Ask a Catholic

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

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]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

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]

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?

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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?

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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?

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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. 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.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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]

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.

[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.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

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]

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.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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

Naturally.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

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]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

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?