And how would one accomplish this? Because to ‘break’ the laws of physics, one must not be contained by the laws of physics. It’s kind of like the Matrix. Those who don’t know they are in the Matrix cannot move/act as those who know what the Matrix is. It takes someone from outside the Matrix to be able to do those things.
First, if you are sincere about that, I strongly urge you to look into the miraculous healings at Lourdes. This isn’t just a simple Church declaration - it requires full medical histories from the regularly treating doctors, annual observation (I believe for 5 years following) in Lourdes by doctors there (people who became doctors of their own right, and then began to work in Lourdes), and several other pretty stiff requirements before a miraculous healing would be acclaimed. Over 60 of these have been declared, and all occurred in the waters at a grotto, which sprang up instantly from mud and weeds, where the Virgin Mary appeared not only to St. Bernadette, but to the whole village of townspeople. If that isn’t a proven miracle that points towards the Catholic faith, I’m not sure what else could be considered one if Lourdes would be ruled out.
It’s not insane to not believe in supernaturals, there no evidences for thor, zeus, appollo, Jupiter, allah, Jehovah, demons, angels, heavens, hell, or other religious stories. Most religions claim that they are the truth, but there is no extraordinary evidence that indicates that any of these religions is true, which one to believe? I don’t want to believe blindly, I quite see no reason to believe in any of them because there is thousands of many reasons whether in sciences, logic, philosophy, history, sociology and ethics that made me figure out that all these religions were a part of a great collection of ancient historical mythologies made up by us, humans and many times to serve our desires and fill our lack of knowledge ( where knowledge ends, religion begins).
Yes, people do think this way, with some justification, for it’s a natural connection to make. They think this way because they do not understand that God is not bound to any one religion in this way. It’s as if the Creator of the Universe cannot do what he wishes, when and to whom he pleases. There have been times when I remonstrated him for this, but his answer is always, “They are my children too.”
Just a minor misunderstanding due mostly to this form of communication. :tiphat:
Individuals may act as they think best for them. But can you imagine if no one had stood against Hitler’s armies with armies of their own? Turning the other cheek is not about warfare, it is about being personally insulted. Gandhi was not fighting against a madman like Hitler but against social injustice that needed a different kind of remedy. Jesus never taught that waging just wars are inherently evil. He told Peter to put up his sword for two reasons: 1) Christ was showing that his Church would not conquer souls through such means, and 2) it was not Peter’s time to be martyred, which would certainly have happened because he was not warrior, but a fisherman who would have been arrested and killed. Governments are not the Church and are free to defend themselves, their peoples and allies in a just war.In my opinion, there is always alternatives to wars and violence, John Paul two didn’t participate in the WW2 or in the polish resistance, he stood up against Nazism in other non violent ways, same for Maximilian Kolbe, or Jehovah witnesses , or secular pacifists, or Gandhist revolution in other times… In this, I support what the biblical Jesus said to Peter when he was attacking the Roman soldiers, to put his sword back in it’s place, even that they believed they were right for their stand against oppression, they " turned the other cheek", I know it’s very hard to do, but that what makes me love it more!
Back to the topic, anyone of you went thru a miracle?
We’ve gone off topic here, but I’ll just say that I agree with your post except I have to address the part I bolded.
I believe you misunderstood me. My point was that God does not prove Himself as a certainty through miracles or other signs because that would leave every single sane person to believe in Him, the same way that once you learned what the sun was, you never questioned what it was you were seeing. Since God wants us to choose to love Him, He does not reveal Himself to us with no room for doubt that He is the Lord. To do so would violate our free will, which God would never do. Therefore, it requires faith to love Him and believe in Him.
I’m sorry if I didn’t understand you well, but I was confused because some think that those who don’t believe in whatever religion you offer do it out of fantasies, they don’t recognize that there is people who are not convinced in their faiths.
I think all definitions are arbitrary.
I agree with you that it wouldn’t be very clever to start changing the meanings of words that already have a meaning that everybody knows. It would lead to confusion indeed. But we can, if only for the sake of it, speculate about whether the definitions we are using are really convenient.
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
If by “conflictive” you mean a contradiction, I don’t see how there is any contradiction in saying that God is beyond nature. Nature is the physical world of matter and energy (a widely accepted definition). Since God is not physical or material and created the material universe, it makes no sense to speak of him as part of nature. On the contrary this would lead to a contradiction. It would mean that you would be saying “God made nature, but God is a part of nature” which is just nonsense.
If it is really the case that many modern scientists don’t want to believe in God because they are afraid God would make their work pointless (which I am inclined to doubt), then their logic is terrible.
This is one of the worst aspects of materialism. You are right, if materialism is true and nature is all there is, then it is hard to see how we are more than collections of particles, on the same level of reality as a stone. In the case, we have no value, meaning, or purpose. A stone is valuable only because it is useful for something, as a means to an end.
First, angels are different creations from humans - they are without bodies, and their order of creation was to maintain itself in Heaven. Therefore, the rejection of God was their free will choosing to rebel. Humans, on Earth, are separated from God. Whereas the situation of the angels was to know God’s existence and choose to be a part of it, humans are given the opportunity to use their free will to choose to believe in and love God, or to reject His love, and even His existence.I’m sorry if I didn’t understand you well, but I was confused because some think that those who don’t believe in whatever religion you offer do it out of fantasies, they don’t recognize that there is people who are not convinced in their faiths.
About free will, I think it’s contrary to what you mentioned, a true free will would be when God appears to everyone equally, In Heaven Lucifer was with god and disobeyed him, but other angels accepted him, you can’t say that I for example have a free will of rejecting or accepting God because I don’t even believe there is a god, a true free will would be when you don’t even have a single doubt that a God exists and make up your choice.
Following what you’re saying, God (Jesus) appeared to many prophets, saints, did they loose their free will?
I thought you would ask that question, these barriers come before accepting a miracle as a sign of god not after, it’s not like when someone screams “Oh miracle” I should believe it quickly, my hardest one is the 4th. If people from other faiths don’t accept Catholic miracles, be easy on me, I don’t even believe!
Do you have any links about the miracles you mentioned? I have some knowledge about Lourdes, but I thought you could present what you believe to be of the most powerful ones. Thanks.
Thanks, I’ll see what those links.
And I hope that the Christian would do what I have done when I have had questions about faith in God, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I do an examination of my mind and my heart, I take all that I know and determine if I believe in God. I feel enough strongly enough that He does, and so I then look at the path by which I came to know God, and whether that path was consistent with the truths revealed by God.
Well, it actually could be the case that we have no meaning or purpose at all beyond those which we choose. As for value, this is not an universal magnitude. I can talk about what value has a stone for me, which can be different from that which it has for you, but it makes no sense to ask what is the actual value of a stone - or a person.
I said I consider that a stone and myself are on the same level of reality. This is not a belief. It’s an assumption, a way of thinking which serves me well in the lack of further evidence. I will be delighted to make the effort to change this way of thinking if I ever find the change is appropriate.
I think we’re gone off the topic but answering you, Pascal’s Wager fails on many levels:
We are a little off-topic, but I’ll respond.
Which is a way of saying that human beings have no objective value and are valuable in the same way the stone is, as a means to an end. Is this then your opinion, that human beings are valuable in the same way as a stone, as a means to an end?
You can call it an assumption if you prefer, it doesn’t really change my question. I was curious because you admitted you had no reason at all for thinking the way you do (holding your assumption), you simply do. I was curious that given you have no evidence, why do you make that assumption and not another one?
atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsChoose.htm
"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.