Ask a Catholic

[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?

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can name other miracles:

- Jesus heals a man born blind from birth.

- Jesus heals 10 lepers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Teuthida]

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

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

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

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

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


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

God sent Jesus to make the ultimate selfless sacrifice out of his immense love for you!

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

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

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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

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

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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

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

God is not the cause of suffering.

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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

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

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

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

- Jesus heals a man born blind from birth.

*Man was not blind, was a planted assistant.

- Jesus heals 10 lepers.

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

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

*Sleight of hand, man was in on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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

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

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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

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

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

Sounds to me like a belief without any evidence.

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

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

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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

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

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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

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

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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

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

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

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

From Jesus directly:

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

From Paul's letter to the Romans:

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

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

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

[Teuthida]

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

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

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


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



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