Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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?

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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.



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.

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."

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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?

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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?


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.


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?

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.

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?

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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.



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

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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.

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

Nailed it.

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

This was kind of funny and a bit on topic.

Russell Brand talks to some Christians.

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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.

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.

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.

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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?

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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.

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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?)

Re: Ask a Catholic
 

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.