13 yr olds need your help defending Christianity to atheist peers

[KindredSoul]

Very true and well said (and I refer to your whole post here, even though I quoted only a small part of it).

Thank you.

If something can be demonstrated in an objective fashion, then there is no need for the “grace” that revert-jen mentioned. There is no need to appeal to an authority, there is no need to refer to revelation. A few simple facts (and facts cannot be denied) and a “cold”, logical reasoning will be sufficient. It is a fact, that many believers understand the faulty nature of these arguments - so even they remain unconvinced about their validity.

I agree that many believers are unconvinced by the arguments and find them faulty. This demonstrates the fact that they will not satisfy everyone, and even some believers will simply have to go on faith if they are not fortunate enough to find the arguments convincing like other believers do (though, given “blessed is he who believes without seeing”, perhaps these have an opportunity for even greater beatitude in this matter?). That said and admitted, it is equally a fact that many believers are quite convinced by the arguments and find them sound, and may be left scratching their heads as to why others find them so unsound. That’s what I meant when I said that finding the arguments faulty (or sound) is subjective, as is observably so. If it were objective, then any and all logical and intelligent people would agree that the arguments were faulty or sound. Since they do not, either acceptance or rejections of the arguments appears to be subjectively based. We are often looking at the same universally agreed upon facts, yes, but we somehow come to different conclusions as to what those facts mean, which is where the subjectivity enters in.

As a matter of fact I checked the Cathecism about the question if “faith” or “grace” is needed to ascertain God’s existence (which is a somewhat different issue, I know). It simply said that one can know God’s existence through rational means alone, and then it stopped. I would have been very interested just what rational means it refers to. Alas, it was silent on the issue.

Yes, that is a bit mysterious. I suppose there are a couple of considerations. First, the Catechism, as far as I gather, is not talking about anything more specific than God’s existence on that point. It would seem that it is not talking about Christianity’s more specific beliefs, or even the more specific attributes we believe God to have (we only have to believe those things to be credible–by which I believe to mean arguable–not necessarily knowable by reason alone). Thus anyone who came to the conclusion that some sort of Creator exists might technically be said to have ascertained God’s existence. As for the fact that many do not even believe in that much, it appears to me that the Catechism’s words can be taken to mean that it is merely possible that a person would ascertain God’s existence by reason alone, without this meaning that everyone will.

For example, even if not for Divine revelation, when I look at the world around me, and even after reflecting on Atheist arguments and explanations for the world’s origins, I would still be convinced, just by my own searching and reason, that there is some kind of God. I would know nothing specific about Him (without the mixture of faith and reason that leads me to believe in Christianity), it is true, but by strictly using reason I would believe some Creator exists even if only vaguely. Not everyone comes to that conclusion without the aid of faith or religion, but I could, assuming I would be interested enough to ponder it in the first place if not for my faith.

Why others can conclude differently based on the same evidence is puzzling, to both sides I’m sure. I’ve heard this explained before on our side as having something to do with the Fall of Man. Man in his original state, the explanation went, would have been able to discern with reason that God exists even if God had never intervened in any obvious way which gave His existence away. Basically, in such a world, the intellectual impasse that often occurs between an Atheist and Theist who are equally intelligent and logical simply wouldn’t exist. That impasse, which neither side can quite grasp in a way objectively satisfying to everyone (if they could, it would no longer be an impasse, as what can be objectively understood could be explained away to everyone’s satisfaction), is the only reason that what convinces a Theist by reason alone won’t convince an Atheist, and vice versa, so if that inexplicable impasse didn’t exist, everyone would come to the same conclusion (one way or the other) by reason alone, just as those on whatever side of the impasse now come to their respective conclusions by reason alone.

That is why I suggested to say: “we don’t know”. It is always an acceptable answer.

Agreed, especially since although plenty of people will be satisfied with these (and other) arguments in favor of religion (so I think such arguments are always worth sharing and presenting, when appropriate), a person who isn’t satisfied with any arguments would have no other way to keep faith except by being content with not knowing. As revert-jen said, just because we don’t know (and maybe, I would add, even if we might conceivably lack the capacity to know something) doesn’t mean the answer doesn’t exist, so instead of giving ourselves the ultimatum of either “come up with a good argument that satisfies myself” or “abandon the faith”, we should sometimes be content with saying “I don’t know” without feeling like that means our religion has a weak basis or is untrue. As you say, saying “we don’t know” is acceptable, and I’d add that it can even be commendable.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[R_Daneel]

Thank you for your post. I will have to “cut” some of your post to stay within the 6000 character limit. But I reply to all of it.

I agree that many believers are unconvinced by the arguments and find them faulty. This demonstrates the fact that they will not satisfy everyone, and even some believers will simply have to go on faith if they are not fortunate enough to find the arguments convincing like other believers do (though, given “blessed is he who believes without seeing”, perhaps these have an opportunity for even greater beatitude in this matter?).

What you say is true gold. Thank you. Indeed what is “convincing” to one person may be unconvincing to the other. But the issue does not have to stay unresolved. If the stance of one of them can be demonstrated to be false, if it contains incorrect basic assumptions, then “sticking” to one’s position is tantamount to “ostrich-politics”. There is a quote attributed to Jerry Falwell who allegedly said: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse my with facts!”.

Yes, that is a bit mysterious. I suppose there are a couple of considerations. First, the Catechism, as far as I gather, is not talking about anything more specific than God’s existence on that point. It would seem that it is not talking about Christianity’s more specific beliefs, or even the more specific attributes we believe God to have (we only have to believe those things to be credible–by which I believe to mean arguable–not necessarily knowable by reason alone).

Again, well spoken. This is why I would have liked to see their specific line of reasoning. If there would be a fully secular (rational) logical chain of reasons, which is based upon simple, observable facts then the rejection of this line would render the “doubter” to be irrational in his disbelief. True, it would not arrive at the concept of the Christian God, just some unspecified, generic deity, but it still would be an enormous “breakthrough”. (Though I doubt that the Cathecism would be concerned with a “watered down, generic deity”. )

For example, even if not for Divine revelation, when I look at the world around me, and even after reflecting on Atheist arguments and explanations for the world’s origins, I would still be convinced, just by my own searching and reason, that there is some kind of God. I would know nothing specific about Him (without the mixture of faith and reason that leads me to believe in Christianity), it is true, but by strictly using reason I would believe some Creator exists even if only vaguely. Not everyone comes to that conclusion without the aid of faith or religion, but I could, assuming I would be interested enough to ponder it in the first place if not for my faith.

The first time we do not agree. I simply deny that the “world’s origin” is a legitimate question. It is on the same level as asking “what is God’s origin?”. Our stance is identical in its “structure”. We both start from some unexplainable point, which we simply take it for granted. We both realize that having an unexplained, brute fact is necessary for avoiding “infinite regress”.

Now, it seems that for you the propostion “the world simply exists” is somehow deficient, that there are some attributes of the world which need further explanation, and this explanation will introduce the “unspeficed, generic god”. We don’t need to go any further on this, because it might derail the thread. But I am curious, if (and this is huge IF) I could demonstrate that this “deficiency” is not real, would you be willing to discard your stance, or would you fall back to the revelation? (I am really curious, but if you think that this question is unaccepably intrusive, then please don’t answer.) Let me add, if you can demonstrate that “some aspect of the world” genuinely needs a further explanation, I immeditely would discard mine, and become a “deist”.

Why others can conclude differently based on the same evidence is puzzling, to both sides I’m sure.

Yes, though for me it is not “really” puzzling. I have seen too many instances when people are so deeply attached to their own “framework” (so to speak), that they will deny anything and everything that would shake it. To start to doubt one’s own basic assumptions involves a huge amount of courage - and most people lack it.

A true story to illustrate this: James (the Amazing) Randi, a well known skeptic and stage magician was asked to invesigate a “miracle”. It was said that a young girl can “read” with her fingertips and she demonstrated this many times in her local church. Randi quickly discovered the trick (it was very easy) and showed that the girl merely perpetrated a “hoax”. The interesting part was the reaction. The mother (and the congregation) wept and were very dismayed. They would have preferred to stay ignorant and keep on believing the “miracle”. I was referring to this kind of behavior.

As you say, saying “we don’t know” is acceptable, and I’d add that it can even be commendable.

And here we agree again. It is commendable to take the courage to say “I don’t know”. It would be unacceptably arrogant to “pretend”, and anyhow, according to an old adage: “a liar can be caught faster than a lame dog”. (This is not an English proverb, so you might not have heard of it.)

 

[jinminn]

Interesting post! Almost similar to me… except I’m ‘defending’ Christianity against myself and arguments against it… and it’s current losing! I’m also twice as old as these individuals.

Yes, though for me it is not “really” puzzling. I have seen too many instances when people are so deeply attached to their own “framework” (so to speak), that they will deny anything and everything that would shake it. To start to doubt one’s own basic assumptions involves a huge amount of courage - and most people lack it.

I like this line. It’s interesting that this thread has tapped into the question of how both sides look at the same ‘evidence’ and find different answers. I quoted you, R Daneel, because I do believe there is truth here, however I would caution the use of ‘courage’. I find that atheistic thinkers often call the tipping point of faith → no faith something akin to ‘courage’ or ‘perseverance’ and believers tend to label the same as ‘pride’, ‘trying to be god’ or ‘know better than god’, etc. On the flip side, believers call the transition from no faith → faith being ‘open’, being ‘found’, or god ‘enlightening their heart’, etc. whereas atheistic thinkers label that transition or persistence in belief things like ‘idiocy’, ‘blindness’, ‘superstition’, etc.

It’s quite interesting to observe the labels and conceptions we have of the opposing side!

My point is that I don’t think I would exactly call it courage, as this only comes after having one’s eyes opened to the possibility of truly being wrong. This is what happened for me. I started reading into the historicity of Jesus. I found it quite lacking. This will be a perfect example of two parties looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions. Here we go:

• Believers: wow! We have Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny, all non-believers and disinterested historians, writing about Jesus within the first century! That’s amazing evidence!
• Me: all Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny say is that Jesus lived, people think they saw him, and no he has a lot of followers? I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t they write anything about his life (parents, birth place, etc.)? Why not write about his miracles? Not even a mention of raising Lazarus or Jarius’ daughter? No wise sayings that he came out with that were revolutionary? Why didn’t they talk about the empty tomb?

Hopefully that makes sense. Questioning the historicity of Jesus came to me literally out of the blue. Not finding what I expected rattled me. I began to wonder. I then, at some point, really became open to the idea that it wasn’t true. Something like a light switch literally flipped and I began to see how it might not be true. I wasn’t sure, but I could at least contemplate that it wasn’t a concrete, guaranteed fact.

Now R Daneel…and only now, comes courage. Courage to risk causing emotional pain to friends, my wife, disagreements about raising our daughter, and all that.

Just an anecdotal story. These issues are real and not purely decided by everyone. I’m still looking, although as I alluded to, faith is not winning out. I am far more confident in defending natural, scientific explanations for almost everything vs. my former faith-based answers. For the rest… ‘I don’t know’ suits me just fine. But ‘I don’t know’ falls back on an unknown natural explanation. One can’t paint a huge supernatural mural and then when one person keeps asking questions and eventually ends at one that intersects something that should be manifest tangibly (like why evil exists, what Adam and Eve were given evolution, etc.) fall back on ‘it’s a mystery’. We have a plethora of reasons to come to expect natural explanations for things and thus ‘I don’t know’, with the understanding that it is, indeed, natural, is a wonderful answer. ‘It’s a mystery’ is a completely unsatisfying answer because it usually comes at junctions where I was just getting my hopes up for some evidence, non-refutable arguments, etc.

I, for one, am heavily toying with the idea that which side of the aisle we land on is extremely (more than any of us probably know) dependent on how we were raised. I cant’ tell you how many believer friends I’ve sought counsel and support from during this time who simply return blank stares to me. They can’t even begin to understand how I could even ask the questions I’m asking, much less reach my conclusions about them. It’s honestly astounding to me. Blank stares. The potential weight of my arguments and questions aren’t even grasped.

I truly wonder if it’s more or less about what’s pre-programmed in when we don’t ask any questions… and if we do we accept the answers of our parents with an open mind. At some point that mind shuts and the filter-of-reason begins working… but I think some things get in before reason even kicks in. It’s just a hypothesis, but I bet that we would find that most children with strong-faithed parents would grow up keeping their faith as long as nothing emotionally jarring occurred (molestation, death with no response from god, etc.).

This would explain the multitude of faithful believers of other faiths quite well. They can’t all just be shutting out the truth, right? Or do Christians actually think every non-Christian has heard the gospel and just bull-headedly rejected it in utter sin and pride? They’re purely unconvinced. I think the filter is up (which, aside from reason has been programmed to filter out any other religions) and no one gets in unless some truly amazing things take place that we may never know about.

For example, I couldn’t begin to tell you why I asked the question that changed it all for me. Literally I have no clue what primed the pump. Had just been to confession, am a regular participant in a small group, try to pray every morning… literally no idea.

Yet here I am!

 

[R_Daneel]

I like this line. It’s interesting that this thread has tapped into the question of how both sides look at the same ‘evidence’ and find different answers. I quoted you, R Daneel, because I do believe there is truth here, however I would caution the use of ‘courage’. I find that atheistic thinkers often call the tipping point of faith → no faith something akin to ‘courage’ or ‘perseverance’ and believers tend to label the same as ‘pride’, ‘trying to be god’ or ‘know better than god’, etc. On the flip side, believers call the transition from no faith → faith being ‘open’, being ‘found’, or god ‘enlightening their heart’, etc. whereas atheistic thinkers label that transition or persistence in belief things like ‘idiocy’, ‘blindness’, ‘superstition’, etc.

Now R Daneel…and only now, comes courage. Courage to risk causing emotional pain to friends, my wife, disagreements about raising our daughter, and all that.

Absolutely. To risk all that is held as precious and risk that one’s whole “world” was based upon a misunderstanding (I cannot find a more neutral word) is a tough and scary endeavor. In this sense I (as an atheist) am in a better position. If I am wrong, what is there to lose? If God is truly “just”, he will accept that I drew my conclusion on the available evidence, which is seriously “lacking”. If he is not just, then we all are in deep trouble.

It is interesting to read your path. For me the doubt started at a very young age. I was raised in a partially Protestant and partially Catholic family. The Catholic side was very devout, the other side lukewarm, at best. But I believed, since that is what I was told. Children have no “filters”, they accept (pretty much) anything.

The first “crack” started when I was praying (secretly, of course) for all sorts of “miraculous” powers. I did not want to have those powers for myself only, I genuinely wanted to help others. Needless to say, nothing happened. So I started to doubt, and that was that. But then again, one of my personality traits is “openness to new ideas”, which is literally off the scale. So I am willing to contemplate the other side’s words, but I will not accept any BS. I will not real arguments, if I ever see one.

 

[Viki63]

The first “crack” started when I was praying (secretly, of course) for all sorts of “miraculous” powers. I did not want to have those powers for myself only, I genuinely wanted to help others. Needless to say, nothing happened. So I started to doubt, and that was that. But then again, one of my personality traits is “openness to new ideas”, which is literally off the scale. So I am willing to contemplate the other side’s words, but I will not accept any BS. I will not real arguments, if I ever see one.

It looks as if your knowledge of Catholicism is that of a child, since that is when you began to think for yourself and decided not to believe. Perhaps you would be surprised if you were to look into what the faith actually teaches.
Nowhere in the Bible or church teaching are we promised that we can have miraculous powers for the asking. I have seen kids base their faith on that before, and it’s not a good idea. God wants us to seek him, and he will find us if we do. He wants a relationship with us, which we don’t get by saying, 'If God would grant me a miracle, I will believe in Him."
By the way, what do you make of the miracle of Lanciano, and the miracles at Fatima?
Have you looked into those?

 

[R_Daneel]

Nowhere in the Bible or church teaching are we promised that we can have miraculous powers for the asking.

Yes, exactly. One is supposed to pray for something that is either 1) impossible to verify (like praying for salvation) or 2) something that is very likely to happen anyhow (like praying for snow in the winter). God forbid to pray for something that is very likely not going to happen. (Read this and weep, or laugh as you wish. Originally it was published in the Onion: richarddawkins.net/articles/1481 … so don’t take it seriously. It is a spoof, written tongue-in-cheek.)

I have seen kids base their faith on that before, and it’s not a good idea.

Of course not, since it would destroy their faith. We are supposed to be like kids, drop our reasoning faculties, believe without (or even against) evidence. And when the kid sees through the BS, his trust is destroyed.

God wants us to seek him, and he will find us if we do. He wants a relationship with us, which we don’t get by saying, 'If God would grant me a miracle, I will believe in Him."

Yes, that would be “horrible”, if you could get some verification, wouldn’t it? How could one build a relationship with someone, who is known to exist? Someone, on whom one can rely in the case of need? Better to have a “hide and seek” game? And when, after (say) 60 years one still does not find anything, then be ready with the reply: “you did not seek long enough”, or “you did not seek honestly enough”, or “you did not really want to find anything”, or “none is so blind that does not want to see”… be as it may, always put the blame on the seeker… that will make him think.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

What is the most simple, easy-to-understand way to address these questions that are being discussed by a group of 13 year olds? Some of the kids are atheists, others are protestant and Catholic Christians. The Christian kids are having a hard time defending their position.

1. Why does God allow innocent children to be abused?
2. Why does He allow them to suffer?
3. Why does He allow the devil to possess innocent people, especially children?
4. We know that He gives us free will, and that bad things are caused by sin, but why does He allow other people’s sins and free will hurt an innocent child? Why doesn’t He protect them - they didn’t choose to sin - it was others who sinned. They should be the ones suffering for their own sins.

Help!!!

Does the earthly death of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, ring any bells?

 

[revert_jen]

I, for one, am heavily toying with the idea that which side of the aisle we land on is extremely (more than any of us probably know) dependent on how we were raised. I cant’ tell you how many believer friends I’ve sought counsel and support from during this time who simply return blank stares to me. They can’t even begin to understand how I could even ask the questions I’m asking, much less reach my conclusions about them. It’s honestly astounding to me. Blank stares. The potential weight of my arguments and questions aren’t even grasped.

This reaction may be because those who have grown up knowing and believing in God are astounded that you could get to be the age you are, coming from a believing household, without knowing God personally yet.

There could be some good arguments that my best friend doesn’t exist. She lives in another state, and isn’t home a lot so it’s hard to call her, and AFAIK she doesn’t have internet access. But any arguments that she doesn’t exist are going to fail with me because I KNOW her. I can tell the difference between having thoughts in my head alone and knowing someone, and I know her as a person and (to some extent) I know God as three people. (Well, call it two people, because I don’t know the Holy Spirit that way.)

Why should I listen to arguments about something being not true, if I already know it is true? Isn’t it a waste of time? Very good arguments can be made about lots of things that aren’t true. If I know they’re not true, why would I care about the arguments?

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

Yes, exactly. One is supposed to pray for something that is either 1) impossible to verify (like praying for salvation) or 2) something that is very likely to happen anyhow (like praying for snow in the winter). God forbid to pray for something that is very likely not going to happen.

That’s not a very good argument, because in general the atheist position is that the “likelihood curve” of an event closes into 100% chance once it happens. I can tell you (which is true) that I prayed very hard for a sick newborn of some friends of mine to come home before Thanksgiving, when the doctors were saying that he might not come home until Christmas. After my prayers, the baby was released from the hospital on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and got to spend Thanksgiving with his family (including extended family, who were from out of town and wouldn’t have been able to stay the whole time until Christmas.

Either you acknowledge that as answered prayer, or you do what atheists in my experience generally do, which is to say that the doctors were just being pessimistic, and it was always pretty likely that the baby would come home a month sooner than they said. This circular argument (God doesn’t exist, therefore if something prayed for happened, it was going to happen anyway, and so it is no evidence that God exists) is completely unconvincing to me.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

Trying to make up lousy arguments will probably backfire, because the other children will rip your answers into shreds.

(As for the adjective “lousy”, I did not direct that to the argument itself, only the grammar beings used.)

Well, since you posted your original statement about “lousy arguments” immediately after my very long post in which the grammar was pretty good (whatever the other faults of the post might be), one could be excused for not thinking that the phrase “lousy arguments” referred to grammar, which you didn’t in fact mention anywhere in your post. Also, if my experience of children is anything to go by, they will not rip anyone’s arguments to shreds as a result of bad grammar.

Of course, the biggest problem with complaining about people’s grammar on a forum (as extremely tempting as it is), is the thing seen above–you mustn’t have any glass in your own house. (“grammar beingS used?”)

–Jen

 

[KindredSoul]

What you say is true gold. Thank you. Indeed what is “convincing” to one person may be unconvincing to the other. But the issue does not have to stay unresolved. If the stance of one of them can be demonstrated to be false, if it contains incorrect basic assumptions, then “sticking” to one’s position is tantamount to “ostrich-politics”. There is a quote attributed to Jerry Falwell who allegedly said: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse my with facts!”.

While this can theoretically be true, the difficulty lies in determining in an objective fashion which side’s stance or basic assumptions are literally and objectively demonstrated to be false. The reason this is difficult is because neither side (by definition of still holding their position) is going to think (or show signs of thinking) their side has been demonstrated to be false, and without reading the mind of the other side, I cannot know if the side by whom I am unconvinced (remember, at this point that side unconvincing for me would be Atheism, just as for you it is religion) is resorting to Ostrich-politics or if they genuinely don’t think I have demonstrated what I think I have, and in fact think it is I who have resorted to Ostrich-politics. While we might say “If one side keeps giving arguments and one side doesn’t, that’s how we know,” this too is unreliable; even aside from the consideration that not having an argument doesn’t prove that one is certainly wrong, I have seen many debates in which both sides keep repeating themselves, talking right past each other, with each side thinking they are coming up with new arguments that the other side would “get” if they would only get “their head out of the sand”, when in fact both sides had ceased offering anything new some time ago. There is a thin line between “proving the other side wrong” and thinking you have done so, and my concern is that it is all but impossible to know on which side of the line you stand, since everyone who stands on the latter side by definition thinks he stands firmly on the former, and so anyone who thinks he stands on the former could in fact stand on the latter.

Now, it seems that for you the propostion “the world simply exists” is somehow deficient, that there are some attributes of the world which need further explanation, and this explanation will introduce the “unspeficed, generic god”. We don’t need to go any further on this, because it might derail the thread.

Yes, we won’t get into details; suffice to say, the flip side of what you point out is that there is a fundamental difference in spirit (as a concept) and material (or, at least, specific forms and conditions of material), and that difference, which is beyond the scope of the thread, accounts for the difference between the universe (which, as opposed to being simply “material”, is one big gigantic string of specific material forms and conditions, each causing the other each instant in rapid succession) simply exisiting forever and a spiritual being such as God simply existing forever.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

But I am curious, if (and this is huge IF) I could demonstrate that this “deficiency” is not real, would you be willing to discard your stance, or would you fall back to the revelation? (I am really curious, but if you think that this question is unaccepably intrusive, then please don’t answer.)

As you say, it is a huge “if” for me, and probably for most other Theists. But if you could demonstrate that, I have to admit–as I have given hints of in my previous post’s admiration for those willing to have faith even when “we don’t know”–that I would fall back on revelation. It’s not that I’d be saying “Since I don’t have an argument, I’ll fall back on revelation,” so much as I already fall back on revelation along with argument, so that if I didn’t have an argument, I’d still have the revelation upon which I already rely also; not to mention that I would hold faith that, even if my argument fell apart, there was some argument out there which perhaps no one has yet thought of that would hold true. This sort of perseverence in the face of doubt is what faith is all about, so I think this wouldn’t surprise you, and hopefully does not diminish your respect for those who choose this path. The only truly deadly enemy to deep faith (and even then, some will persevere) is a total lack of hope that something is true, i.e., when the religion is proven, beyond a doubt, to be absolutely impossible, even in laws-of-physics-defying theory. Of course, bolstering one’s faith with reason is healthy both spiritually and intellectually, as long as one doesn’t lose heart and lose faith if one finds one doesn’t know all the answers and arguments.

Yes, though for me it is not “really” puzzling. I have seen too many instances when people are so deeply attached to their own “framework” (so to speak), that they will deny anything and everything that would shake it. To start to doubt one’s own basic assumptions involves a huge amount of courage - and most people lack it.

My first paragraph in the first half of the post (before I had to split them) expresses my concern that we shouldn’t be so confident that those who disagree with us are only continuing to hold to their positions due to such reasons as attachment. It may only appear that way to those who do not agree with them. They themselves may even genuinely find it to be the other way around.

Even if you were right about the motive regarding some/many particular believers, it really depends on how you look at it as to whether doubt or faith, if either, is more courageous. It is monumentally courageous to have believed in something important to you despite all odds as well, depending on who you are. Atheists may not realize that priding oneself on being intelligent and logical is something that all types of people, including the religious, value. It takes quite a bit of courage to say: “No matter how unintelligent and illogical I may seem to be, no matter how much I may have to look like a gullible foolish child even to myself, I will not let go.” There may conceivably be Christians out there who do not care how foolish they look, and for them it would be no sacrifice at all. But for many of us, and maybe secretly even for the proudest radical fideists, we are cut to the core by the thought that others view us as irrational…there is no lack of courage when we are willing to accept that as a consequence of perseverence, nor can I possibly find this courage to be lesser than or inferior to the courage that you mention above.

Many people who lack the courage of which you speak may well hold the opposite but certainly not inferior courage of which I speak. Many people on both sides may have neither type of courage, but that would not depend on one’s belief or lack thereof. Point being, both faith and doubt can require courage, depending on the individual. Doubt has no monopoly or upper hand on this virtue. I’m not saying you meant to imply that, I’m just clarifying.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[jinminn]

Absolutely. To risk all that is held as precious and risk that one’s whole “world” was based upon a misunderstanding (I cannot find a more neutral word) is a tough and scary endeavor. In this sense I (as an atheist) am in a better position. If I am wrong, what is there to lose? If God is truly “just”, he will accept that I drew my conclusion on the available evidence, which is seriously “lacking”. If he is not just, then we all are in deep trouble.

I could not have put it better myself. I thought the very same thing when I decided to ‘step outside the bubble’ and try to prove Christianity to myself. I figured if god was the source of all truth, I would have nowhere to end up except for him. I echo similar sentiments about the possibility of hell. I merely want to establish a coherent world view and a system of morals that is founded in rationality and logic, not from divine command or a pick-and-chosen book. If I live my life in love of others, I can’t see burning forever because I ‘believed’ the wrong thing. ‘By their fruit shall ye know them.’ I believe it is actions and results that will count even if there is a god!

Needless to say, nothing happened. So I started to doubt, and that was that. But then again, one of my personality traits is “openness to new ideas”, which is literally off the scale. So I am willing to contemplate the other side’s words, but I will not accept any BS. I will not real arguments, if I ever see one.

Interesting. I am part of a charismatic Catholic community (I still attend, though I currently would say that I don’t believe) and I have prayed for the gift of tongues, prophecy, and healing. For some of these I’ve probably been prayed over 3-5 times for them. I’ve never been able to ‘sense’ that I had any of them. Tongues always felt like I was just doing it myself and I wondered what other people meant when they talked about just ‘letting god take over’. I’ve never thought for sure I had a ‘word from the lord’, etc. Anyway, it’s interesting you mention this… I’ve prayed for them, also in a sincere way, thinking that it would be the most humbling and amazing thing to deliver a message from Jesus himself to his people for their benefit… yet I did not receive the gift.

Lastly, I am also quite open. I’m an Myers-Briggs I/ENTP and am characterized as extremely objective and rational, which I find plays out extremely prominently in research. A lot of my believer friends are astonished that I have chosen to try and approach from the outside, suspending belief for the time being, but to me it doesn’t bother me to think of the possibility that Christianity has been a ‘misunderstanding.’ It’s simply a possibility to explore and so far seems more plausible than that all of my ‘common sense objections’ are false.

I think THIS is an excellent read for believers. It clearly and succinctly summarizes all of the improbabilities one must set aside to believe in a particular god. For as often as I’m asked to do things ‘with an open mind’, I wish believers would read that site ‘with an open mind.’ It’s really quite interesting once one begins contemplating how were I to blindfold you to the world and then ask you to describe what you think things would look like if an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, everlasting god who wanted nothing more than that every single person know him and believe in him were running the show… everything you predicted would be wrong.

I believe in our intellectual abilities, but we have some obsession with turning off these instinctive reasonings in submission to ancient texts and handed-down beliefs that defy multiple natural sciences and years of observation which speaks contrary to these beliefs.

 

[KindredSoul]

I think THIS is an excellent read for believers. It clearly and succinctly summarizes all of the improbabilities one must set aside to believe in a particular god. For as often as I’m asked to do things ‘with an open mind’, I wish believers would read that site ‘with an open mind.’ It’s really quite interesting once one begins contemplating how were I to blindfold you to the world and then ask you to describe what you think things would look like if an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, everlasting god who wanted nothing more than that every single person know him and believe in him were running the show… everything you predicted would be wrong.

I believe in our intellectual abilities, but we have some obsession with turning off these instinctive reasonings in submission to ancient texts and handed-down beliefs that defy multiple natural sciences and years of observation which speaks contrary to these beliefs.

I went to the link, looked at each and every objection, and there was a fundamental flaw with each one. This is not a thread to discuss every particular, but none of those points disproves religion, and many of them in the first category hinge upon the following assumption: God cares more about people believing period than He cares about them choosing Him through faith. Let us face it, if Christianity is true, then whether one likes it or not, there exists a God who values faith, and if He were to sweep in proving Himself universally or fixing all the problems that this link suggest He would fix, He would destroy or weaken the need for faith (ex: I’d need a lot less faith if there was only one religion in the whole world!). If Christianity is true, there is not a God who “wanted nothing more than that every single person know him and believe in him” regardless of what it takes, but a God who wants “nothing more than that every single person know him and believe in him” (or at least show the freely chosen willingness to do so) by faith. It is consistent with the logic of Christianity that He will not compromise that qualifier, at least not on a universal scale, just to make everyone believe. Once one realizes that God Himself, if real, desires us to have faith (at least as the normative way of coming to belief), the fact that He allows most of the difficulties presented in that article becomes expected, and is actually no more surprising if Christianity is true than if Atheism is.

As for the other categories of objection, many of them use subjective criteria to make a judgment, and not everyone agrees with the first premises upon which the objections depend. The practical category, in particular, relies on a lot of very subjective trade-offs as to which kind of belief would make one live a happier/better life. The Atheist who wrote this has clearly found happiness as an Atheist, and thinks Atheism is worth giving up those things that religion alone can offer (hope of eternal life, etc.), but Atheists who are very unhappy with the limits of Atheism are not unheard of, nor can one assume so hastily that every religious individual could be happy throwing away the unique eternal hopes of religious belief in return for the hopes of Atheism, which by definition are not eternal for the individual. We will not argue here or anywhere else about whether wanting eternal hopes is a legitimate and justifiable desire, or whether it is logical to be unhappy with Atheism’s temporal offerings and limits, because that is strictly a value/opinion judgment.

Basically, the whole article was an exercise in what I’ve been talking about previously in the thread, namely the blurring of the line between thinking you have proven something false or unjustified and actually having proven it false or unjustified. There was nothing there I have not seen before, yet I certainly got the feeling that the author of the article felt that anyone considering his points with an open mind would simply agree with Atheists. He thinks his points should objectively lead anyone to agree with him. This was a presumption, and it doesn’t hold true. It is an audacious and convenient presumption indeed to imply that one who reads the article and doesn’t become Atheist or doubt his religion simply doesn’t have enough of an open mind.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[jinminn]

…many of them in the first category hinge upon the following assumption: God cares more about people believing period than He cares about them choosing Him through faith.

Yet I can find many examples of Jesus’ healings where he specifically conducts a miracle for the sake of belief even if he reprimands those lacking the belief/faith. Though he reprimands Thomas, I don’t recall him being prevented from a first-hand empirical analysis. There is no denial of a specific healing request in all of the gospels. Jesus seems to extend this occurrence into the future via a promise: ‘Ask anything in my name…’ Yet we do not see this no-qualification-request-equals-provision anywhere today. No believers have reverted to putting it on the pray-er, namely that he lacked this or that, had unrepentant sin, prayed selfishly, or when all else fails ‘only god truly knows his reasons.’ Anyway, I just don’t think it’s quite that easy to simply proclaim that god cares not about belief primarily but about belief by faith. Seems like a pretty nuanced difference to me.

In any case, my primary evidence today is being left with a book that reads extremely poorly and am to take it on faith that it’s not the book’s problem, it’s my silly reasoning. Seriously, you think that it’s because of god wanting faith that the bible is not the most coherent and immaculate text in existence? For god to be perfect and have inspired humans to write it for him, I do, in fact, find it surprising that he would not make it the most amazing book ever, full of irrefutable sayings, doings, and morals such that no one could ever point out a flaw. Considering that it’s all we’re really left with… don’t you think that would help tip my scales?

Even if he doesn’t condone it (anymore), what would be the succulent gem of wisdom I am to take from ‘if a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, take her to her father’s door step and stone her’?

The practical category, in particular, relies on a lot of very subjective trade-offs as to which kind of belief would make one live a happier/better life.

I hear that. After the objective observations, it may or may not apply any more. No contest there from me.

Basically, the whole article was an exercise in what I’ve been talking about previously in the thread, namely the blurring of the line between thinking you have proven something false or unjustified and actually having proven it false or unjustified… It is an audacious and convenient presumption indeed to imply that one who reads the article and doesn’t become Atheist or doubt his religion simply doesn’t have enough of an open mind.

Well, easy there… Let’s recall that it’s more of an analysis of whether belief is warranted. The burden of proof is always on the one making positive truth claims about the world. He’s using the ‘surprisingness’ qualifier as his tool for analysis. If he makes his case, this warrants one to stay put in a baseline condition of no suspicion that supernatural forces exist. Nothing else we know of has been shown to be supernaturally guided, controlled, etc… why suspect as much from religious involvement and various gods in areas of wisdom, healing, etc.?

To close, I’m guessing that you do realize that faith is not blind. We throw this term around like blind faith is a commonplace event in our lives. You will disagree with my term ‘blind’, but in essence, with no evidence, this is what it would be. We exercise faith (at least from my observation) in areas where 1) we have the necessary supporting facts to warrant it (I believe the tides will behave as such because they’ve done so thousands of times before), 2) the fact bears little pertinence to our daily lives (I don’t fact check every story I hear my parents tell me when we catch up) or 3) we have little risk in believing (you won’t step off of a cliff if I tell you to have faith in an invisible bridge that’s there but you will give me $5 for a hat I tell you I’ll give you next time I see you).

Given this, we’re justified in asking for some evidence, right? Otherwise what substantiates our belief at all? Even if god is interested in faith-based belief vs. ‘regular’ belief, we still require evidence of something to put our faith in the rest. What will you point to? The bible? The historical resurrection? Why not anything in the here and now that is objective, irrefutable, agreed upon by everyone who sees it, etc. I can’t stand hearing people assume that unbelievers are simply ‘hard of heart’ or ‘hate god’ if they aren’t convinced by things which supposedly happened 2000 years ago or by a holy book which is riddled with inconsistencies and immoral prescriptions. This is an audacious (as you put it) assumption. God created us as beings who acquire knowledge via senses. Yet he is consumed with forcing me to deny those senses by valuing my blind belief in him. Another characteristic ‘surprising’ observation about this god.

Lastly, how well does our image-and-likness correlate to god’s? How well would it work to tell my wife that I had done everything I needed for her to believe in my love in the past years of our marriage and that I was officially retracting any tangible evidence any more. No gifts, no kisses, no acts of kindness. I won’t even speak to her directly as I think she should be able to sense who I am in the quiet of her heart.

Doesn’t work so hot, right? I will surely be informed of how poorly this analogy works because we’re so vastly different? Try taking what you say about how god interacts with us and applying it to our human relationships in any number of scenarios. My guess is that it will fail to meet current standards of expected treatment.

 

[KindredSoul]

Yet I can find many examples of Jesus’ healings where he specifically conducts a miracle for the sake of belief even if he reprimands those lacking the belief/faith. Though he reprimands Thomas, I don’t recall him being prevented from a first-hand empirical analysis. There is no denial of a specific healing request in all of the gospels. Jesus seems to extend this occurrence into the future via a promise: ‘Ask anything in my name…’ Yet we do not see this no-qualification-request-equals-provision anywhere today.

It is not surprising that Jesus would be more likely to answer any request made of Him during His earthly sojourn, although even then He only answered the requests made of Him in person, a very small percentage, without a doubt, of all those in Israel, let alone the whole world; had he not done anything, how would we even begin to have a chance to believe specifically in Christianity? While God cares about faith, He wouldn’t expect us to pull it from nowhere. Jesus’ life and miracles, and the historical circumstances that sprang from them, these provide a basis. Obviously, they leave room for doubt among anyone who wasn’t a first person witness, or else everyone would believe. That’s the balance: Thanks to Jesus proving that something happened (whether it’s a super elaborate hoax such as has never been replicated, or it’s exactly what we believe) we have a basis for belief that isn’t just “made up off the top of our heads,” yet we still need faith. As for “Ask anything in my name,” there would clearly be conditions…if we take His words at face value, without allowing any qualifications, one could well ask God for something evil. There is a line to be drawn at what God will do, and this makes prayer conditional by definition. Yet once it is admitted that God logically would have conditions, there is no reason to draw the line where you tell me it should be drawn. You draw that line where you wish, but don’t presume that I am unjustified if I do not agree with you that this line should be so lax as to allow the results of prayer to be scientifically observable (as it would be, by nature, if the result of praying was a sure-fire confirmation of the truth).

Anyway, I just don’t think it’s quite that easy to simply proclaim that god cares not about belief primarily but about belief by faith. Seems like a pretty nuanced difference to me.

Not to me.

In any case, my primary evidence today is being left with a book that reads extremely poorly and am to take it on faith that it’s not the book’s problem, it’s my silly reasoning. Seriously, you think that it’s because of god wanting faith that the bible is not the most coherent and immaculate text in existence?

Yes.

For god to be perfect and have inspired humans to write it for him, I do, in fact, find it surprising that he would not make it the most amazing book ever, full of irrefutable sayings, doings, and morals such that no one could ever point out a flaw. Considering that it’s all we’re really left with… don’t you think that would help tip my scales?

For one, the Church does not believe that the Bible was literally dictated word for word, passage for passage from God’s mouth to the pens of mortals. There can be inconsistencies and, especially in the Old Testament, flawed ethics: For example, Jesus explicitly said that the OT morality on allowing divorce was flawed. As for tipping the scales, I find that the Christian God wants us to have faith, no matter how much you may disagree personally, and I do not believe He wants to tip the scales so as to make faith unnecessary. Unless God made every religion’s texts flawless (which would defeat the purpose of what you are saying) then faith would hardly be necessary when Christianity’s texts shine forth with obvious prophecies, beautiful poetics, and (maybe) even scientific knowledge not accessible back then.

Well, easy there… Let’s recall that it’s more of an analysis of whether belief is warranted.

Warranted as in “Anyone can believe through proof alone?” Admittedly, no. Warranted as in “You don’t have to be an illogical idiot in order to believe?” Yes. Warranted as in “There is hope that these things are true?” Yes. Warranted as in “Obviously modern Christians aren’t making this religion up and are basing it on the fact that something clearly happened, even if believers and unbelievers disagree about what?” Yes.

The burden of proof is always on the one making positive truth claims about the world.

But the burden of proof, as in “Use the right arguments and you will almost certainly convince the person”, assumes that the believer thinks faith shouldn’t be required, that the believer thinks he should be able to convince someone with sheer logic alone. We don’t believe that.

He’s using the ‘surprisingness’ qualifier as his tool for analysis.

Since I disagree with you about God not caring to destroy or weaken the need for faith, there is nothing surprising to me about the way the world is, even with me believing in my religion.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

To close, I’m guessing that you do realize that faith is not blind. We throw this term around like blind faith is a commonplace event in our lives. You will disagree with my term ‘blind’, but in essence, with no evidence, this is what it would be.

Indeed, Christian faith is not blind. Apologetics abounds in reasons why we believe. Those reasons aren’t irrefutable proof (that would destroy the need for faith) but they are a basis for believing, a basis for not thinking someone just made this religion up on the fly 2000 years ago.

Given this, we’re justified in asking for some evidence, right?

Some, yes, if even only for the sake of being able to even know about Christianity as anything more than a story like any other (i.e., we know that something about Christianity, whether it’s true or not, set it apart from a fiction author’s work in the minds of even its earliest believers). Your presence on an Apologetics site suggests that you well realize that there is “some” evidence. That it is not good enough for you to risk putting faith in does not mean it shouldn’t count as evidence when plenty of people do in fact consider it worthy.

Otherwise what substantiates our belief at all? Even if god is interested in faith-based belief vs. ‘regular’ belief, we still require evidence of something to put our faith in the rest. What will you point to? The bible? The historical resurrection?

While simply saying “the Bible” and “the historical resurrection” are oversimplifying things, yes, they do contain the keys which, along with the surrounding circumstances, unlock indicators, the evidence (though not proof) of our beliefs.

Why not anything in the here and now that is objective, irrefutable, agreed upon by everyone who sees it, etc.

Because that’s not necessary if a person is willing to have faith in the first place.

I can’t stand hearing people assume that unbelievers are simply ‘hard of heart’ or ‘hate god’ if they aren’t convinced by things which supposedly happened 2000 years ago or by a holy book which is riddled with inconsistencies and immoral prescriptions. This is an audacious (as you put it) assumption.

That’s all good and well: I don’t assume that. They may not display the same level of unconditional love for our God, clearly, or else they would be so willing to believe in Him (so as to love Him) that they would seize even on the slightest hope of His existence. Asking for proof (or “more” evidence) after all, is a condition. Almost everyone has conditions, but it is a logical fact that the person who puts less and less burden of proof on our God before loving in Him is showing more and more unconditional love for Him, because by definition they are not putting as many conditions on serving and loving Him as the one who puts more burden of proof. The person who is totally unconvinced intellectually but believes and loves God on pure blind faith, for instance, demonstrates even more unconditional love than someone like me, who has made a choice based on a mix of faith and reason (unless it turns out that I would believe even without reason, but only God Himself can read my heart deeply enough to know–I hope I love Him that much, but only He knows if I do at this point). But that doesn’t mean that all of the unbelievers “hate God” or are “hard of heart;” some may well be, and such people likely exist, if scripture is any indication…but that doesn’t mean this is universally true, and I don’t go around judging as much.

God created us as beings who acquire knowledge via senses. Yet he is consumed with forcing me to deny those senses by valuing my blind belief in him. Another characteristic ‘surprising’ observation about this god.

To me it is neither surprising nor do I find Him unjustified. If He exists, then He created me. And I am so very grateful for existing that I find Him justified in whatever purpose He assigns me, without it being any hindrance to His good qualities. If He wants faith from me in the face of a billion billion reasons for doubt (just for the sake of argument do I number them so highly) then I find Him justified. That’s apparently my purpose, then; it seems, from my own understanding of our Faith, to be why I exist at all. I am even immortal, never to cease existing! I even have the chance to experience eternal bliss! I have no qualms with my Creator defining my purpose however He sees fit, no matter how difficult, in return for such an amazing chance (it even balances, in my esteem, the risk of eternal Hell), and for that matter in return for the privilege (that He never had to give us) of existing in the first place.

Lastly, how well does our image-and-likness correlate to god’s? How well would it work to tell my wife that I had done everything I needed for her to believe in my love in the past years of our marriage and that I was officially retracting any tangible evidence any more. No gifts, no kisses, no acts of kindness. I won’t even speak to her directly as I think she should be able to sense who I am in the quiet of her heart.

If her very purpose of existence was to love you by faith, then those trials would be a very ideal crucible in which she could fulfill that purpose in shining triumph. Of course, that isn’t even apparently the purpose of her existence by any reasoning, and that is why the analogy doesn’t apply.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[greylorn]

This is the most powerful and poignant thread I’ve ever chosen to address. Although my custom is to address threads from an antagonistic perspective, whatever I write here will come from empathy and extreme sadness. Involuntary emotional biological reactions, which I hate. I’ve been there, and it was not fun, but it was okay.

I will support you in any way I possibly can, and do not expect that you will welcome my support. That, too, is okay.

I’ll begin by describing your position, using an analogy.

The winner of the annual Superbowl is awarded the Lombardi Trophy, named after the extraordinary coach who brought the lowly Green Bay Packer football team, playing in a town of 59,000 people (not even a city) from having the worst record of any professional team in history to successive championships, culminating in the first two Superbowl victories.

But times change. Vince Lombardi’s finest team from the 60’s would lose to the worst team in today’s NFL-- unless Vince rose from the dead to coach it once again.

Lombardi is a good modern-day analogy for Jesus Christ (people in Green Bay still see him as a miracle worker), and the legacy he left behind is a fair analogy for Christianity. The city of Green Bay, with a total population about 30% larger than the capacity of its football stadium, a tiny city that would only be recognized as a suburb of New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and other big cities, continues to believe that its team will win more Superbowls.

The citizens of Green Bay demonstrate their faith by filling their stadium for preseason exhibition games (unheard of in big cities), The annual Bishops Charities game, proceeds going to Catholic charities, is always sold out a year in advance, and when it rains on game day you cannot see any spectators— just umbrellas.

The team survives because of the power of belief and the effectiveness of a trinity of principles.

1. 
   *]Quality of players, coaches, and management.
   
   *]A tradition of belief in fundamental principles— for Lombardi, the team that blocked and tackled the best, would win the game.
   
   *]The ability to change. Lombardi knew the difference between fundamentals and dogma. He had plays he liked, which his team had practiced and could execute well (dogma). But he knew that opposing coaches would find defensive strategies, so he kept developing new plays and different schemes. Lombardi changed with the game, but never compromised his fundamentals.
   
   He knew the difference between fundamentals and dogma. The modern Church cannot distinguish between the two— but you must.
   
   Your kids are stuck defending ideas developed by guys who lived long ago, and who thought that the earth was flat. They are defending dogma instead of fundamentals. No surprise that they are getting their butts handed back to them on a long stick.
   
   If Vince Lombardi arose from the grave to coach the 2010 Packer team, they’d win— because he would nail down their fundamentals and devise new and different tactics.
   
   If Jesus Christ were to reappear, his team would win for the exact same reasons. He’d not be teaching the same things as He taught 2000 years ago to a quasi-organized city living off fishermen and sheepherders. He’d have a computer and an Ipod like everyone else— but he’d use them differently. He’d address the problems of our day in terms that made exquisite common sense.
   
   He’d have to find a better way to establish credibility than by killing off fig trees, resurrecting the apparently dead, and restoring sight to the blind. Because He opened up those possibilities 2000 years ago, we can do those things ourselves. He would find even better tricks. His parables would be for our day, simple and tactical, like Lombardi’s strategies.
   
   Christ didn’t teach any dogma. He taught fundamentals and tactics, and provided the strategy. The Church which followed invented some dogma, but was so proud of its inventions that it neglected to install a dogma-removal mechanism. The Church’s fundamentals are solid, which is why it exists. But its dogma is rigid, and cannot adapt to change. Therefore it is losing the battle, and your 13-year old kids are the pawns and foot soldiers being cut down.
   
   What is sad, to me, is that they are being cut down by inferior soldiers fighting from a false, but tactically effective, battle plan.
   
   So, teach your kids to block and tackle. Do not give them any plays, until you learn some new ones. Do not ask them to defend Church dogma. It was invented by people who thought that the earth was flat, and is not logically defensible. Might as well ask them to play against the Green Bay Packers without pads, wearing Chicago Bears uniforms.
   
   If any of them want a new set of strategies or tactics, I’m willing to help. Your job is to develop their fundamentals. Whatever happens, that will serve them well. But if you seriously intend to fight the battle between good and evil, do not keep sending these young soldiers into a fray wearing robes and wielding sticks, executing a battle plan devised by fat men in silk robes who haven’t had a new idea in their entire lives, against an army decked out in kevlar skivvies, carrying serious firepower, and directed by evil people with well-considered plans.
   
   There is an old book, “The Soul of Anna Klane,” which offers an alternative strategy in the context of a good story. Long out of print, but available on the internet.

 

[KindredSoul]

So, teach your kids to block and tackle. Do not give them any plays, until you learn some new ones. Do not ask them to defend Church dogma. It was invented by people who thought that the earth was flat, and is not logically defensible. .

The best a non-Catholic can do for the OP, in context of her question and questions like it, is pray for her or (if nonreligious) wish her luck in defending and upholding that which she genuinely finds to be true and important…not try to talk her right out of her (fully Catholic) Faith. If she is Catholic, the odds are that she simply disagrees with propositions that say Catholic Dogma is irreconcilably illogical or akin to “flat earth” beliefs, even if she acknowledges that she may not have the arguments. She also would probably disagree, as a Catholic, that Jesus wouldn’t teach our Dogmas if He were around in humanoid bodily form today. Yes, He might go about it differently (infallibility only means the Church’s teachings are safeguarded, not Her methods), but He would be able, in His brilliance, to do so without betraying one “jot or tittle” of Catholic theology or Dogma, and I think it does Him an injustice to think that the only way He Himself could make our religion relevant to the world would be by abandoning significant parts of our beliefs. To use your own analogy, it would be like saying that Vince Lombardi, if he were alive today, would only be talented enough to win because he was willing to break the very rules of football (which would be, of course, cheating, and not respectable at all), analogous to Jesus abandoning Catholic Dogma. It does his memory no honor.

Kindness is appreciated, but kind advice that nontheless requires her to abandon her Catholic Faith (and rejecting Catholic Dogma is, at most, Protestantism, not Catholicism) is not the aid she sought. I would never, for instance, suggest that the solution to a vegeterian Hindu’s protein deficiency was to eat meat. As long as the person believes in Hinduism, such a thing is presumptuous and possibly (unintentionally) insulting, since it entertains the possibility that the person in question is so lax in his faith that he will abandon it at merely the suggestion of an unbeliever that his faith is illogical.

On a related and relevant note, I find the implication that Catholics faithful to Dogma do not think for themselves is quite at odds with my experience. We do trust the Church, just as I for instance trust medical science to know about how to stay healthy than I do, but this doesn’t mean we are only Catholic because we do not think for ourselves. I live in an area where Catholicism is not popular, in a world where Catholic values and Dogmas are, just as you provide an example by your own opinion, considered increasingly outdated. If I didn’t think for myself in order to come to this religion in the first place, I would not be part of a religion that–as it is truly practiced and believed–is so very against the grain in my daily experiences and living that I must specifically not let the people surrounding me do my thinking for me if I am to persevere. If I was letting others do all my thinking for me, I would let the very un-Catholic (ranging to anti-Catholic) norm surrounding me sweep me away.

Thank you for your empathy and intentions, and I really do sense that you want to help the OP. But I have always found it puzzling when a person of (any) Faith asks a question, and clearly means it in context of “Without abandoning or compromising my Faith,” and someone gives the person advice that requires said Faith to be abandoned, or at least compromised. If one has nothing to add that does not require the OP to abandon her fully Catholic Faith, one is not offering her any useful help that takes into account where she is coming from. An unbeliever can conceivably step outside of himself and offer aid in complete context of being faithful to Catholic dogma, but such a one is rare to find. A Catholic’s question, when it concerns what a Catholic should do in such and such situation, should be addressed in a Catholic context, or it should not be addressed at all. In other words, an unbeliever answering a Catholic’s question of this nature should take your no doubt much-appreciated empathy one step further in order to put themselves in Catholic shoes and ask: “How would I answer this if I were a practicing, believing Catholic?” Once that level of in-our-shoes empathy is employed, the answers will fit the context of the question being asked.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[chariscath]

What is the most simple, easy-to-understand way to address these questions that are being discussed by a group of 13 year olds? Some of the kids are atheists, others are protestant and Catholic Christians. The Christian kids are having a hard time defending their position.

1. Why does God allow innocent children to be abused?
2. Why does He allow them to suffer?
3. Why does He allow the devil to possess innocent people, especially children?
4. We know that He gives us free will, and that bad things are caused by sin, but why does He allow other people’s sins and free will hurt an innocent child? Why doesn’t He protect them - they didn’t choose to sin - it was others who sinned. They should be the ones suffering for their own sins.

Help!!!