I don't really see a question here or an invitation to give a response, so I guess I'll just reply with the following:


http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/227472_122889964527421_842397862_n.jpg

[Combine 017]

Yes, dinosaurs roamed the earth from roughly 230 million years ago to about 66 million years ago. Also, the earth is roughly 4 - 4.5 billion years old. The Catholic Church has no issues with science. In fact some of the world's greatest scientists have been Catholic priests, monks, friars, and nuns.

Well thats good. Who are the ones that dont think dinosaurs existed? I dont really know the difference between Catholic and the other Christian or whatever religions.

[Professor S]

Considering the trouble the church has had with priests molesting children, should the marriage ban be removed? The bible does not call for it, and it seems exclude those would otherwise consider being a priest while attracting people that are running from their perverse sexual impulses and hoping priesthood would cure them.

[Teuthida]

Interesting stuff about the trinity. Thanks.


Ok, so if it's having a barrier that's the problem then sex while not completely naked shouldn't be allowed either right? Leaving your socks on should be just as bad.

[jeepnut]

Well thats good. Who are the ones that dont think dinosaurs existed? I dont really know the difference between Catholic and the other Christian or whatever religions.

In my understanding, mostly fundamentalist Protestants who are Bible literalists and use the Bible as the only source of authority.

[jeepnut]

Considering the trouble the church has had with priests molesting children, should the marriage ban be removed? The bible does not call for it, and it seems exclude those would otherwise consider being a priest while attracting people that are running from their perverse sexual impulses and hoping priesthood would cure them.

First let me say this; the fact that there were priests who took advantage of their position to abuse children sexually is deplorable, should never have happened, and any priest that is found guilty should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Okay, that being said, let's look at what were actually saying here.

No, I do not think the marriage ban should be removed. Your statement is a common one and is a result of the inaccurate coverage of the sex abuse scandal by the media. However, this statement is based off of two assumptions that statistics tell us are false.

The first assumption is that since priests are celibate, they must have no outlet for their sexual desires and they in turn look for whatever they can conviently find to satisfy their urges. The main reason this assumption falls apart is the simple fact that Catholic priests have a similar to significantly lower incidence of pedophilia than the general population. link (http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/_pdffiles/prev2.pdf) link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Child_pornography). Logic would tell us that if celibacy drives priests to pedophilia, then there should be a significantly higher incidence among priests. Reality tells us this is simply not the case.

The second assumption flows from the first. We've already observed that celibacy does not increase the rate of pedophilia. So the second assumption is that marriage will help cure those attracted to pedophilia. Sadly, this is also not true. With few exceptions, pedophiles do not abuse children because they don't have an outlet for their sexual desires. They practice pedophilia because they have a psychological attraction to children. Marriage does not cure this as it does not simply flow from a need for sexual intimacy, but a disordered desire for sexual intimacy for children.

Put simply, celibacy is not the issue because celibacy has no correlation with pedophilia. Priests who can't deal with being celibate, leave the priesthood and have normal relationships with consenting adults.

Now the statement that pedophiles are running to the priesthood to be "cured", doesn't make sense either. As we saw above, priests abuse at a similar to significantly lower rate than the general population.

[jeepnut]

Interesting stuff about the trinity. Thanks.


Ok, so if it's having a barrier that's the problem then sex while not completely naked shouldn't be allowed either right? Leaving your socks on should be just as bad.

I think you're missing my point slightly. The barrier that seperates procreation from the procreative act (sex) is the issue. The Church makes no requirement that spouses be completely naked during sex. If this were the case, there would be no Catholic children concieved in Canada between the months of October and May. :D

[Professor S]

Just to clarify, I never thought that celibacy led to pedophilia, only that it would attract those looking for a religious cure. The John Jay study is interesting, but it only compares priests against the general population. I would like to see a study against the rates of clergy from other religions that allow marriage.

But moreso, if celibacy isn't called for in the Bible, why mandate it for priests?

[jeepnut]

Just to clarify, I never thought that celibacy led to pedophilia, only that it would attract those looking for a religious cure. The John Jay study is interesting, but it only compares priests against the general population. I would like to see a study against the rates of clergy from other religions that allow marriage.

But moreso, if celibacy isn't called for in the Bible, why mandate it for priests?

Yes, I realized the true focus of your question after my long response, but decided to keep it because it was worthwhile information.

Finding statistics on non-celibate clergy has been difficult. I've only found one source of information. link (https://www.catholicleague.org/sexual-abuse-in-social-context-catholic-clergy-and-other-professionals/) That article quotes a study by Penn State (ironic) professor Phillip Jenkins title Pedophiles and Priests in which pedophile rates among Catholic priests are placed at between 0.2 and 1.7 percent and among protestant clergy it is placed at between 2 and 3 percent.

The basic truth is that few have looked at the issue with any real scholarly intent and therefore, little exists in the way of solid statistical evidence. I've only found two scholarly studies on Catholic Priests and almost nothing on other denominations. The nature of the Protestant church makes this difficult. There are 40,000+ Protestant denominations and the decentralized nature makes it difficult to compare across denominations. The link I posted in my previous post from Wikipedia even makes it clear that we have little understanding of the issue at large even amongst the general population.

The simplest answer to why priests are called to be celibate is that priests are called to be fathers to all the faithful and not just biologically related offspring. The Church futher emphasizes this by statingthat a priest marries the Church through his priestly vows. It is a devotion to the Church that is akin to a husband's devotion to his wife.

It has a practical aspect as well, priests make around $25,000 to $30,000 and according to some sources, much less. You would have a difficult time raising a family on that. In addition, who pays to send any children to a Catholic school or other expenses related to raising a family?

The Catholic priest is called to focus on the faithful as his family.

[jeepnut]

That's it? No more questions? I was really enjoying this.

[Combine 017]

ummmm, why do you portray god as such a good guy? With all the bad stuffs going on it just seems like he doesnt really care. If hes so great why doesnt he smite the bad guys with his smite stick?

[jeepnut]

ummmm, why do you portray god as such a good guy? With all the bad stuffs going on it just seems like he doesnt really care. If hes so great why doesnt he smite the bad guys with his smite stick?

Because if that were to happen, there would be no free will.

I appreciate the questions Combine. However, I get the distinct impression that you're not really interested in my answers.

[Combine 017]

Because if that were to happen, there would be no free will.

I appreciate the questions Combine. However, I get the distinct impression that you're not really interested in my answers.

That one was just to bump, I was interested in the other ones though. They arent the most thought provoking questions, but they are things I found dumb about religion and such. Theres so much evidence behind science and evolution and whatever and yet some groups choose to blatantly ignore it. It makes me go all.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/epic-jackie-chan-template.png

[jeepnut]

That one was just to bump, I was interested in the other ones though. They arent the most thought provoking questions, but they are things I found dumb about religion and such. Theres so much evidence behind science and evolution and whatever and yet some groups choose to blatantly ignore it. It makes me go all.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/epic-jackie-chan-template.png

Agreed. The correct response to a scientific discovery that challenges your faith is not to stick your head in the sand, but to learn about it and see how it fits with your understanding of God. Maybe your understanding needs refinement. But to wall yourselves off and create your own museums and your own school curiculums is willful ignorance.

If God is real, then religion has nothing to fear from science. Science hasn't disproven God yet and anyone specifically using science to do so is foolish.

[Teuthida]

I have a question about the bible itself. Who do Catholics believe wrote it? The two testaments are hundreds (thousands?) of years apart. Is it the word of god as written by prophets? Couldn't there have been a mistranslation? Especially the new testament which was first Greek...then Latin...then English? (Not looking any of this up myself so you can answer :) ) A lot of the rules seem like they're purely of their time (and if written by a whole bunch of people, they'd surely have their own views on things and include them). Why stick with them in the modern era? Is that why there's the whole picking and choosing thing going on, with some rules being followed strictly and others completely ignored? Who decides which rules to follow? The pope in your case?

Follow up question to that last bit: The pope is the word of God right? Or God is suppose to talk to him? But isn't the pope voted in? Doesn't it seem a bit silly that God would be like: "Oh this is the guy you want me to talk to? Well, ok. You did vote on it and all. " Or do I have that completely wrong and he's just there to govern the religious matters according to his own views on things?

Dunno if you ever saw this. Pretty interesting. Dude follows the bible to the tee for a full year.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/B5MkpzMAOZM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Teuthida]

Oh! The whole confession thing! It rubs me the wrong way that you could do horrible things, tell a priest, say a couple prayers a bunch of times, and be forgiven like nothing ever happened.

Feels like without that clause you'd be less likely to do bad things if you had to live with your bad choices.

Not really a question I guess. Just what are your thoughts on that?

[jeepnut]

Oh! The whole confession thing! It rubs me the wrong way that you could do horrible things, tell a priest, say a couple prayers a bunch of times, and be forgiven like nothing ever happened.

Feels like without that clause you'd be less likely to do bad things if you had to live with your bad choices.

Not really a question I guess. Just what are your thoughts on that?

Well, that is the way it works, sorta. True, you can do horrible things and God will forgive. There is no sin too great for the redeeming power of Christ.

BUT...you have to mean it. You have to be truly sorry for what you did AND you have to desire never to do it again. If you do something with the belief that you will just apologize later, then you're not truly sorry. God knows our hearts and what we truly feel.

I'll answer your other question at a later time. This one was a little easier so I answered it first.

Also, are these answers worthwhile? Do they make sense/clear up anything? If not, let me know. What makes sense to me is probably different than what makes sense to you since I've grown up with this my whole life. Feel free to ask follow-up questions.

[Combine 017]

Well, that is the way it works, sorta. True, you can do horrible things and God will forgive. There is no sin too great for the redeeming power of Christ.

BUT...you have to mean it. You have to be truly sorry for what you did AND you have to desire never to do it again. If you do something with the belief that you will just apologize later, then you're not truly sorry. God knows our hearts and what we truly feel.

So kinda like that guy who cut off another guys head while riding a bus then cut off the heads ears and ate them, but said it was the voice of god that told him to do it and repented or whatever. So that fucking insane guy gets to go to heaven?

[Teuthida]

Also, are these answers worthwhile? Do they make sense/clear up anything? If not, let me know. What makes sense to me is probably different than what makes sense to you since I've grown up with this my whole life. Feel free to ask follow-up questions.

What about workarounds to rules? Like I assume you stand by no sex before marriage, and that goes with the no condom thing, but then there are folks who engage in anal before marriage because it "doesn't count."

Contraception as a safety method just makes far more sense than half doing part of some rule few will follow.

Reminded of another related video... :sneaky: NSFW

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/j8ZF_R_j0OY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jeepnut]

I have a question about the bible itself. Who do Catholics believe wrote it? The two testaments are hundreds (thousands?) of years apart. Is it the word of god as written by prophets? Couldn't there have been a mistranslation? Especially the new testament which was first Greek...then Latin...then English? (Not looking any of this up myself so you can answer :) ) A lot of the rules seem like they're purely of their time (and if written by a whole bunch of people, they'd surely have their own views on things and include them). Why stick with them in the modern era? Is that why there's the whole picking and choosing thing going on, with some rules being followed strictly and others completely ignored? Who decides which rules to follow? The pope in your case?

Follow up question to that last bit: The pope is the word of God right? Or God is suppose to talk to him? But isn't the pope voted in? Doesn't it seem a bit silly that God would be like: "Oh this is the guy you want me to talk to? Well, ok. You did vote on it and all. " Or do I have that completely wrong and he's just there to govern the religious matters according to his own views on things?

Dunno if you ever saw this. Pretty interesting. Dude follows the bible to the tee for a full year.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/B5MkpzMAOZM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I have been researching this question to make sure I get it right, but I kept running out of time to actually type up a response. I don't have much time now, but I'm going to do my best.

The bible has many writers spanning thousands of years. It is a collection of books with no single writer. The Catholic Church assembled the bible from those works believed to be inspired by God. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, these writers recorded what was revealed to them by God. Therefore, God is the author of the bible. Each writing must be taken in context with the time it was written and our understanding of the person who wrote it, but each is divinely inspired.

Mistranslations are possible and do exist, although not to the degree you might imagine. There are several versions of the bible and some are better than others for different reasons. Some are more literal translations and some focus more on accurately transcribing the meaning into our modern languages. However, despite this, we are blessed to have many ancient manuscripts from the bible, some dating to just a few years after the books were originally written. Through these pieces of the bible, we can assure ourselves that our modern translations are accurate.

As far as the rules of the bible, there are a few things that must be understood. First, as mentioned above, everything in the bible must be understood in context both within the time/culture it was written and within context to the rest of the bible. Secondly, there are two main types of laws in the bible. There is the ceremonial law and there is the law of Christ. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law and therefore, it is no longer binding on Christians. I never has been. It was only binding on those upon whom it was delivered; the Jews. The ceremonial laws include such laws as many of the ones followed in the video you posted. Because of this, following everything in the bible literally is a pointless (although interesting) exercise. Christians are still bound however by the law of Christ which includes natural law. These include many of the requirements from the New Testament and some from the Old Testament. Most visible would probably be the ten commandments or Jesus's commandment to "Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself."

The Pope is the leader of the Church on earth and the successor to Saint Peter. The Cardinals choose the Pope, but are guided by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that all Popes are perfect (they are human), but there election is guided by God. As Jesus said, (I'm not quoting this directly, but the gist is there), "And I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." If we believe what Jesus is saying (protip: we do), then we can be assured that the Church is protected by God. This is why whenever a new Pope is selected, you should laugh at the media as they stupidly assume it to be like any other earthly election and ask if the Pope will change any of the Church's teachings. The Pope will not. His main purpose is to preserve the Church. Anyone who thinks the Pope will change the Church's teachings on women priests, homosexuality, contraception, etc. doesn't understand the Church and how it is not a human institution, but a divine one.

Sorry if any of that is unclear. I typed this up relatively quickly, so apologies if it is confusing or wrongly worded. I'll answer the other questions as soon as I can.

[Teuthida]

Thanks for the response. Makes sense. Although the whole notion of the Holy Spirit guiding so much seems to remove free will to an certain extent. I actually don't know the Church's stance on that. Free will? Yea or nay?

If the old testament rules are mostly void, then why follow so many of them? The whole anti-homosexual thing is from that portion correct?

Quick wikipedia search led me to:

Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. Other interpreters, however, maintain that these passages do not condemn homosexuality, saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality.

So yeah, what's the deal with being anti-gay?

Sorry I'm asking questions quicker than you can answer. I do find this stuff fascinating though.

[jeepnut]

So kinda like that guy who cut off another guys head while riding a bus then cut off the heads ears and ate them, but said it was the voice of god that told him to do it and repented or whatever. So that fucking insane guy gets to go to heaven?

If that individual realizes his sin, is truly sorry (fully regrets the act and wishes he hadn't done it), and intends never to do it again, then God will forgive. Does this mean he will end up in heaven? We don't know. The only ones we claim to know the destination of are the saints. That's why we proclaim them saints because we know they are in heaven.

Notice I did not say that God forgets. Even if we are forgiven, God cannot coexist with sin. We must be cleansed in purgatory before entering heaven. If this man was forgiven for his sins, he would likely have to spend a significant amount of time in purgatory.

Also, it would seem to me based on your description of the act that this individual likely had mental issues. I'm unsure of how that would factor, but I assume it would have some effect on the outcome.

Also keep in mind that someone claiming to hear God is not sufficient evidence that God is speaking to them.

Basically, it is as I said before. When it comes to the afterlife, only God knows our hearts. It is His decision to make. No one is barred from heaven if they take the necessary steps to get there. Keep in mind, those steps are not easy. Jesus mentions over and over in the Bible that getting to heaven is hard and that few will accomplish it, but as is the case with all of us, you can sin and be forgiven and make it to heaven.

[jeepnut]

Oh! The whole confession thing! It rubs me the wrong way that you could do horrible things, tell a priest, say a couple prayers a bunch of times, and be forgiven like nothing ever happened.

Feels like without that clause you'd be less likely to do bad things if you had to live with your bad choices.

Not really a question I guess. Just what are your thoughts on that?

Take a look at my responses to Combine's questions on forgiveness. I think those should answer your questions.

Forgiveness is a central theme of Christianity. All Christian denominations teach that God forgives. He must, otherwise no human (aside from Mary and Jesus) would make it to heaven because we all sin. Catholics are unique in that we teach the act of confession with a priest, but it is still the same teaching that God will forgive.

As I mentioned in my response to Combine though, God does not forget. Being forgiven is not the same as the act having never happened. The stain of sin still exists, but God forgives the act.

P.S. I'll get to the rest of your questions later this week.

[The Germanator]

What is your take on this news? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/pope-francis-vision-new-catholic-church

[jeepnut]

What is your take on this news? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/pope-francis-vision-new-catholic-church

Like most other reports in the main stream media, they've managed to completely miss the point of what the pope was trying to say. Heck, it's gotten so bad that there is even a meme about it.

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=221081361374947&amp;set=a.100239920125759.354.100237920125959&amp;type=1" data-width="550"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=221081361374947&amp;set=a.100239920125759.354.100237920125959&amp;type=1">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CatholicMemebase">Catholic Memes</a>.</div></div>

[Combine 017]

Notice I did not say that God forgets. Even if we are forgiven, God cannot coexist with sin. We must be cleansed in purgatory before entering heaven. If this man was forgiven for his sins, he would likely have to spend a significant amount of time in purgatory.

Didnt know about that. And what exactly is purgatory. I hear it used around on tv but dont actually know what it is. Some sort of "my soul is in limbo" kind of place?

[jeepnut]

What about workarounds to rules? Like I assume you stand by no sex before marriage, and that goes with the no condom thing, but then there are folks who engage in anal before marriage because it "doesn't count."

Contraception as a safety method just makes far more sense than half doing part of some rule few will follow.

Reminded of another related video... :sneaky: NSFW

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/j8ZF_R_j0OY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sorry, it's taken me so long to respond.

Anyway, that video is pretty funny! However, there really are no workarounds to the rules. Anal sex would be considered a perversion of sex and would not be allowed in any circumstance, married or not. This once again goes back to my earlier posts where I mention that sex is incomplete without its procreative aspects. Sexual activities that are not open to children are sinful. Why? Because to do otherwise essentially treats the other person as a sex toy for your own sexual gratification rather than as the unique and unrepeatable likeness of God.

God created sex for unitive and procreative reasons. Sexual activity that ignores the procreative aspects is sinful. Likewise, sexual activity that is purely procreative in intent and ignores the unitive aspects is also sinful.

Sex is intended between a married man and woman through penal-vaginal intercourse.

[jeepnut]

Thanks for the response. Makes sense. Although the whole notion of the Holy Spirit guiding so much seems to remove free will to an certain extent. I actually don't know the Church's stance on that. Free will? Yea or nay?

If the old testament rules are mostly void, then why follow so many of them? The whole anti-homosexual thing is from that portion correct?

Quick wikipedia search led me to:



So yeah, what's the deal with being anti-gay?

Sorry I'm asking questions quicker than you can answer. I do find this stuff fascinating though.

The Holy Spirit does offer a lot of guidance, but it's up to us whether we listen or not. :p

The church teaches that free will is necessary and essential. For instance, God desires that we love him. How can love be love however if it is not freely given? If love is not freely given, then it becomes obligation and loses all its meaning. In order to truly love God, we must be free to choose whether to do so or not.

First of all, the church is not anti-gay. I aware that this seems unusual to people considering the recent reaction to the Pope's statements on homosexuality, but the church is not anti-gay and futhermore has never been anti-gay.

The church has always been accepting of gay people. The issue is homosexual acts are sinful. In other words, having attraction to someone of the same sex is part of who you are and cannot be controlled. We are all tempted to sin. This manifests itself differently for all of us. However, to give into that temptation and engage in homosexual acts, that is where the trouble lies.

As far as what the bible says about this, no, the condemnation of homosexual acts is not confined to the old testament. The new testament makes several references as well. I will give two examples:

This quote comes from Jesus directly:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”. Matthew 19:4

Secondly, from Paul's letter to the Romans:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.. Romans 1:26-27

There are many other areas where marriage is discused and homosexual acts are regarded as sinful, but I will limit it to these two.

As far as the laws of the bible, there are multiple types. The ceremonial law is the law that was fulfilled by Jesus. These laws mostly concerned ritual cleanliness and the like. (E.g. Don't eat pork, don't touch a woman who is menstrating, etc.). The natural law however remains. It is called the the natural law because it is naturally available to all without the revalation of God. An example of the natural law would include don't murder people. The condemnation of homosexual acts is considered a part of the natural law.

[The Germanator]

The issue is homosexual acts are sinful. In other words, having attraction to someone of the same sex is part of who you are and cannot be controlled. We are all tempted to sin. This manifests itself differently for all of us. However, to give into that temptation and engage in homosexual acts, that is where the trouble lies.




This is the kind of thing I find offensive as a non-religious person. You're basically asking people to repress their natural feelings and live a lie because those feelings or acts would be "sinful." How that isn't construed as "anti-gay" is beyond me. "I'm not anti-you, per-se, but you're a sinner and you're going to Hell." Very accepting...

I feel like this point is always made the most clear when you ask yourself, as a straight person, "when did I decide to be straight?" There was no decision, it's just who you are, and you're not a sinner for it, so why should other people?

You'll never be able to convince me that the logic of that is anyway morally acceptable...but I guess you don't have to, I'll never be a Catholic.

[jeepnut]

Didnt know about that. And what exactly is purgatory. I hear it used around on tv but dont actually know what it is. Some sort of "my soul is in limbo" kind of place?

Purgatory is where the soul is cleansed of sin and the attachment to sin before entering heaven. I haven't been able to clearly determine whether it is still possible to enter hell from Purgatory, therefore, limbo may not be the correct term. The info I've read so far seems to indicate that those wh reach purgatory will eventually reach heaven.

Purgatory itself is a cleansing process. The bible teaches us that nothing unclean can enter heaven. Since we would be lying to ourselves if we said that at the time of death we are free of sin and then attachment to sin, then there must be a cleansing process so that our imperfect souls are able to enter the perfection of heaven. By all accounts, the suffering in purgatory is almost as great if not as great as the suffering in hell. The one difference however, is that the suffering in purgatory is redemptive. We know there is no redemption in hell.

[jeepnut]

This is the kind of thing I find offensive as a non-religious person. You're basically asking people to repress their natural feelings and live a lie because those feelings or acts would be "sinful." How that isn't construed as "anti-gay" is beyond me. "I'm not anti-you, per-se, but you're a sinner and you're going to Hell." Very accepting...

I feel like this point is always made the most clear when you ask yourself, as a straight person, "when did I decide to be straight?" There was no decision, it's just who you are, and you're not a sinner for it, so why should other people?

You'll never be able to convince me that the logic of that is anyway morally acceptable...but I guess you don't have to, I'll never be a Catholic.

First, a clarification: i never said anyone was going to hell. You won't hear me say that and you won't hear the Catholic Church proclaim that anyone is going to hell. Only God knows our hearts and therefore, only God can know if our sins merit eternal damnation.

Secondly, I'm sorry you find my religious beliefs offensive. However, if you are a non-believer, i don't see why it should matter. If my God doesn't exist, then surely it won't matter if he considers homosexual acts to be sinful, right?

You seem to ask how we can say we are not against the person if we are against the act? There is an old saying: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." We all sin. Does that mean we are not desearving of love? No. You can love someone without approving of their actions.

If I understand your argument correctly, then you are saying that because people with homosexual attractions did not decide to be that way, their actions cannot be sinful. However, this is true for all sinners and all sin. Non of us chose to be predisposed to sin, but the actions are sinful regardless and we are still responsible for them.

Let me give a few examples. If it is in someone's nature to lie, they are still sinning by lying even though they may be tempted to do so more than another person. Another example would be that of a pedophile or someone who is incestuous. Not all of us have an attraction to underage individuals or to our relatives, does that mean it is any less of a sin for those that do? We are all given crosses to bear.

The only difference here is that society has decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful. However, God doesn't change with the world. The Belief that homosexual acts are sinful stretches all the way to the Jews in the Old Testament and has been held continuously since. The Church's teaching on this will not change. If you don't believe it, that's up to you, but the teaching doesn't change.

Finally, I'd like to propose a question to you. You state quite clearly that you are not a believer. Would you mind elaborating as to why you are not? Keep in mind that I will of course want to challenge your beliefs, so if you don't want to respond for that reason, I understand. However, I believe it is good that we have our beliefs challenged once in a while. Thank you for challenging my beliefs.

[Vampyr]

What's the Catholic/Christian view on doubt? Do you need 100% faith in God and the Bible to go to Heaven? What if you're only 80% sure, but there's a nagging thought that you could be wrong?

I've always wondered how people of any religion, not just Christianity, could have 100% faith, given that you are probably Catholic just because of the geographical region in which you were born and what religion the rest of your family has.

[Teuthida]

However, if you are a non-believer, i don't see why it should matter. If my God doesn't exist, then surely it won't matter if he considers homosexual acts to be sinful, right?
Not to speak for Germy, but it matters to me because people like you believe such things are sinful.

The only difference here is that society has decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful. However, God doesn't change with the world. The Belief that homosexual acts are sinful stretches all the way to the Jews in the Old Testament and has been held continuously since. The Church's teaching on this will not change. If you don't believe it, that's up to you, but the teaching doesn't change.
You probably just summed up most of the problems I have with religion. It doesn't change with the times. You're following rules from over a thousand years ago.

It's like believing in cooties when you're a kid. Then you grow up and mature and realize there's no such thing. You don't continue to avoid girls for fear of cooties because of the rules your five year old self followed.

[jeepnut]

What's the Catholic/Christian view on doubt? Do you need 100% faith in God and the Bible to go to Heaven? What if you're only 80% sure, but there's a nagging thought that you could be wrong?

I've always wondered how people of any religion, not just Christianity, could have 100% faith, given that you are probably Catholic just because of the geographical region in which you were born and what religion the rest of your family has.

I would say that the percentage of faith is not important, just that you have faith enough to believe. We all have doubts, even the most faithful of us. That's part of being human and I would think it would be impossible not to have doubt when you are dealing with something as important as the afterlife. Doubt that is involuntary such as a hesitation in believing is not sinful. Doubt that is voluntary and is a willing denial of what God has revealed is a grave matter.

Faith is holding on to your beliefs despite these involuntary doubts. Our doubts arrise from changing moods. There are some days when faith is easy and there are other days when it is hard but when shouldn't change our beliefs every time our feelings fluctuate.

As to your second statement, I've wondered that myself. It has been especially relavent to my mind because I was adopted. I wonder sometimes what religion I would have been raised in if I was raised by my biological parents. Since I don't know them, I don't have the answer.

I'd like to think that I would have found Catholicism even if I wasn't raised in it. We all search for truth and I believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of that truth. That's why I pprofess the faith I do. I have examined it and continue to do so on a daily basis and each day reaffirm my belief.

[jeepnut]

Not to speak for Germy, but it matters to me because people like you believe such things are sinful.

Why does it bother you? Is it that you believe that sin = hate? That has never been the teaching of the Church. We are all sinners and we are all created in the image and likeness of God. We have no more right to hate others for their sin than we do to hate ourselves for our own sin.

Furthermore, why this sin in particular? Does is bother you that any other acts are considered sins or just homosexual acts?

You probably just summed up most of the problems I have with religion. It doesn't change with the times. You're following rules from over a thousand years ago.

It's like believing in cooties when you're a kid. Then you grow up and mature and realize there's no such thing. You don't continue to avoid girls for fear of cooties because of the rules your five year old self followed.

Do you still believe that you should look both ways before crossing the street? If something is true, it doesn't change with the times.

Or are you proposing a religion in which truth is relative and changes with the opinions of its believers? A religion whose God is shaped by those who believe in him? I would find such a religion to be very difficult to believe in.

[Combine 017]

A religion whose God is shaped by those who believe in him? I would find such a religion to be very difficult to believe in.

I think Buddhism does that. They seem to be doing alright.

[The Germanator]

However, if you are a non-believer, i don't see why it should matter. If my God doesn't exist, then surely it won't matter if he considers homosexual acts to be sinful, right?

The only difference here is that society has decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful. However, God doesn't change with the world. The Belief that homosexual acts are sinful stretches all the way to the Jews in the Old Testament and has been held continuously since. The Church's teaching on this will not change. If you don't believe it, that's up to you, but the teaching doesn't change.

Finally, I'd like to propose a question to you. You state quite clearly that you are not a believer. Would you mind elaborating as to why you are not? Keep in mind that I will of course want to challenge your beliefs, so if you don't want to respond for that reason, I understand. However, I believe it is good that we have our beliefs challenged once in a while. Thank you for challenging my beliefs.

As Teuthida said, it does matter and it still disturbs me that Catholic believers think that way... but as you said, you don't change with the times. I can "respect" your faith and belief in that regard I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that I think it's morally and ethically backwards and discriminatory, but you probably think the same thing of me as a non-believer!

As for why I'm a non-believer...Well, I've never totally categorized myself that way. I'd describe myself as agnostic. Basically, with my expected 78 years on this planet, I don't think it's logical to spend time trying to prove or disprove something that we'll never have an answer to. It can be hard enough to get through the days sometimes, and I'd rather spend them being and caring for the physical humans (or animals) that I know in my life rather than worry about what happens when I cease to exist.

If the Golden rule came from Christianity (did it? I honestly have no idea), then that's an idea I can get behind, but everything else I can do without. I just think there's a common societal morality that I have, and I think I'm a pretty kind and decent person, but I don't think I need religion to tell me to be that way.

I think that's why selfish, horribly aggressive drivers maybe annoy me more than anything in the world...

Anyway, I could ramble for a while, but that's contrary to my point, because I find arguing about religion to be pointless in my case....unless it's helping shape the policies of my government...which is a whole other major problem.

[Vampyr]

The problem with thinking being gay is a sin is that it's not universally agreed upon like most other sins. Everyone thinks killing people, stealing, being jealous, abusive, etc are not good qualities.

Being gay is a characteristic of that person that most people agree cannot be changed. It's like if your religion thought having red hair was a sin, or being black was a sin. You could still say, "I don't hate black people, I just think they're living in sin, but it's not your religion so don't worry about it" - but it really becomes an issue when you believe that and are in a position of power, either as a government official or a school teacher or even just the owner of a grocery store. One can only assume that belief will affect your judgement regarding those people.

In addition, a large number of Christians I know don't think being gay is a sin - so in that case it IS there religion, so there is some conflict there.

To be honest, the way I feel about religion in general is that I live in a world where most people believe in Santa Clause and I'm one of the few who realizes he isn't real. Which is fine - I don't care if people believe in Santa Clause. Even I like to pretend he's real around Christmas. But when this belief is the driving force behind laws that are affecting me and my fellow citizens, it becomes an issue. You shouldn't write real laws based off Santa Clause.

[jeepnut]

As Teuthida said, it does matter and it still disturbs me that Catholic believers think that way... but as you said, you don't change with the times. I can "respect" your faith and belief in that regard I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that I think it's morally and ethically backwards and discriminatory, but you probably think the same thing of me as a non-believer!

As for why I'm a non-believer...Well, I've never totally categorized myself that way. I'd describe myself as agnostic. Basically, with my expected 78 years on this planet, I don't think it's logical to spend time trying to prove or disprove something that we'll never have an answer to. It can be hard enough to get through the days sometimes, and I'd rather spend them being and caring for the physical humans (or animals) that I know in my life rather than worry about what happens when I cease to exist.

If the Golden rule came from Christianity (did it? I honestly have no idea), then that's an idea I can get behind, but everything else I can do without. I just think there's a common societal morality that I have, and I think I'm a pretty kind and decent person, but I don't think I need religion to tell me to be that way.

I think that's why selfish, horribly aggressive drivers maybe annoy me more than anything in the world...

Anyway, I could ramble for a while, but that's contrary to my point, because I find arguing about religion to be pointless in my case....unless it's helping shape the policies of my government...which is a whole other major problem.

I don't think it's discriminatory to think an act is not sinful just as I don't think that calling an act sinful is discriminatory. The venerable Fulton Sheen said two things that apply well here:

The first: "Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right."

The second: “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance-it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory.

Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”

In other words, opinions have nothing to do with moral principles and to hate the act of sinning does not say that the one who sins is also hated. If that were true, we would all be hated because we are all sinners!

So I will ask again the question that no one seems to be able to answer. Why is it in our society wrong to say that homosexual acts are sinful? Keep in mind, what a person does has nothing to do with who that person is.

Wow, that was a lot of words for a simple point, but I like those quotes. :)

As far as your beliefs, you say that it's not worth your time to worry about something we don't have the answer to. I would respond, you don't have to! We already know the answer which is God is real and God loves us!

Caring for your fellow man is great and is a central aspect of Christianity, but we teach that this life is but a shadow of the next. Is not etrnal life worth the effort in this one?

The Golden Rule did not come from Christianity. Jesus did preach something similar, but with a key difference. He said: "Love your neighbor as yourself" which he said is the second greatest commandment. The first is to love God. To love another is to desire the happiness of that individual. By happiness, I mean true happiness, not whatever makes that person temporarily happy, but that which fulfills that person and leads to true joy.

[Teuthida]

It's not your belief in God that bothers me. It's your belief that the stuff in the Bible comes from God that bothers me. There is no proof for either. Isn't it far more logical to believe some guys from the past just wrote down some stories and laws and through time people took it to be more and more serious?

The story of Jesus is nothing new. It's a resurrection myth. Why do you believe in him over Osiris? Because that was how you were raised, not because it's true.

In parts of Africa, albinos are killed for their magical properties. Believing albinos are magical is no different than believing gays are sinful. But no doubt only one of those seems silly to you. Why? I see no difference...well, except you don't go around killing gay people for witchcraft. Just beat them up in mobs. That's a good reason why it's stupid to treat it as a sin. You then get more people hating them. Hate is taught, just as religion is.

Vampyr made a great point. Why not hate people with a certain skin color or eye color or left handed?

Left handedness apparently occurs with the same frequency as homosexuality. Hell, sinister means left in Latin. Do you look down on left handed people as well?

Found several bits just now about it being a sin in the Bible, and then plenty of Christians saying that the interpretation is off and it doesn't in fact mean that. I see no difference with the gay thing...or most things in the Bible. You're picking what to believe...even if you don't believe that.

That is why belief over facts is dangerous. You can believe anything.

Anyway it goes you're considering something a sin someone has no control over. Or is it only the act?

The only reason I can fathom why anyone would be against homosexuality is that it doesn't produce offspring. And you went into your whole notion of the purpose of sex and why you don't wear a rubber. If a gay person doesn't have sex which is what you consider the sin, they're not going to go "well since that's off the table, I might as well go make babies with this other person I have no sexual attraction to" Shouldn't not having sex be the sin?

It used to be a numbers game. 2000 years ago the human population was 300,000 million. Of course procreation would be seen as a good thing. Especially when those new people would be indoctrinated into your faith. Far easiest to make whoopie than convert people. Today there are 7 billion people. The world would be far better off with more "sinful" people not procreating.

So I will ask again the question that no one seems to be able to answer. Why is it in our society wrong to say that homosexual acts are sinful? Keep in mind, what a person does has nothing to do with who that person is.
Simple answer? Because it's stupid. I believe people who have a second toe longer than their big toe to be sinful. If you walk around on feet like that you're committing a sin. To be free from sin you must stay seated.

That makes just as much sense to me as your deal with homosexuality.

[Combine 017]

We already know the answer which is God is real and God loves us!
Prove it.

So, say some guy says "I was abducted by aliens! They took me to a planet where it rained eyelids!". Youd probably just think that guy is crazy. So how is he different from some other dude who says "A giant man in the clouds spoke to me last night! He said you should put your money in this hat!". You technically cant prove or disprove either of those, theyre both just crazy people yelling things, just one of them has a larger following, so its more acceptable or something.

Also, im quite curious about your opinion on Scientology. It was created by a science fiction writer 60 years ago, and has grown exponentially. I personally think scientology makes less sense than other religions, but who's to say Catholicism wasnt created by a imaginative writer, only thousands of years ago instead of a few decades?

[jeepnut]

The problem with thinking being gay is a sin is that it's not universally agreed upon like most other sins. Everyone thinks killing people, stealing, being jealous, abusive, etc are not good qualities.

I feel like we keep talking past each other. You're arguing that it's wrong to think being gay is a sin. I believe if you look over my posts, I never said that. I said that homosexual acts are the sin.

Being gay is a characteristic of that person that most people agree cannot be changed. It's like if your religion thought having red hair was a sin, or being black was a sin. You could still say, "I don't hate black people, I just think they're living in sin, but it's not your religion so don't worry about it" - but it really becomes an issue when you believe that and are in a position of power, either as a government official or a school teacher or even just the owner of a grocery store. One can only assume that belief will affect your judgement regarding those people.

I think we need to establish what we are talking about. What do you mean by being gay? Do you mean having a degree of same sex attraction? If that is the case, I agree with you. Having same sex attraction is a characteristic of that person and is not a sin. We can't change the way we were made. However, if by being gay you mean participating willingly in homosexual acts, then we disagree. If someone chooses to do something that is sinful, then they have sinned, regardless of their predisposition to that act. A sin is something that harms our relationship with God. As I've stated before, it is not in and of itself a reason to hate someone. We are all sinners! However, we are all also loved and redeemed by God. It's quite a stretch to say calling an action a sin is to hate that person. Does this happen? Yes, because we are human. But get this, to hate someone, even for their sins, is a sin in itself!

For this reason, I think your examples are poor. Sins are based off actions, not characteristics, so there is no way being black, having red hair, having same sex attraction, or any other characteristic could be considered sinful.

In addition, a large number of Christians I know don't think being gay is a sin - so in that case it IS there religion, so there is some conflict there.

Are you saying that because heresy exists, the belief becomes void? There are people who call themselves Catholic who believe abortion is OK. There are even people who claim to be Christians that do not believe in the divinity of Jesus! This has no effect on who God is though.

To be honest, the way I feel about religion in general is that I live in a world where most people believe in Santa Clause and I'm one of the few who realizes he isn't real. Which is fine - I don't care if people believe in Santa Clause. Even I like to pretend he's real around Christmas. But when this belief is the driving force behind laws that are affecting me and my fellow citizens, it becomes an issue. You shouldn't write real laws based off Santa Clause.

Would I be right to determine from this quote that you consider yourself an atheist? If so, why is it that you have chosen atheism?

[jeepnut]

It's not your belief in God that bothers me. It's your belief that the stuff in the Bible comes from God that bothers me. There is no proof for either. Isn't it far more logical to believe some guys from the past just wrote down some stories and laws and through time people took it to be more and more serious?

If you look at the evidence, I would argue that it is far more logical to believe the opposite. The Gospel writers take great pains to assure their readers that they are writing about historical people and events. Unless there is proof that the subjects of these did not exist, it is logical to believe they were telling the truth.

The story of Jesus is nothing new. It's a resurrection myth. Why do you believe in him over Osiris? Because that was how you were raised, not because it's true.

I agree that the biggest reason I'm a Christian is because I was raised that way. That's probably true for any person who was born into the faith. However, there is a strong historical basis for Jesus, unlike Osiris. Before I go more deeply into it however, what are your reasons for believing Jesus is a resurrection myth? Do you have solid evidence or is that just the way you were raised/learned from experience? It may help our debate if I address your specific reasons for doubt.

In parts of Africa, albinos are killed for their magical properties. Believing albinos are magical is no different than believing gays are sinful. But no doubt only one of those seems silly to you. Why? I see no difference...well, except you don't go around killing gay people for witchcraft. Just beat them up in mobs. That's a good reason why it's stupid to treat it as a sin. You then get more people hating them. Hate is taught, just as religion is.

Vampyr made a great point. Why not hate people with a certain skin color or eye color or left handed?

Left handedness apparently occurs with the same frequency as homosexuality. Hell, sinister means left in Latin. Do you look down on left handed people as well?

OK. In order to have a productive debate, I think we need some clarification. I've got about three people saying that I believe being gay is a sin and is comparable to other immutable characteristics being considered sinful. I have made every effort to make sure that I did not say this because that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Because of this, I would like to restate two points. Please acknowledge these points so we can resume productive discussion:

1. Having same sex attraction is not a sin.

2. Engaging in homosexual acts is not the same as having same sex attraction. An act you freely choose is not an immutable characteristic and as such, it cannot be compared to calling left-handedness, race, gender, or any other immutable characteristic sinful.

I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.

Found several bits just now about it being a sin in the Bible, and then plenty of Christians saying that the interpretation is off and it doesn't in fact mean that. I see no difference with the gay thing...or most things in the Bible. You're picking what to believe...even if you don't believe that.

Can you post the specific bits you are referencing?

That is why belief over facts is dangerous. You can believe anything.

Are you saying you live your life solely on facts and not on belief? We all rely on belief. If you read a sign that says "DANGER: Gasoline, do not consume" do you believe it? Or do you need to test the contents to be sure it is gasoline before you will believe that you shouldn't consume it?

Anyway it goes you're considering something a sin someone has no control over. Or is it only the act?

As I restated above, only the act is sinful. Everyone who is of sound mind and body has control over their actions.

The only reason I can fathom why anyone would be against homosexuality is that it doesn't produce offspring. And you went into your whole notion of the purpose of sex and why you don't wear a rubber. If a gay person doesn't have sex which is what you consider the sin, they're not going to go "well since that's off the table, I might as well go make babies with this other person I have no sexual attraction to" Shouldn't not having sex be the sin?

It used to be a numbers game. 2000 years ago the human population was 300,000 million. Of course procreation would be seen as a good thing. Especially when those new people would be indoctrinated into your faith. Far easiest to make whoopie than convert people. Today there are 7 billion people. The world would be far better off with more "sinful" people not procreating.

Not having sex is not the sin. You forget that I belong to a faith where the vast majority of the priests are celibate. :p Anyway, sex without the possibility of procreation is using another human being for sexual gratification. That is the sin. Our fellow human beings are not objects for our personal use, but the image and likeness of God.

Simple answer? Because it's stupid. I believe people who have a second toe longer than their big toe to be sinful. If you walk around on feet like that you're committing a sin. To be free from sin you must stay seated.

That makes just as much sense to me as your deal with homosexuality.

See my two bolded points above.

[jeepnut]

Prove it.

So, say some guy says "I was abducted by aliens! They took me to a planet where it rained eyelids!". Youd probably just think that guy is crazy. So how is he different from some other dude who says "A giant man in the clouds spoke to me last night! He said you should put your money in this hat!". You technically cant prove or disprove either of those, theyre both just crazy people yelling things, just one of them has a larger following, so its more acceptable or something.

Also, im quite curious about your opinion on Scientology. It was created by a science fiction writer 60 years ago, and has grown exponentially. I personally think scientology makes less sense than other religions, but who's to say Catholicism wasnt created by a imaginative writer, only thousands of years ago instead of a few decades?

I think I would believe both of those guys was crazy. In the first case, there is little solid evidence to believe aliens exist. In the second, the individual appears to have a poor understanding of God. Because of this, I am unlikely to put money in his hat, especially since I probably don't know what he intends to do with that money.

I don't really know anything about scientology other than that Anonymous has a personal vendetta against it. Christianity on the other hand, has a strong historical basis.

What are your reasons for believing that the basis of Christianity is an imaginative writer so that I may address them?

Do you believe Jesus was a historical figure who was not divine? Do you disbelieve Jesus existed at all, but that God may exist? Or do you categorically reject to possibility of any supernatural being?

If you reject the possibility of a supernatural being, what is it that brought you to that conclusion? I would argue that based on our current knowledge of the world, it is far more logical to believe that some sort of supernatural being exists rather than none at all.

My reasoning for this is the existence of the universe. We know that in order for something natural to exist, it must have a cause. By definition, in order to create something where before nothing existed, a supernatural cause is required. We call this cause God; a being for which there is no beginning or end.

[Vampyr]

I feel like we keep talking past each other. You're arguing that it's wrong to think being gay is a sin. I believe if you look over my posts, I never said that. I said that homosexual acts are the sin.

I think we need to establish what we are talking about. What do you mean by being gay? Do you mean having a degree of same sex attraction? If that is the case, I agree with you. Having same sex attraction is a characteristic of that person and is not a sin. We can't change the way we were made. However, if by being gay you mean participating willingly in homosexual acts, then we disagree. If someone chooses to do something that is sinful, then they have sinned, regardless of their predisposition to that act. A sin is something that harms our relationship with God. As I've stated before, it is not in and of itself a reason to hate someone. We are all sinners! However, we are all also loved and redeemed by God. It's quite a stretch to say calling an action a sin is to hate that person. Does this happen? Yes, because we are human. But get this, to hate someone, even for their sins, is a sin in itself!

Then you are asking people to be gay but never truly happy. I'm not sure how that's any less cruel. It kind of reminds me of the story of Job - God essentially bets against Satan that no matter what horrible things he does to Job, Job will not stray. So God has evidently made these people gay and asked them, specifically, not to stray in this specific way. This is pretty pointless to argue because your reasoning is going to be, "That's the will of God so I have to believe it's right," and my reasoning is that it's cruel regardless of who does it, and why worship a cruel god?

People seem to think I would be a Christian if I believed God existed - I would not. The story of Job is a fine example of why.


Are you saying that because heresy exists, the belief becomes void? There are people who call themselves Catholic who believe abortion is OK. There are even people who claim to be Christians that do not believe in the divinity of Jesus! This has no effect on who God is though.

I'm saying it because earlier you said if I didn't believe in God then that meant your beliefs were not my problem. Some people think your beliefs are heresy. They derive a different meaning from the Bible passages you use to say homosexuality is a sin. In this case, it IS their problem, because they share the same religion as you.


Would I be right to determine from this quote that you consider yourself an atheist? If so, why is it that you have chosen atheism?

Because there is no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. Suggesting that God exists because there is no proof he doesn't is not a valid argument - you could say that about any weird thing you can imagine. There is literally no difference between the myth of God and the myth of Santa Clause - except one is considered fantasy and the other isn't, for no reason.

You speak of cause and effect and suggest that since we do not know the cause of certain things it only makes sense to attribute it to God. No, that does not make sense. Over the span of human existence we have not known the cause of a great many things. Those causes were attributed to deities - at first there were many deities to explain many different causes. Eventually we got to where most major religions have 1 deity for all causes. However, as science progressed and we discovered the real cause for all these previously unexplained effects, God has been used to describe fewer things.

There is no reason to believe God will ever actually be the cause of anything. It is far more likely there is a scientific explanation, as there is for everything else, than a supernatural one.

One example is medicine. Religious people will often "pray" for ill or injured people. They 100% think that praying to God will have a tangible effect on that persons health. Why then does God only have the power to cure what doctors can? I have yet to see God regrow a limb. This either suggests he is unable or unwilling. If he is unable, then God is not all powerful. If he is unwilling, why does God hate amputees, but will occasionally help someone with cancer, struggling with chemo?

If, in 15 years, scientists find a way to regrow limbs that works 50% of the time, people will pray to God to help their relative regrow that limb, and if it works, will attribute their prayers to her success.

If in 30 years scientists find a way to regrow limbs that works 100% of the time, people will not pray and will not attribute the success to God.

[Combine 017]

What are your reasons for believing that the basis of Christianity is an imaginative writer so that I may address them?

I didnt say thats what I believe christianity is, im just saying that its a possibility, as its fairly hard to disprove it in another way than you saying "thats wrong because God".

Do you believe Jesus was a historical figure who was not divine? Do you disbelieve Jesus existed at all, but that God may exist? Or do you categorically reject to possibility of any supernatural being?

Sure, Jesus could have existed, I wont say no to that, its the parts where he walks on water and turns H2O into a completely different chemical composition, with the only answer of "yeah bros, im the son of God, check this shit out." Im not going to reject the possibility of any supernatural beings, ive got an open mind, I just think that theres a better chance of making contact with alien life, than with supernatural beings.

I would argue that based on our current knowledge of the world, it is far more logical to believe that some sort of supernatural being exists rather than none at all.

Ok, then based on our current knowledge of the universe, is it not far more logical to believe life exists elsewhere than on Earth rather than nowhere else ever?

My reasoning for this is the existence of the universe. We know that in order for something natural to exist, it must have a cause. By definition, in order to create something where before nothing existed, a supernatural cause is required. We call this cause God; a being for which there is no beginning or end.

Could survival of the fittest not be a cause to exist? The urge to live sounds as good a cause as any for the existence of life. As for creating something where nothing existed before, I call that a star exploding. But where did the first star come from? What made that? I dont know, you dont know, nobody knows. The best explanation you have for where life came from is a 2000 year old book, telling you how the quintillion year old universe came into existence. Thats like trying to explain Batman to someone in 2 seconds.

[jeepnut]

Then you are asking people to be gay but never truly happy. I'm not sure how that's any less cruel. It kind of reminds me of the story of Job - God essentially bets against Satan that no matter what horrible things he does to Job, Job will not stray. So God has evidently made these people gay and asked them, specifically, not to stray in this specific way. This is pretty pointless to argue because your reasoning is going to be, "That's the will of God so I have to believe it's right," and my reasoning is that it's cruel regardless of who does it, and why worship a cruel god?

People seem to think I would be a Christian if I believed God existed - I would not. The story of Job is a fine example of why.

Are you arguing that people are unable to be truly happy if they cannot satisfy their sexual desires? Millions of priests, nuns, monks, friars, and celibate lay persons would disagree with you and so obviously would the Catholic Church. True happiness is not the result of being able to fulfill each of our many urges whenever they present themselves. If all anyone needed to be happy was to fulfill their sexual urges, we would not have so many sex, masturbation, and porn addicts that are decidedly not happy.

As far as the story of Job, all bible stories are intended to teach a truth. However, would you agree that the intention of all stories is not necessary to teach a literal truth? The story of Job is intended to convey the spiritual truth that God allows the devil to tempt mankind and is written with the goal of presenting this truth in the best way without the concern for literal history. In other words, despite the way the story is presented, God does not make bets with the devil.

I'm saying it because earlier you said if I didn't believe in God then that meant your beliefs were not my problem. Some people think your beliefs are heresy. They derive a different meaning from the Bible passages you use to say homosexuality is a sin. In this case, it IS their problem, because they share the same religion as you.

Again, just because people disagree, God does not change. The teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual acts has not changed since the time of Jesus. The church’s authority is traced unbroken to those first disciples Jesus chose. If it were true that you can't hold a belief because some people deny the teachings of Jesus and the church fathers, then the Church has a lot bigger concerns than whether or not homosexual acts are sinful. Since the beginning of the Church, there has been dissension on just about every teaching. This does not make the teaching false. Only those who deny the truth are false.

In matters of morality, opinions do not matter. Truth, by definition, is not subjective.

Because there is no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. Suggesting that God exists because there is no proof he doesn't is not a valid argument - you could say that about any weird thing you can imagine. There is literally no difference between the myth of God and the myth of Santa Clause - except one is considered fantasy and the other isn't, for no reason.

You speak of cause and effect and suggest that since we do not know the cause of certain things it only makes sense to attribute it to God. No, that does not make sense. Over the span of human existence we have not known the cause of a great many things. Those causes were attributed to deities - at first there were many deities to explain many different causes. Eventually we got to where most major religions have 1 deity for all causes. However, as science progressed and we discovered the real cause for all these previously unexplained effects, God has been used to describe fewer things.

There is no reason to believe God will ever actually be the cause of anything. It is far more likely there is a scientific explanation, as there is for everything else, than a supernatural one.

One example is medicine. Religious people will often "pray" for ill or injured people. They 100% think that praying to God will have a tangible effect on that persons health. Why then does God only have the power to cure what doctors can? I have yet to see God regrow a limb. This either suggests he is unable or unwilling. If he is unable, then God is not all powerful. If he is unwilling, why does God hate amputees, but will occasionally help someone with cancer, struggling with chemo?

If, in 15 years, scientists find a way to regrow limbs that works 50% of the time, people will pray to God to help their relative regrow that limb, and if it works, will attribute their prayers to her success.

If in 30 years scientists find a way to regrow limbs that works 100% of the time, people will not pray and will not attribute the success to God.

So you are saying that you have faith that science will provide an explanation for the existence of the universe, correct? On what evidence is this faith based? Simply that science has found the causes of other observations that were previously unknown?

You say there is not compelling evidence to suggest that God exists. I say there is no compelling evidence that science can explain the origin of the universe from nothing. However, I am arguing that there IS compelling evidence for the existence of God. The easiest example is this:

We know the universe exists. In order for something natural to exist, it must have a cause. Something does not come from nothing. There is no scientific explanation possible for it to be so. The explanation must be supernatural. God is that supernatural explanation.

Because of this, there is a difference between God and Santa Clause. There is compelling evidence for God, but not for Santa Clause. Now Saint Nicholas on the other hand is another story... :)
As far as praying for injured people, you say that because you come from a viewpoint that says God doesn't exist. Let’s look at it from the other direction. If a doctor is successful in curing a patient, who’s to say God had no influence on that doctor’s ability to perform the task? God created each of us. Some of us he created with the ability to be medical professionals. He guides us to make decisions in crucial moments. Everything is part of God’s plan. So therefore, if in your example, we find a way to regrow limbs 100% of the time, then praise God! Thank you to him for giving us the ability to use our talents for such a great end. This is of course assuming that this end is achieved morally.

Also, you seem to state that science can explain any medical cure. I would caution against such a sweeping statement. There are numerous cases of illness being cured with no medical explanation. Many of these have been investigated by the Vatican with the assistance of a panel of doctors that it maintains throughout the world. For each of these that is certified as miraculous, it must meet the criteria of being instantaneous, complete, and durable as well as scientifically inexplicable. Each case is meticulously researched. Despite our increase in scientific knowledge, new miracles are discovered on a regular basis. If you believe that each of these cases has a scientific explanation, then that belief is not based on current knowledge. You have faith that science will eventually find an explanation, but you have no proof that that is the case.

The Catholic Church and it’s members are responsible for many of the greatest scientific achievements of mankind. We deeply believe in the abilities of the scientific method; heck, a Franciscan friar invented it. :D Everyday our knowledge of the world increases and with that increase in knowledge, so too does our faith increase.

You talk about the non-existence of God as if it is self-evident yet you have given no compelling evidence to support this. I have presented two compelling pieces of evidence from my point of view, neither of which has a scientific explanation: the universe coming into existence from nothing and miracles. Because of this, I argue that the burden of proof now lies with you to provide some evidence to support the non-existence of God.

[jeepnut]

I didnt say thats what I believe christianity is, im just saying that its a possibility, as its fairly hard to disprove it in another way than you saying "thats wrong because God".

OK, understood. If I can provide compelling evidence that the bible was not written by a single writer, but rather by several, would that convince you? Or rather, would you simply say that instead of one imaginative writer, it could be several? I would argue that it is unlikely that several writers decided to get together and write about a new religion on their own, but we can discuss that more if you want to.

As far as a single writer, scholarly study of the bible is almost unanimous in agreeing that the difference in writing styles between the books of the bible is too great to suggest a single writer or even two or three. The academic consensus is that the bible was written by multiple people.

Furthermore, the bible is not the sole evidence for the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned in other, non-biblical writings from the time. I can elaborate on this if you like.

Sure, Jesus could have existed, I wont say no to that, its the parts where he walks on water and turns H2O into a completely different chemical composition, with the only answer of "yeah bros, im the son of God, check this shit out." Im not going to reject the possibility of any supernatural beings, ive got an open mind, I just think that theres a better chance of making contact with alien life, than with supernatural beings.

Ok, then based on our current knowledge of the universe, is it not far more logical to believe life exists elsewhere than on Earth rather than nowhere else ever?

I would agree with this possibility. The Catholic Church makes no statement that Earth is the only place that God has created life. The Church is open to the possibility of life on other planets.

As far as the miracles of Jesus, I assume this falls under your belief that the bible could be made up. Do you agree with the idea I presented above? If so, then I would argue that each of these writers at least believed that the events they were writing about happened. Do you think it is likely that several writers were deceived into believing the same lie? Also, do you believe that they were deceived to such a degree that they were willing to die for it? I would argue that this is unlikely.


Could survival of the fittest not be a cause to exist? The urge to live sounds as good a cause as any for the existence of life. As for creating something where nothing existed before, I call that a star exploding. But where did the first star come from? What made that? I dont know, you dont know, nobody knows. The best explanation you have for where life came from is a 2000 year old book, telling you how the quintillion year old universe came into existence. Thats like trying to explain Batman to someone in 2 seconds.

Your right. We do not know where the universe came from without a doubt. However, can you think of an explanation for something spontaneously coming into existence from nothing that is not supernatural? I cannot.

As far as survival of the fittest, i don't believe it to be a compelling explanation for existence. It may explain the continuation of existence, but not why we exist in the first place. Further, it does not explain morality. Why do we believe that some acts are objectively evil? You cannot explain this without the existence of a higher moral authority, i.e. God.

[Combine 017]

OK, understood. If I can provide compelling evidence that the bible was not written by a single writer, but rather by several, would that convince you? Or rather, would you simply say that instead of one imaginative writer, it could be several? I would argue that it is unlikely that several writers decided to get together and write about a new religion on their own, but we can discuss that more if you want to.

1 or 1000, it doesnt really change the possibility of it just being made up. L. Ron Hubbard just sort of threw a story together and seemingly made up Scientology, I dont see why it couldnt have happened with the bible.

Furthermore, the bible is not the sole evidence for the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned in other, non-biblical writings from the time. I can elaborate on this if you like.

I said Jesus could have been around, im not denying his existence, just his magical abilities.

I would agree with this possibility. The Catholic Church makes no statement that Earth is the only place that God has created life. The Church is open to the possibility of life on other planets.

Thats good, although im sure if we ever found alien life, you guys would be cramming bibles down their gizzards. :p

As far as the miracles of Jesus, I assume this falls under your belief that the bible could be made up. Do you agree with the idea I presented above? If so, then I would argue that each of these writers at least believed that the events they were writing about happened. Do you think it is likely that several writers were deceived into believing the same lie? Also, do you believe that they were deceived to such a degree that they were willing to die for it?

Yes. People are stupid. in the words of the great Agent K. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Your right. We do not know where the universe came from without a doubt. However, can you think of an explanation for something spontaneously coming into existence from nothing that is not supernatural? I cannot.

I think something science happened. I couldnt possibly begin to explain or even comprehend it, but I find that more believable than some omnipotent being simply snapping his fingers and "poof", theres the universe.

As far as survival of the fittest, i don't believe it to be a compelling explanation for existence. It may explain the continuation of existence, but not why we exist in the first place.

Fair enough.

Further, it does not explain morality. Why do we believe that some acts are objectively evil? You cannot explain this without the existence of a higher moral authority, i.e. God.

Morality is just a basic human trait. What I think is right or wrong is probably different than what you think, or any other person in the world. If God was governing these morals, then wouldnt we all just think the same? Then people like Edison and Hitler never would have existed.

[jeepnut]

1 or 1000, it doesnt really change the possibility of it just being made up. L. Ron Hubbard just sort of threw a story together and seemingly made up Scientology, I dont see why it couldnt have happened with the bible.

I agree that the possibility certainly could exist whether 1 writer or 1000 are responsible. The point I was trying to make however, was that with a greater number of writers responsible, the statistical probability that those writers all decided to get together and create a new religion around the same time is much smaller than if it was a single writer. Would you agree?

To further support this line of thinking, there are numerous recorded incidences in early Christianity of the Church fathers seeking out heresy and vigorously removing it. If we have several writers creating a new religion, who decides what is right and wrong? Obviously there was a coordinated movement with a vested interest in assuring accuracy. This is very difficult to do if everyone is just making things up. There was clear authority in the early church as well as a clear knowledge among the people as to who held that authority.

Finally, the general academic consensus is that the Gospels were written between 60 A.D. and 100 A.D. with Mark generally placed around 70 A.D. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is at least possible that people who were alive during Jesus's time were still alive when the Gospels were written. If not, children of those who knew Jesus were definitely still around. In addition, this occurred during a time where the culture placed a strong emphasis on accurate oral tradition. Do you think it likely that these accounts would have spread as they did if they were myth? Many people existed at the time these books were written that had second and possible first hand knowledge of Jesus and who he was. Inaccurate histories would not have survived. Too many people would have known they were false.

Furthermore, we are talking about a time when Christians were severely persecuted. To call yourself a Christian in this time was to risk the possibility of death. Do you know of anyone who would willingly profess faith in something they knew was false if it could get them killed? I don't know of any.

I said Jesus could have been around, im not denying his existence, just his magical abilities.

What do you think of what I presented above? Do you still believe it likely that the bible was created by imaginative writer(s)? These are the historical accounts of Jesus's life. Either they are true or not. If they are true, we therefore can surmise that their accounts of the miracles of Jesus are also true.

If you still think it likely that the bible is a myth, what specifically makes you believe that? Do you hold similar skepticism for other historical works of the time period? If not, why not?

Thats good, although im sure if we ever found alien life, you guys would be cramming bibles down their gizzards. :p

Naturally. ;)

Yes. People are stupid. in the words of the great Agent K. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Seeing as how this was in response to an argument that I further detailed above, I'll assume that your response will again be that "people are stupid." But this is a dismissal. You have stated that people can be stupid, and I agree with this statement. But what does it say about our scenario? What proof do you have that the early Christians were stupid and were not acting with logic and reason?

I think something science happened. I couldnt possibly begin to explain or even comprehend it, but I find that more believable than some omnipotent being simply snapping his fingers and "poof", theres the universe.

Do you believe science has all the answers? Science is a method. It is a tool through which we understand our world using observation and experimentation. Science cannot explain how the universe began because it relies on observation. You cannot observe nothing. Our universe necessarily arose from nothing. Science cannot tell us what existed before the universe began anymore than science can prove mathematical proofs or the existence of logic. Do not give in to the recent temptation to elevate science to the realm of a belief.

Please answer this question for me: Should we only believe as true that which can be proven true using the scientific method?

Morality is just a basic human trait. What I think is right or wrong is probably different than what you think, or any other person in the world. If God was governing these morals, then wouldnt we all just think the same? Then people like Edison and Hitler never would have existed.

Is morality just a basic human trait? Why then do we have objective morality? Why is murder unlawful? If morality is unique to each of us, why do we legislate it?

Would I be correct in assuming that you would agree with the statement that "there are no absolute truths. Everything is relative?"

As far as God governing morality, God gives us free will. Morals are not compulsions, but rather truths concerning right and wrong. Just because we are allowed to choose wrong actions, it does not then follow that there can be no right action.

[Teuthida]

What do you think of what I presented above? Do you still believe it likely that the bible was created by imaginative writer(s)? These are the historical accounts of Jesus's life. Either they are true or not. If they are true, we therefore can surmise that their accounts of the miracles of Jesus are also true.


Say Jesus actually existed, and say people actually saw him do these things...it's pretty easy to fake turning water the color of wine or to appear to walk on the surface of water. Doing these things would probably trick people into believing he was who he said he was and give his words more weight. People are gullible. Religion is proof of that.

EDIT: I feel bad about that last bit...but it really does end that thought nicely...soooo...ummmm sorry?

[jeepnut]

Say Jesus actually existed, and say people actually saw him do these things...it's pretty easy to fake turning water the color of wine or to appear to walk on the surface of water. Doing these things would probably trick people into believing he was who he said he was and give his words more weight. People are gullible. Religion is proof of that.

EDIT: I feel bad about that last bit...but it really does end that thought nicely...soooo...ummmm sorry?

Don't worry about it. I've read much worse things about religion on the internet. ;)

While I would agree that people are gullible, I wouldn't agree that the miracles of Jesus could be considered mere parlor tricks. What have you heard previously about the miracles of Jesus? They are many and varied and none of them could have been accomplished with mere tricks.

For instance, using your examples: Jesus did not turn the water into the color of wine, he turned water (6 jars of it the bible says, each holding 20 to 30 gallons) into actual wine without ever touching it himself. Furthermore, they took the wine to the headwaiter (who did not know where it had come from) and upon tasting the wine he commented that this wine tasted better than what had been served previously.

As far as walking on water, how easy do you think that is to do? If you know how to fake it using first century technology, please let me know, because I would be eager to try. Furthermore, Peter joins Jesus on the water and walks for a while until his faith falters and he begins to sink.

I can name other miracles:

- Jesus heals a man born blind from birth.

- Jesus heals 10 lepers.

- Jesus repairs a man's ear after one of his disciples cuts it off as they are taking Jesus into custody.

- Jesus raises a man from the dead after he had been buried in a tomb for four days.

There was a good reason people were amazed at his works. They were not simple tricks, but acts that could not be accomplished without supernatural powers.

But that's not the most amazing thing Jesus did!

Jesus, who was fully God, allowed himself to be born of a woman and become fully human. He lived as we live, suffered as we suffer, and died as we too will die so that each and every person on this earth may be redeemed and come to live eternally with God! God sent Jesus to make the ultimate selfless sacrifice out of his immense love for you!

Why would you resist believing that? Is it because it seems too good to be true?

[Teuthida]

Why would you resist believing that? Is it because it seems too good to be true?
More like it seems most of those could be done either through slight of hand, or having someone else set it up for him. Too good to be true would be Jesus growing wings, summoning a flying whale and the two doing a synchronized dance in the sky while making it rain tiny dancing frogs dressed in the 1st century equivalent of tuxedos. Now that sounds godly to me.

Or riding in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer visiting children around the world in a single night and leaving them presents. That sounds like a god.

As far as walking on water, how easy do you think that is to do? If you know how to fake it using first century technology, please let me know, because I would be eager to try. Furthermore, Peter joins Jesus on the water and walks for a while until his faith falters and he begins to sink.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HLSIHYbedII" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's a raised platform slightly below the surface of the water. There's an episode of Mythbusters where they build one as well to bust a viral video of people running on the surface of a lake. It's just bits of wood nailed together. Surely something a carpenter could bang out in a jiffy.


As for the healing, unless there is documented proof (from a doctor and not from a book where snakes talk to people) that a person was sick and upon laying his hands on them or whatever he did, they got better, I will never believe that. I'm far more inclined to believe he was a skilled magician and/or surgeon, rather than a god. And the people seeing him do such things that they never saw before, believed them to be miracles. If he did them at all...or existed.

God sent Jesus to make the ultimate selfless sacrifice out of his immense love for you!
What did Jesus sacrifice exactly? The world didn't suddenly become a less shitty place when he died. People still "sin". A lot of people sin in his name.

Can you explain to me why God/Jesus feels the need to be worshiped? It always seemed sort of silly that this supposedly supremely powerful being that created everything in existence, requires people to like him. I was raised Jewish (it didn't take) and the number one thing I remember is over and over again saying that you shouldn't have any other gods before him. Why does he care? I imagine him like a whiny teenage girl. "Guuuuuys, I'm the only real god. This Becky you're going on about doesn't even exist. And don't get me started of Britney. Such a cow. Pay attention to meeee."

[Vampyr]

- Jesus heals a man born blind from birth.

*Man was not blind, was a planted assistant.

- Jesus heals 10 lepers.

*Were not actually lepers. Were paid to act sick. Makeup to look sick.

- Jesus repairs a man's ear after one of his disciples cuts it off as they are taking Jesus into custody.

*Sleight of hand, man was in on it.

- Jesus raises a man from the dead after he had been buried in a tomb for four days.

*Could have been twins. Man could have just not been dead to begin with.

There was a good reason people were amazed at his works. They were not simple tricks, but acts that could not be accomplished without supernatural powers.

But that's not the most amazing thing Jesus did!

Jesus, who was fully God, allowed himself to be born of a woman and become fully human. He lived as we live, suffered as we suffer, and died as we too will die so that each and every person on this earth may be redeemed and come to live eternally with God! God sent Jesus to make the ultimate selfless sacrifice out of his immense love for you!

Why would you resist believing that? Is it because it seems too good to be true?

Magicians do crazier things than these listed. Again, you jump to a supernatural solution far to quickly, and dismiss the more simple solution as impossible. Same with the creation of the universe. You're basically saying it must be supernatural and not scientific, because science doesn't explain yet...but that is not the most simple, logical solution. The most logical solution is that a scientifically explainable event occurred and we have yet to figure it out.

Saying that we haven't yet found a way for "something to come from nothing" isn't a valid argument. If that's your defense for justifying God creating the universe...then how do you explain where God came from?

Also, even if we were to agree that a god created the universe...what logic are you using to derive that it must be the Christian god? How do you know some other creation myth is not the correct one?

There is literally no compelling evidence for God. If you want to believe in him, you are going to have to do so on faith alone. I think most religious people would even agree with that. And I'm telling you I am unable to believe something on faith alone.

Also, what biblical passages are you using to signify homosexuality as a sin? You say that God "never changes," but how can you be so sure that just because a bible passage says you shouldn't do something, that it shouldn't be done because it's a sin or because of another reason? How often does the Bible say WHY you shouldn't do something?

The most common verse I've heard against homosexuality is in Leviticus, and the reason for it being in there (along with a ton of other seemingly crazy "sins" that are described in Leviticus) was to avoid disease or death and focus on procreating. Hence all the references to "unclean" behavior - because it was literally unclean, not because it was morally wrong. That stuff isn't even applicable today, and it may not have ever been a sin to begin with.

Like, Leviticus says you shouldn't eat an animal you find dead (as in, you didn't kill it.) Do you think that means it's a sin to eat a dead animal, or it was something they wrote down because they realized eating something you found dead could kill you?

[jeepnut]

More like it seems most of those could be done either through slight of hand, or having someone else set it up for him. Too good to be true would be Jesus growing wings, summoning a flying whale and the two doing a synchronized dance in the sky while making it rain tiny dancing frogs dressed in the 1st century equivalent of tuxedos. Now that sounds godly to me.

Or riding in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer visiting children around the world in a single night and leaving them presents. That sounds like a god.

How? Almost all of Jesus's miracles had numerous witnesses. How do you fake cutting off an ear and immediately repairing it? How do you fake giving sight to a blind man that the whole town knew had been born blind? How do you fake feeding 5,000 people with seven loaves and two fish? (Keep in mind they were many miles into the wilderness. An awfully long way to carry food for 5,000) How do you fake raising a man that many witnessed dying from a sealed tomb after having been dead for four days? As the saying goes, you can fool all of the people some of the time or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

To me, you're grasping at straws here. Despite your assertions, few would claim that these are easy tricks for anyone to perform today, much less in Jesus' time with first century technology.

You're better off claiming that it never happened in the first place. I've already demonstrated significant evidence that these accounts are believable. What evidence have you demonstrated that the bible should not be believed?


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HLSIHYbedII" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's a raised platform slightly below the surface of the water. There's an episode of Mythbusters where they build one as well to bust a viral video of people running on the surface of a lake. It's just bits of wood nailed together. Surely something a carpenter could bang out in a jiffy.

That's a funny video. However, I again think you are grasping at straws. Look at the account in the bible and where it occurred. This happened on the Sea of Galilee. The sea averages 84 feet in depth. The account states that the disciples were 25 or 30 furlongs away from their starting point. 25 furlongs is 5 kilometers. Using a depth chart, this puts the location of the disciples at a minimum depth of 75 feet and potentially in the deepest part of the sea at 141 feet. Do you know of a carpenter that can bang out a platform in 75 foot deep water in a "jiffy"? If he did, I'd call that a miracle. :p

Furthermore, the account states that this happened in the midst of a storm in which the disciples were "distressed by the waves". Keep in mind that many of these men were fishermen and spent a lot of their lives on this sea. These must have been some significant waves. Do you know anyone who could walk on a platform just below the water in the midst of a storm?

Also, the platform theory does not account for Peter walking on the sea for a short period of time and then losing faith and sinking.

As I stated above, I think you're grasping at straws.


As for the healing, unless there is documented proof (from a doctor and not from a book where snakes talk to people) that a person was sick and upon laying his hands on them or whatever he did, they got better, I will never believe that. I'm far more inclined to believe he was a skilled magician and/or surgeon, rather than a god. And the people seeing him do such things that they never saw before, believed them to be miracles. If he did them at all...or existed.

Our modern cures for leprosy take months to work. The lepers were cured instantly. Are you arguing that they were never sick in the first place?

What did Jesus sacrifice exactly? The world didn't suddenly become a less shitty place when he died. People still "sin". A lot of people sin in his name.

Jesus, fully human, sacrificed his life through tremendous suffering (crucifixion is a brutal way to die, look it up) that we may have eternal life with God if we choose it. Choose is the active word there. We still have free will and therefore can still sin. We are even free to sin in Jesus' name if we wish to claim so. That is what free will means. Jesus did not die to take away our humanity and our ability to freely choose to sin.

God is not the cause of suffering.

Can you explain to me why God/Jesus feels the need to be worshiped? It always seemed sort of silly that this supposedly supremely powerful being that created everything in existence, requires people to like him. I was raised Jewish (it didn't take) and the number one thing I remember is over and over again saying that you shouldn't have any other gods before him. Why does he care? I imagine him like a whiny teenage girl. "Guuuuuys, I'm the only real god. This Becky you're going on about doesn't even exist. And don't get me started of Britney. Such a cow. Pay attention to meeee."

God created us and God loves us. To love someone is to desire happiness for that person. (True happiness, not earthly happiness and certainly not our modern definition of happiness.) God did not have to create us or the universe. Because God chose to create us and because He loves us, He desires that His creation (created in His image and likeness) love Him and share in His joy.

Can you imagine creating life and not caring what happens to it?

[jeepnut]

Magicians do crazier things than these listed. Again, you jump to a supernatural solution far to quickly, and dismiss the more simple solution as impossible. Same with the creation of the universe. You're basically saying it must be supernatural and not scientific, because science doesn't explain yet...but that is not the most simple, logical solution. The most logical solution is that a scientifically explainable event occurred and we have yet to figure it out.

See my response to Teuthida. These people were not strangers brought together in a crowd for a one night only act. These people knew each other, often from birth.

Saying that we haven't yet found a way for "something to come from nothing" isn't a valid argument. If that's your defense for justifying God creating the universe...then how do you explain where God came from?

God is our explanation for the existence of the universe. God revealed himself to the Jewish people and the fullness of that revelation was revealed in Jesus.

What is your explanation? You have faith that science (a technique, not a belief system) will discover a cause for the sudden creation of a universe from nothing. Keep in mind that science relies on observation. I'm not sure how you plan on observing evidence of a time before observation was possible.

Sounds to me like a belief without any evidence. ;)

I have stated that the evidence points to a supernatural cause. You have stated that it cannot be a supernatural cause because science. What evidence have you presented that the supernatural cause is unlikely?

How do I explain where God came from? God always was and always is. God did not come from anywhere. He has no beginning or end. Because He is supernatural (def. outside the natural world), He does not have a natural explanation. As I've demonstrated, the evidence that we have points to the existence of such a being since we know that there is no natural explanation for something to be created from nothing since science (!) teaches us through the law of conservation of mass that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Also, even if we were to agree that a god created the universe...what logic are you using to derive that it must be the Christian god? How do you know some other creation myth is not the correct one?

We haven't made it that far yet. I'm trying to get you to admit that A god is the likely explanation for the existence of the universe. We will worry about which god later. ;)

There is literally no compelling evidence for God. If you want to believe in him, you are going to have to do so on faith alone. I think most religious people would even agree with that. And I'm telling you I am unable to believe something on faith alone.

You are believing something on faith alone! You believe that science will eventually discover what created the universe despite there being no evidence for a natural cause! Present your evidence! You have repeatedly avoided doing so.

Also, what biblical passages are you using to signify homosexuality as a sin? You say that God "never changes," but how can you be so sure that just because a bible passage says you shouldn't do something, that it shouldn't be done because it's a sin or because of another reason? How often does the Bible say WHY you shouldn't do something?

The most common verse I've heard against homosexuality is in Leviticus, and the reason for it being in there (along with a ton of other seemingly crazy "sins" that are described in Leviticus) was to avoid disease or death and focus on procreating. Hence all the references to "unclean" behavior - because it was literally unclean, not because it was morally wrong. That stuff isn't even applicable today, and it may not have ever been a sin to begin with.

Like, Leviticus says you shouldn't eat an animal you find dead (as in, you didn't kill it.) Do you think that means it's a sin to eat a dead animal, or it was something they wrote down because they realized eating something you found dead could kill you?

I covered this in an earlier post directed to Teuthida. The specific passages I quoted were:

From Jesus directly:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”. Matthew 19:4

From Paul's letter to the Romans:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.. Romans 1:26-27

If we are commanded not to do something by God, it is because He loves us and desires our true happiness. He shows us how to achieve true and lasting happiness through His revelation which is recorded in the bible and through the witness of the apostles. Everything the Catholic Church teaches descends from this revelation. Her authority was granted by Jesus Himself.

You are correct in your interpretation of most of the commandments in Leviticus. As I stated in another post directed to Teuthida, there are two types of law in the bible: ceremonial law and moral law. Ceremonial law (which is most of what is contained in Leviticus) was binding on the Jews before Jesus came. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law and it is therefore not binding on Christians except where it coincides with moral law. Moral law is binding on all. The condemnation of homosexual acts is part of the moral law.

[Teuthida]

Me "grasping at straws" was actually me willing to entertain that there may be slight hints of truth behind this claims.

So really there is no proof of any of these things occurring. Just some stories from an old book. Why should I believe that? I'd be more willing to believe the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun. At least it's known that wax melts.

I don't need to disprove that something didn't happened. If I came to you and told you a dragon just flew down the street and danced the Macarena, I would be the one required to offer proof. You would not have to disprove it because we live in a world where dragons don't exist, and no one dances the Macarena anymore. (Not with the true spirit of the dance at least.)


What you need to do is prove to me that they happened, and cite more than one source. Just because your one source says multiple people saw it, does not make it true.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nda_OSWeyn8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Damn, look at all those witnesses. There must really have been a leprechaun.

[Vampyr]

I actually don't have "faith" that science will uncover the beginnings of the universe. I'm OK with the idea that we may never know - I'm simply saying that if we ever DO discover how the universe was created, the answer will be scientific in nature. I'm basing this on the fact that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically. Perhaps the Universe has just always existed, as you believe God has always existed? Maybe it was not formed by any one or any event - it just Is.

I actually consider myself an absurdist, if I had to label my life philosophy. I think that life is ultimately meaningless. We live for about 80 years and die. In the infinity of the Universe, where all time exists and all space exists, these 80 years are almost nothing. Your relatives may remember you for a while after you die, but eventually everyone and everything will be forgotten, forever.

This isn't an easy thing to deal with. Everyone must realize their own meaninglessness and accept it in some way. I think there are three options. One is suicide. However, I don't believe this is an acceptable option - to merely end one's own existence is even more absurd than continue a meaningless life. It is an easy out that does not seek to solve the problem.

The second option is religion. To believe in an afterlife of some sort. You realize that this life is absurd, so you look for a life beyond this one - a life that does have meaning and is not absurd. This is just another form of suicide - it is philosophical suicide. You abandon reason for an answer based on no facts, and refuse to actually solve the problem at hand. You choose ignorant bliss, a security blanket, an opiate, over the hard answer, which leads to the third and only solution:

Acceptance of the absurd. You accept the difficult answer - life really is meaningless. But you rebel against that meaninglessness - you carve out your own purpose and meaning in life. You decide what meaning your life will have, and you work towards that, while accepting that ultimately it will not matter.

And I'm still working on it. I still don't like the idea of death. I haven't completely accepted it's unstoppable nature, and it does scare me at times. When my plane takes off or lands, I worry it will extend beyond the runway and into fire - and I worry that I haven't done enough.

[Combine 017]

I actually don't have "faith" that science will uncover the beginnings of the universe. I'm OK with the idea that we may never know - I'm simply saying that if we ever DO discover how the universe was created, the answer will be scientific in nature. I'm basing this on the fact that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically. Perhaps the Universe has just always existed, as you believe God has always existed? Maybe it was not formed by any one or any event - it just Is.

I actually consider myself an absurdist, if I had to label my life philosophy. I think that life is ultimately meaningless. We live for about 80 years and die. In the infinity of the Universe, where all time exists and all space exists, these 80 years are almost nothing. Your relatives may remember you for a while after you die, but eventually everyone and everything will be forgotten, forever.

This isn't an easy thing to deal with. Everyone must realize their own meaninglessness and accept it in some way. I think there are three options. One is suicide. However, I don't believe this is an acceptable option - to merely end one's own existence is even more absurd than continue a meaningless life. It is an easy out that does not seek to solve the problem.

The second option is religion. To believe in an afterlife of some sort. You realize that this life is absurd, so you look for a life beyond this one - a life that does have meaning and is not absurd. This is just another form of suicide - it is philosophical suicide. You abandon reason for an answer based on no facts, and refuse to actually solve the problem at hand. You choose ignorant bliss, a security blanket, an opiate, over the hard answer, which leads to the third and only solution:

Acceptance of the absurd. You accept the difficult answer - life really is meaningless. But you rebel against that meaninglessness - you carve out your own purpose and meaning in life. You decide what meaning your life will have, and you work towards that, while accepting that ultimately it will not matter.

And I'm still working on it. I still don't like the idea of death. I haven't completely accepted it's unstoppable nature, and it does scare me at times. When my plane takes off or lands, I worry it will extend beyond the runway and into fire - and I worry that I haven't done enough.

Nailed it.

[Combine 017]

This was kind of funny and a bit on topic.

Russell Brand talks to some Christians.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OBA6qlHW8po" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Vampyr]

Eh, those people don't really qualify as Christians, they are just real life trolls.

I did think this was pretty funny though: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131028.png

[jeepnut]

Me "grasping at straws" was actually me willing to entertain that there may be slight hints of truth behind this claims.

I'm sorry for the grasping at straws comment. I hope you didn't find it offensive, but these accounts are worthless if they are not accurate portrayals of actual miracles. No one needs a savior that can quickly build a wooden platform just below the surface of the water. :p

Christianity and our belief in God exists primarily because there is a being capable of supernatural feats that both created us and loves us. It's not by its nature a position where it is worthwhile to meet halfway. Either Jesus is God, or He isn't. If He isn't, there isn't much point in discussing His "tricks" aside from their responsibility in creating a 2000 year old cultural movement claiming roughly 2.1 billion followers.

That's why I was pushing. My claim rests on the divine nature of these miracles, not that there was a man who was capable of a couple of really neat tricks 2000 years ago.

However, let's move on.

So really there is no proof of any of these things occurring. Just some stories from an old book. Why should I believe that? I'd be more willing to believe the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun. At least it's known that wax melts.

What you need to do is prove to me that they happened, and cite more than one source. Just because your one source says multiple people saw it, does not make it true.

You ask for more than one source. I can cite a couple of additional sources.

Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writes about Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews written around 93-94 AD.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." - Book 20, Chapter 9, 1.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." - Book 18, Chapter 3, 3.

Roman historian and senator Tacitus mentions Jesus in his Annals written AD 116.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". - Book 15, Chapter 44.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor, speaks of the Christian movement in his letters to the Emperor Trajan around 112 AD.

"...were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."

Pliny is writing to Trajan concerning what to do with the Christian movement. At this time in the Roman empire, being a Christian is punishable by death unless the individual repents and sacrifices to the Roman gods. Why would these people, less than 80 years after Jesus' death, willingly die rather than deny their God? It was easy to get out of, yet many died willingly. We were not far removed from Jesus' time. Why die for something if there was no proof? And why did this new religion not only succeed, but positively thrive in an atmosphere of persecution?

In addition to these sources which are the most well known, there are others. However, the Bible remains the most extensive historical document on Jesus precisely because it was written by the experts; the people who knew Jesus. Do you dismiss a historical account because the writer has direct knowledge of his subject material? I would think it would lend additional credence.

I don't need to disprove that something didn't happened. If I came to you and told you a dragon just flew down the street and danced the Macarena, I would be the one required to offer proof. You would not have to disprove it because we live in a world where dragons don't exist, and no one dances the Macarena anymore. (Not with the true spirit of the dance at least.)


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nda_OSWeyn8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Damn, look at all those witnesses. There must really have been a leprechaun.

If you came to me with the above account, of course I would not be obligated to disprove it. However, if you amassed a following of Macarena dancing dragon believers in spite of governmental persecution leading to death that thrived in spite of that persecution leading to a following of over 2 billion people 2000 years later, I would be looking for some evidence before refuting your claim.

[jeepnut]

I actually don't have "faith" that science will uncover the beginnings of the universe. I'm OK with the idea that we may never know - I'm simply saying that if we ever DO discover how the universe was created, the answer will be scientific in nature. I'm basing this on the fact that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically. Perhaps the Universe has just always existed, as you believe God has always existed? Maybe it was not formed by any one or any event - it just Is.

I'll touch on the rest of your post at a later date, but I wanted to discuss this part specifically. How is it not faith to believe that the answer to the existence of the universe will be explained scientifically? You state that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically, but this is self defeating. Nature has not produced evidence of anything coming into existence from nothing. Further, everything we have observed in nature has at least a defined beginning if not a currently observable end. Nature has yet to produce evidence that either of these explanations is possible.

Isn't it the common atheistic definition of faith that it is the belief in something without evidence?

[Vampyr]

I'll touch on the rest of your post at a later date, but I wanted to discuss this part specifically. How is it not faith to believe that the answer to the existence of the universe will be explained scientifically? You state that every other event in nature can be explained scientifically, but this is self defeating. Nature has not produced evidence of anything coming into existence from nothing. Further, everything we have observed in nature has at least a defined beginning if not a currently observable end. Nature has yet to produce evidence that either of these explanations is possible.

Isn't it the common atheistic definition of faith that it is the belief in something without evidence?

I don't believe that something came from nothing - that's your belief. It's not that I have faith in science's ability to come up with proof - it's that I'm not going to believe anything without proof.

I am not putting forth any hypothesis for how the universe came to be - you are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. I reject the idea that God created everything because there is no basis for it and not a shred of evidence to support it. You are putting forth that idea, so you must provide the proof.

So far your only proof is "You don't have a better idea, so my side is most likely correct." That's not proof or a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Scientists can't just come up with any crazy hypothesis they want and support it with the argument of "The other side doesn't have anything to refute it." They need evidence.

The Bible isn't evidence. It's a book of unsubstantiated stories. Some probably happened, a lot of them probably didn't.

[jeepnut]

I actually consider myself an absurdist, if I had to label my life philosophy. I think that life is ultimately meaningless. We live for about 80 years and die. In the infinity of the Universe, where all time exists and all space exists, these 80 years are almost nothing. Your relatives may remember you for a while after you die, but eventually everyone and everything will be forgotten, forever.

This isn't an easy thing to deal with. Everyone must realize their own meaninglessness and accept it in some way. I think there are three options. One is suicide. However, I don't believe this is an acceptable option - to merely end one's own existence is even more absurd than continue a meaningless life. It is an easy out that does not seek to solve the problem.

The second option is religion. To believe in an afterlife of some sort. You realize that this life is absurd, so you look for a life beyond this one - a life that does have meaning and is not absurd. This is just another form of suicide - it is philosophical suicide. You abandon reason for an answer based on no facts, and refuse to actually solve the problem at hand. You choose ignorant bliss, a security blanket, an opiate, over the hard answer, which leads to the third and only solution:

Acceptance of the absurd. You accept the difficult answer - life really is meaningless. But you rebel against that meaninglessness - you carve out your own purpose and meaning in life. You decide what meaning your life will have, and you work towards that, while accepting that ultimately it will not matter.

And I'm still working on it. I still don't like the idea of death. I haven't completely accepted it's unstoppable nature, and it does scare me at times. When my plane takes off or lands, I worry it will extend beyond the runway and into fire - and I worry that I haven't done enough.

Thank you for sharing your views. If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a few questions.

First off, why do we search for meaning in our lives (or as you stated, "rebel against the meaninglessness"? Why aren't we like other animals, who from all observable evidence, do not contemplate what will happen when they die and do not long for an afterlife? What point does that serve in a random and meaningless universe?

Secondly, do you believe that there is a good you should strive for? (I'm assuming that you do since you appear to be a law-abiding citizen.) If so, what is that good and how do you know what good is? (In other words, who decides what is "good" and what is "bad" and how do we come to a consensus?)

[jeepnut]

I don't believe that something came from nothing - that's your belief. It's not that I have faith in science's ability to come up with proof - it's that I'm not going to believe anything without proof.

I'm ignoring most of your post because I feel we have an active discussion along those lines in another post. I hope that's okay. If you want me to specifically address these points again, I will.

However, I want to latch on to the above.

I'm am not claiming to believe that the universe came from nothing. I'm stating that that is the case. It is not scientifically possible for there to be any other explanation. Everything we observe has a natural explanation. That's the definition of natural. Everything we observe, (which we have already defined as natural) has a cause. Since everything has a cause, that cause must have occurred at a place in time. In other words, everything has a beginning. At some point, there must have been a time when the first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence. Before the first thing, there was nothing. I'm not talking about nothing as in there were formless atoms and matter, but that there was literally no thing. The total absence of anything. No atoms, no matter, no energy, nothing. Since we exist, we know that that first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence from nothing. We know that this is not naturally possible as science (the study of the natural world) tells us so. Therefore, the very fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists. That is my proof.

God is the supernatural cause of our natural universe. The supernatural cause that is required for a natural, finite universe to exist.

You mentioned a couple posts ago about regrowing limbs. Why didn't you say "What if science finds a way to create limbs from nothing?" The reason is, is because you understand that there is no scientific explanation for something to be created from nothing.

[jeepnut]

Eh, those people don't really qualify as Christians, they are just real life trolls.

I did think this was pretty funny though: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131028.png

Agreed.

[Vampyr]

I'm ignoring most of your post because I feel we have an active discussion along those lines in another post. I hope that's okay. If you want me to specifically address these points again, I will.

However, I want to latch on to the above.

I'm am not claiming to believe that the universe came from nothing. I'm stating that that is the case. It is not scientifically possible for there to be any other explanation. Everything we observe has a natural explanation. That's the definition of natural. Everything we observe, (which we have already defined as natural) has a cause. Since everything has a cause, that cause must have occurred at a place in time. In other words, everything has a beginning. At some point, there must have been a time when the first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence. Before the first thing, there was nothing. I'm not talking about nothing as in there were formless atoms and matter, but that there was literally no thing. The total absence of anything. No atoms, no matter, no energy, nothing. Since we exist, we know that that first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence from nothing. We know that this is not naturally possible as science (the study of the natural world) tells us so. Therefore, the very fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists. That is my proof.

God is the supernatural cause of our natural universe. The supernatural cause that is required for a natural, finite universe to exist.

You mentioned a couple posts ago about regrowing limbs. Why didn't you say "What if science finds a way to create limbs from nothing?" The reason is, is because you understand that there is no scientific explanation for something to be created from nothing.

I've mentioned it a bunch of times already, but that's not proof. Your only proof is that science doesn't have any proof...yet. Like I said, I'm not putting forth any facts as to how the universe was formed. I acknowledge that at this point in time, we do not know. We do know that it probably has something to do with an explosion near the center of the universe, as everything in the universe is moving outward at a great speed.

But somehow you are making the jump in conclusions from science hasn't come up with a reasonable answer yet, so the only possible solution is god. No. It's not like the origin of the universe is the last thing we don't know. There is an infinite number of things we do not know. You can't take all those things, and just say, "well, science hasn't found an answer in the brief time humans have existed...so it must be supernatural!"

That is not proof, and it never will be. You need proof that supports your side - I not need proof to dispute your side, because you are the one making the claim.

We do not really know that the first thing came from nothing. There's no evidence to suggest that. We do not know that there was a first thing. Like I said, that's your theory, not mine.

When you get into the science of the Universe - with space, gravity, and time, things get very bizarre. What if time is a thing, the same way gravity and space are things? What if this isn't the only universe? What if time itself came into existence at the same moment as the universe, so that essentially there is no "before"? It simply does not exist.

There are so many theories and possibilities out there, and that's why limiting ourselves to saying a god must be the only plausible solution is just silly.

As for your other question, striving to be "good"...I believe that what is "good" is a set of laws and commonsense derived by people over the course of humanities existence. Religion does not define what is good and bad - people do, and there are grey areas.

My own moral code is the sum total of the experiences in my life up until this point. I don't think God mandated that murder was bad, and then people thought, "You know, murder is bad." I think people figured out that murder, rape, thievery, jealousy, anger, etc were bad on their own.

[Combine 017]

I'm am not claiming to believe that the universe came from nothing. I'm stating that that is the case. It is not scientifically possible for there to be any other explanation. Everything we observe has a natural explanation. That's the definition of natural. Everything we observe, (which we have already defined as natural) has a cause. Since everything has a cause, that cause must have occurred at a place in time. In other words, everything has a beginning. At some point, there must have been a time when the first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence. Before the first thing, there was nothing. I'm not talking about nothing as in there were formless atoms and matter, but that there was literally no thing. The total absence of anything. No atoms, no matter, no energy, nothing. Since we exist, we know that that first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence from nothing. We know that this is not naturally possible as science (the study of the natural world) tells us so. Therefore, the very fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists. That is my proof.

God is the supernatural cause of our natural universe. The supernatural cause that is required for a natural, finite universe to exist.

You mentioned a couple posts ago about regrowing limbs. Why didn't you say "What if science finds a way to create limbs from nothing?" The reason is, is because you understand that there is no scientific explanation for something to be created from nothing.

Youre talking as if there cant possibly be any more scientific discoveries. Just because it hasnt happened yet, doesnt mean it wont.

Heres a little piece about a giant super laser in development.

Capable of producing a beam of light so intense that it would be equivalent to the power received by the Earth from the sun focused onto a speck smaller than a tip of a pin, scientists claim it could allow them boil the very fabric of space – the vacuum.

Contrary to popular belief, a vacuum is not devoid of material but in fact fizzles with tiny mysterious particles that pop in and out of existence, but at speeds so fast that no one has been able to prove they exist.

The Extreme Light Infrastructure Ultra-High Field Facility would produce a laser so intense that scientists say it would allow them to reveal these particles for the first time by pulling this vacuum "fabric" apart.

Science is working on it, just give it some time. :)

And lets say, just for fun, that they do prove that these particles exist, would you stop believing in god? Or would you then claim that these particles are god?

[jeepnut]

I've mentioned it a bunch of times already, but that's not proof. Your only proof is that science doesn't have any proof...yet. Like I said, I'm not putting forth any facts as to how the universe was formed. I acknowledge that at this point in time, we do not know. We do know that it probably has something to do with an explosion near the center of the universe, as everything in the universe is moving outward at a great speed.

I agree that you haven't put forth any facts. But I disagree that I haven't put forth any proof (Since I have proven that the beginning of the universe cannot have occurred by natural means). You have repeatedly stated that you believe that the origin of the universe has a scientific explanation but have not provided proof for this belief. Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. The natural world obeys the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not explain the creation of the universe.

By the way, the understanding that the universe likely began with an explosion near the center of the universe is a theory first proposed by Monseigneur Georges Lemaître; a Catholic priest. ;)

But somehow you are making the jump in conclusions from science hasn't come up with a reasonable answer yet, so the only possible solution is god. No. It's not like the origin of the universe is the last thing we don't know. There is an infinite number of things we do not know. You can't take all those things, and just say, "well, science hasn't found an answer in the brief time humans have existed...so it must be supernatural!"

That is not proof, and it never will be. You need proof that supports your side - I not need proof to dispute your side, because you are the one making the claim.

We do not really know that the first thing came from nothing. There's no evidence to suggest that. We do not know that there was a first thing. Like I said, that's your theory, not mine.

When you get into the science of the Universe - with space, gravity, and time, things get very bizarre. What if time is a thing, the same way gravity and space are things? What if this isn't the only universe? What if time itself came into existence at the same moment as the universe, so that essentially there is no "before"? It simply does not exist.

OK, let's investigate the possibilities.

1. The universe (or universes) had a beginning at some point. (In this possibility, time definitively came in to existence at the same time as the universe since time is rendered in relation to the universe and cannot exist without it.)

2. The universe (or universes) has always existed. - If this is the case, we must then also state that the universe is never ending as well, since no beginning necessitates an infinite universe.

Which is scientifically possible? We have observed decay and change in our universe. All observations point to the understanding that the universe will someday cease to exist. We observe this as entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. Without the input of energy, things will move from an ordered state to a disordered state. An infinite universe would not do this for it must constantly renew itself.

There are so many theories and possibilities out there, and that's why limiting ourselves to saying a god must be the only plausible solution is just silly.

OK, let's not call it God. It is still a transcendent cause which is necessitated by the fact that the universe came into existence at a definitive point in time before which nothing existed.

As for your other question, striving to be "good"...I believe that what is "good" is a set of laws and commonsense derived by people over the course of humanities existence. Religion does not define what is good and bad - people do, and there are grey areas.

My own moral code is the sum total of the experiences in my life up until this point. I don't think God mandated that murder was bad, and then people thought, "You know, murder is bad." I think people figured out that murder, rape, thievery, jealousy, anger, etc were bad on their own.

I would agree that people discovered that murder, rape, etc. are bad on their own. The Catholic Church agrees as well. Catholics call this natural law. Natural law is written on men's hearts and does not rely on the revelation of God. In other words, even someone who has never heard of God can observe that murder is wrong.

But why did we come to this conclusion? If life is meaningless and nothing we do matters, then there is no concept of good. What is good is up to each person to decide and would likely revolve simply around "what advances my desires at this moment." If murder solves a problem or provides an advantage, then it is good for the person who is committing the murder. Since life is meaningless, the feelings of the one being murdered are also meaningless. Good is relative.

Why is this not the case then? Why do we have objective wrongs? A meaningless universe presents no requirement for this to be the case.

[jeepnut]

Youre talking as if there cant possibly be any more scientific discoveries. Just because it hasnt happened yet, doesnt mean it wont.

Heres a little piece about a giant super laser in development.

Science is working on it, just give it some time. :)

And lets say, just for fun, that they do prove that these particles exist, would you stop believing in god? Or would you then claim that these particles are god?

I'm not stating that science can't make any new discoveries. We make new discoveries every day. However, there are some things that science tells us are impossible. One such thing is explained by the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither by created nor destroyed. Or do you believe that we will one day find a way to create energy from nothing? You better have some proof for that belief!

By the way, the statement you quoted, "Contrary to popular belief, a vacuum is not devoid of material but in fact fizzles with tiny mysterious particles that pop in and out of existence, but at speeds so fast that no one has been able to prove they exist." Proves my point. A vacuum is not nothing. Before the universe, even these mysterious particles did not exist.

[Combine 017]

Or maybe these particles created the universe, since they come in and out of existence. And theres no proof that they didnt exist before the universe. Theres no proof they exist at all. Also, the laser is supposed to give scientists new info on other dimensions, which im not entirely sure how that works. But if other dimensions do exist, does that mean they each have their own God, or does the one God rule all dimensions too?

[jeepnut]

Or maybe these particles created the universe, since they come in and out of existence. And theres no proof that they didnt exist before the universe. Theres no proof they exist at all. Also, the laser is supposed to give scientists new info on other dimensions, which im not entirely sure how that works. But if other dimensions do exist, does that mean they each have their own God, or does the one God rule all dimensions too?

Alright, let's say that the particles did create the universe as we know it. What created the particles? Or are the particles the transcendent cause necessary for a finite universe?

[Combine 017]

Alright, let's say that the particles did create the universe as we know it. What created the particles? Or are the particles the transcendent cause necessary for a finite universe?

Sure. Maybe these little particles are "God". They could call them Godons or something.

[Vampyr]

OK, let's not call it God. It is still a transcendent cause which is necessitated by the fact that the universe came into existence at a definitive point in time before which nothing existed.

Scientists believe a gravitational singularity existed before the universe.

How it happened is actually beside the point though. We are discussing your proof of god existing. Here is a wikipedia page that lists unsolved problems in physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics

I'm a computer science person, so I actually know of an unsolved problem in computer science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete Basically there is no way to tell if a certain type of problem (categorized as NP complete) can be solved quickly. There's a lot of prize money out there if someone can figure out a way to do it.

According to your line of thinking, though, we should give up now, because since science doesn't have an answer, there is no answer, and we must look to god for the answer.

Do you see how little since that makes? There are tons of unsolved problems. People are actively working on solving these problems, the same way scientists, engineers, and mathematicians have solved problems all through history. Many things that were once unsolved are now solved.

No scientist is saying they have the perfect answer to origins of the cosmos, or what came before it. They have hypothesis that they are working on proving. You, and every other religious person, have pulled a random solution out of thin air and said "This is it." - without proof.

But why did we come to this conclusion? If life is meaningless and nothing we do matters, then there is no concept of good. What is good is up to each person to decide and would likely revolve simply around "what advances my desires at this moment." If murder solves a problem or provides an advantage, then it is good for the person who is committing the murder. Since life is meaningless, the feelings of the one being murdered are also meaningless. Good is relative.

Why is this not the case then? Why do we have objective wrongs? A meaningless universe presents no requirement for this to be the case.

Well that's THE question, isn't it? That's basically the question of the absurd that I outlined earlier, with the three possible answers: suicide, religion, and rebellion.

You should read The Stranger. It's pretty short and it's written by the absurdist author and philosopher Albert Camus, and it's basically about murder and justice in an absurd world.

[jeepnut]

Sure. Maybe these little particles are "God". They could call them Godons or something.

Okay. Are the particles sentient?

[Combine 017]

I dont see why they cant be, but if they are I would assume the act of a giant laser being fired upon them would be considered an act of aggression.

[jeepnut]

Scientists believe a gravitational singularity existed before the universe.

And what created the gravitational singularity? Sure there may have been singularities, universes, or other things present prior to our current universe, but we still run into the same problem. No naturally occurring thing exists without a cause. At some point, there must be a first cause that existed prior to everything. This first cause must be transcendent.

How it happened is actually beside the point though. We are discussing your proof of god existing. Here is a wikipedia page that lists unsolved problems in physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics

I'm a computer science person, so I actually know of an unsolved problem in computer science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete Basically there is no way to tell if a certain type of problem (categorized as NP complete) can be solved quickly. There's a lot of prize money out there if someone can figure out a way to do it.

According to your line of thinking, though, we should give up now, because since science doesn't have an answer, there is no answer, and we must look to god for the answer.

Do you see how little since that makes? There are tons of unsolved problems. People are actively working on solving these problems, the same way scientists, engineers, and mathematicians have solved problems all through history. Many things that were once unsolved are now solved.

No scientist is saying they have the perfect answer to origins of the cosmos, or what came before it. They have hypothesis that they are working on proving. You, and every other religious person, have pulled a random solution out of thin air and said "This is it." - without proof.

I never said there is no point to scientific inquiry. What is pointless is the assertion science has rendered belief in God obsolete. Since God created the universe, the only thing science can do is further reveal the magnificence of God's creation. We were made to question and understand the world in which we live (something that separates us from all other animals). This desire is good.

Well that's THE question, isn't it? That's basically the question of the absurd that I outlined earlier, with the three possible answers: suicide, religion, and rebellion.

You should read The Stranger. It's pretty short and it's written by the absurdist author and philosopher Albert Camus, and it's basically about murder and justice in an absurd world.

I wouldn't say that that is THE question. I would agree that it's a key part of THE question though. THE question of course in my opinion is "where did we come from and what is our purpose?"

Obviously, I didn't read The Stranger in this short period of time. I'm a very slow reader. I did however look up a synopsis of the plot. Basically, from what I gather, Meursault has no emotion and is indifferent to world and his actions are irrational. Others find this difficult to relate to. In the end, in prison, Meursault realizes that the universe is also indifferent and irrational and this frees him from worrying about his upcoming execution since it ultimately does not matter whether he lives or dies. Correct?

Are you arguing that morality is a construction of society? Then why has man looked for meaning in his life throughout all of recorded history and likely long before as well? What purpose does this serve in a meaningless universe.

Let's assume that the universe was not created by God, has a natural origin, and is as a result, meaningless and indifferent to creation. If this is the case, then humanity is the random result of atoms randomly smashing together to create larger molecules eventually resulting in a planet capable of supporting life. Eventually, this process resulted in living organisms and through the process of evolution, we have humanity.

Where in this process is the evolutionary purpose for morality, good/evil, and the search for a higher purpose? None of these things provides an evolutionary advantage. Time wasted worrying about right and wrong and our purpose in life is energy uselessly devoted to tasks that do not increase our chances for survival. In fact, many would say that they impair our survival in some circumstances (for those that take option 1 in the absurdist belief structure). It would seem that evolution and survival of the fittest should have seen this as a worthless adaptation and stamped it out long ago. Yet, humanity still struggles with these questions after millennia.

Morality, the concept of good and evil, and the search for a higher purpose has no explanation in a universe without God.

[jeepnut]

I dont see why they cant be, but if they are I would assume the act of a giant laser being fired upon them would be considered an act of aggression.

Okay, so in other words you accept the idea of a god as long as it isn't the one who revealed himself through Jesus, the Bible, and the early Christians?

[Teuthida]

Where in this process is the evolutionary purpose for morality, good/evil, and the search for a higher purpose? None of these things provides an evolutionary advantage. Time wasted worrying about right and wrong and our purpose in life is energy uselessly devoted to tasks that do not increase our chances for survival. In fact, many would say that they impair our survival in some circumstances (for those that take option 1 in the absurdist belief structure). It would seem that evolution and survival of the fittest should have seen this as a worthless adaptation and stamped it out long ago. Yet, humanity still struggles with these questions after millennia.

Morality, the concept of good and evil, and the search for a higher purpose has no explanation in a universe without God.

It's been forever since I took biology (actually going back to college in a few months to continue the bio degree I abandoned a decade ago in favor of art) so looking forward to having a proper debate on evolutionary once I'm refreshed.

Worrying about trivial things such as if there is good or evil in the world is for people who have time to do so. (I personally don't believe in good and evil. They're just man-made labels.) Once civilizations begun to arise, and you had a bit of downtime, of course the human mind would wonder about these things. Would be as simple as four cave men sitting around a fire after a successful day hunting and chatting about why things are the way they are. Wondering about the way things are gives rise to new ideas, and new ideas gives rise to better techniques of solving the pressing problems.

As for morality. It is ingrained. You want your genes to pass on. That is the ultimate goal. And if not you, then genes similar to yours, so you would also care about your family such as cousins. And so on. Not sure at which point humans began to care for those distinctly related from themselves. Altruism can be beneficial though.

So I would say it's more altruism, rather than morality, since many different species exhibit that. Rather than give you hazy memories of biology class I'd refer you read up on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals). It's quite interesting. It's basically do unto others. Do something for someone else and expect to get treated in kind. If someone holds out, then the whole thing can collapse. Take vampire bats. If a bat returns home after a night of bloodsucking but didn't get enough blood, another will feed the bat a share of the blood it collected. So if sometime in the future it happens to the giving bat, it can expect to receive blood on one of its bad nights.



Oh, saw this video yesterday.
http://www.wimp.com/wecould/

Acts more like Jesus than most Christians.

And that's a great part of what I have trouble with. It seems more people use religion to divide and hate rather than love. You don't need to believe to believe in religion to be a good person.

[Combine 017]

Okay, so in other words you accept the idea of a god as long as it isn't the one who revealed himself through Jesus, the Bible, and the early Christians?

I never rejected the idea of a god, I just think of it as unlikely. But no, my idea of a god isnt the one that was an incredibly elaborate plan to hide the fact that Mary cheated on Joseph and was really convincing about it, or a 2000 year old book detailing the creation of the 14 billion year old Universe, and with absolutely no other god like events between then and now.

[jeepnut]

And that's a great part of what I have trouble with. It seems more people use religion to divide and hate rather than love. You don't need to believe to believe in religion to be a good person.

A quote popped up in my Facebook feed that is a good reply to this. I'll reply to the rest later.

“It is no disgrace to Christianity, it is no disgrace to any great religion, that its counsels of perfection have not made every single person perfect. If after centuries a disparity is still found between its ideal and its followers, it only means that the religion still maintains the ideal, and the followers still need it."

~G.K. Chesterton: 'Illustrated London News,' March 2, 1929.

The man in the video you posted is a fantastic man. We should all strive to be more like him, Christian or not. However, if your point was to state that Christianity is woefully inept at inspiring its followers to its ideals, I don't see how this video proves that. ALL religions are inept at inspiring their followers to purity, charity, and love. We are human. We are imperfect. As G.K. Chesterton says above, that would only be the fault of the religion if the religion altered its teachings to appeal to those who refuse to follow them.

Okay, one more quote before I go. I'll have to paraphrase this one since I can't find/remember where it's from:

"If you're worried there are too many heretics in church, don't worry. There's always room for one more." ;)

[Teuthida]

So we're in agreement that religion isn't a deciding factor if you're a good person or not.


Now I pose this question to you: If Christianity didn't promise an eternal afterlife in heaven (or hell), and explicitly said that when you die, that's it, would you still be as devout a Catholic as you are?


Sort of on topic....just remembered this comic and thought I'd share.
http://www.toonhole.com/comics/2013-09-23-247_HogHeaven.jpg

[jeepnut]

So we're in agreement that religion isn't a deciding factor if you're a good person or not.


Now I pose this question to you: If Christianity didn't promise an eternal afterlife in heaven (or hell), and explicitly said that when you die, that's it, would you still be as devout a Catholic as you are?

Sorry for not posting in so long. Busy life followed by avoiding giving a response because it takes a lot of time, but I'll try and start being active again.

I don't know. That's a very good question. I'm not sure what I would do. Basically, you are proposing a situation almost identical to the conclusion of atheism. In this situation, our life is only measured in our affect on others and the legacy we leave for future generations. Therefore, I would probably have an outlook similar to that of most well-minded atheists. Try to find meaning where possible and make a positive impact through my relations with others.

This has brought to mind the idea that being a Christian is ultimately a selfish endeavor. Sure, it requires personal sacrifice (sometimes great personal sacrifice), but the end goal is eternal life for yourself.

[jeepnut]

It's been forever since I took biology (actually going back to college in a few months to continue the bio degree I abandoned a decade ago in favor of art) so looking forward to having a proper debate on evolutionary once I'm refreshed.

Worrying about trivial things such as if there is good or evil in the world is for people who have time to do so. (I personally don't believe in good and evil. They're just man-made labels.) Once civilizations begun to arise, and you had a bit of downtime, of course the human mind would wonder about these things. Would be as simple as four cave men sitting around a fire after a successful day hunting and chatting about why things are the way they are. Wondering about the way things are gives rise to new ideas, and new ideas gives rise to better techniques of solving the pressing problems.

As for morality. It is ingrained. You want your genes to pass on. That is the ultimate goal. And if not you, then genes similar to yours, so you would also care about your family such as cousins. And so on. Not sure at which point humans began to care for those distinctly related from themselves. Altruism can be beneficial though.

So I would say it's more altruism, rather than morality, since many different species exhibit that. Rather than give you hazy memories of biology class I'd refer you read up on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals). It's quite interesting. It's basically do unto others. Do something for someone else and expect to get treated in kind. If someone holds out, then the whole thing can collapse. Take vampire bats. If a bat returns home after a night of bloodsucking but didn't get enough blood, another will feed the bat a share of the blood it collected. So if sometime in the future it happens to the giving bat, it can expect to receive blood on one of its bad nights.

I realized that I promised a response to this and never did so.

First off, a question: Do you agree that there is an objective morality? For instance, that there are certain actions or behaviors that are always right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances?

It seems from your statements above that you equate altruism with morality. I would disagree with this belief. While animals may be capable of forgoing a personal gain for the benefit of the group, they show no sign of having a concept of "right" vs. "wrong" like humans do. For instance, when you hear a story on the news of a mother who drowned her children, you would rightly comment that that action was "wrong" despite it having no direct perceivable effect on you. Animals do not judge actions as "right" or "wrong" because they do not have a system of morality.

Furthermore, while science may be capable of describing a mechanism by which a certain action is beneficial to humans, science is not capable of describing why human beings have an obligation to choose the correct action.

Because of this, I argue that objective morality does not have a natural explanation.

[Seth]

Catholicism was the scourge of Europe for over a thousand years.

I'm not saying many of the clergy weren't brilliant contributors to the western cultural ethos.

What I'm saying is that, there's a reason Protesters didn't give up on their right to read the Bible. Even if Rome insists the Latin Vulgate is the final say on doctrinal integrity(a farce), that doesn't erase history, Textus Receptus and the practicing forms of Christianity that predated the pagan cultural infusion of the Roman Church.


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y4ZvUZlFMiw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Seth]

How about let's flip this and



Ask a Protestant.





I will posit that Protestantism was the actual catalyst for the Age of Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy – an attitude captured by the phrase Sapere aude, "Dare to know".

My family escaped France during the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. I take separation of church and state super duper seriously.

Gavin McInnis and other Catholics would prefer to flick prayer beads and light candles whilst ignoring the books.


really though, Protestantism is effectively dead. Well almost. There's still freedom in the west. Too bad the UN is in charge of net neutrality. That's a bummer.

https://i0.wp.com/amredeemed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/catholic.jpg?resize=480%2C360


I would encourage everyone to read the gospels. Set one of your homepage tabs to biblegateway.

Spiritual nourishment.