Ask a Catholic

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

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.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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.

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.

[The Germanator]

What is your take on this news? http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...atholic-church

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

What is your take on this news? http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...atholic-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.

Post by Catholic Memes.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

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.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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. 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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.