Are we absolutely sure that Catholicism is true?

[ericc]

I find it…curious…that you believe in a religion and an entire belief system and base your life on it, but…you have not investigated its facts?

So far, we cannot factually “prove” that any religion is “true”. If we could, everyone would be that religion.
We can’t even prove that a man named Jesus existed! Though most historians and scholars do believe and agree he did.

.

I am curious to know what you would constitute as proof? Non-Christian historians wrote about Jesus. Why would they made it up? Many Christians died for their faith. For what purpose if they didn’t believe that such a person exist? It wasn’t a scam that made early Christians rich or materially better of. Early Christianity had so many enemies that wanted to kill off the movement if they could. Yet it survived till now.

If it is by popular vote, dead or living, billions of people believed Jesus exist in whatever forms they prefer. Christians and Muslims number in the billions. So if numbers and history can not provide the evidence, what proof in what form is needed? I have heard of extraordinary proof required for extraordinary claims but yet to grasp what is indeed required as proof. There are some that ask for God’s immediate appearance in front of them or perform some miracle as condition to believe (I have heard that line before).If God did that, then you are already compelled to believe (per Peter Kreeft) but that is not what He wants.

This is why all religions are based on “faith”.

You have just defined religion. No religion can/should compel you to believe. Most religions don’t need you although they try to persuade you. At the end of your lifetime, you need to persuade for yourself that

a) God exist
b) you need God and you want to know him

if a) and b) is true then c) is the next step.

c) You seek him.

I guess a reasonable person would want to investigate what billions of people do believe even if he finds it disagreeable for whatever reason. And ask himself honestly “what if I am wrong/biased/misunderstood/think I am smarter than the rest of them?” Do I need to be 100% sure before I commit or whatever you know is good enough to start the journey and learn along the way. You owe yourself that. No one owes you. As for me, I am sure Catholicism is true. Borrowing from Peter Kreeft again, “What else is there?” I did not know everything about my faith when I started and I still don’t know much today. I am just a simpleton trying to know more about my God. Many times my head hurts going through these postings here.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Show me the man that says he never doubts his faith, and I’ll show you a liar.

You think Pope Benedict doubts his faith?

So anyone who disagrees with you is a liar? Grow up!!!

 

[Skeptic92]

You think Pope Benedict doubts his faith?

So anyone who disagrees with you is a liar? Grow up!!!

Pope Benedict confessed in his book ‘Introduction to Christianity’ (want me to get the exact quote, and page reference for you?) that he shall always have doubts, and that this is only natural due to the epistemic position we find ourselves in.

You my friend need to grow up. The ability to demonstrate the intellectual honesty required to acknowledge that the faculties of the human reason and knowledge are deficient and so will always leave room for doubt/scepticism is far more grown up than speaking about something you have demonstrated no understanding of.

I called anyone that makes a claim to certainty a liar, which is a perfectly rational position as it is widely noted true certainty of fact is all but impossible for the human reason. Maybe, instead of speaking on a subject you know nothing about- could I advise you do some basic reading? You should start with Pope Benedicts book ‘Introduction to Christianity’, and then move on to some Epistemology but baby steps.

 

[Della]

I can sympathize with your frustration because I am feeling frustration too.

Well, I’m not frustrated, but I do believe you are.

From your response I take it you are saying it is what it is. It’s paradoxacal but the human brain is full of paradoxes so I can live with more of them.

Christianity is indeed full of paradoxes–you should read G. K. Chesterton on the topic. But, this isn’t one of them. These cherry-picked statements from various Church documents are all addressing the same thing–those who deliberately turn their backs on the Church. That is all there is to it. They are not addressing those, who through no fault of their own, have not and could not have heard the Gospel. Many people have confused the two concepts for various reasons, some innocent and others not, but truly, that’s all there is to it, when it’s been boiled down to the essentials.

There is no contradiction here, only a misunderstanding about what the documents are saying and who they are addressing. Anti-Catholics gather cherry-picked statements such as these precisely to give the impression that the Church has changed its teachings or is being disingenuous about its teachings. As one who used to use the same tactics before I was a Catholic I know exactly what they are doing and why–mine is the voice of experience. Knowing a bit of real history helps here, along with studying these things in their proper context.

Thank you again for the time and effort with your responses.

No problem. I’m an old woman with a computer and a B. A. in religious education, who can’t help posting on CAF.

 

[Contarini]

I think it is how someone views the alleged contradictions and the complexity of the rational for them which leaves much room for debate. I doubt the CC would agree because it, and I believe to its detriment, does not allow debate by laymen or even much of the clergy…

As Della said, that just shows how unaware you are of the vast amount of debate that goes on.

Edwin

 

[system]

Oh yea!

 

[Contarini]

You think Pope Benedict doubts his faith?

So anyone who disagrees with you is a liar? Grow up!!!

It depends on what you mean by “doubt.” In the traditional definition, doubting implies a lack of adherence. In that sense I’m sure Pope Benedict and Pope Francis don’t doubt.

But if “doubt” means “having questions about the complexities of the universe that are not fully resolved by one’s present understanding of Church teaching,” or if it means “having feelings of uncertainty and perplexity,” then I agree that any thoughtful person with any degree of depth will have such doubts, unless perhaps they are extremely holy (I’m not sure about that part one way or the other).

I don’t agree that anyone who doesn’t have such existential doubts is a liar, but I think such people are, with all due respect, most often a bit shallow in their engagement with the darkness and complexity of life.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Go read the first chapter of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVIs book ‘Introduction to Christianity’ he deals at length with one I’ve just said. He gives what amounts to the same conclusion but more eloquently put.
.

Yes, that chapter is one of the reasons I am still a Christian, and one of the reasons I have always been a fan of Pope Benedict and have been very frustrated with how he’s been caricatured by both his supporters and his opponents.

Edwin

 

[Della]

It depends on what you mean by “doubt.” In the traditional definition, doubting implies a lack of adherence. In that sense I’m sure Pope Benedict and Pope Francis don’t doubt.

But if “doubt” means “having questions about the complexities of the universe that are not fully resolved by one’s present understanding of Church teaching,” or if it means “having feelings of uncertainty and perplexity,” then I agree that any thoughtful person with any degree of depth will have such doubts, unless perhaps they are extremely holy (I’m not sure about that part one way or the other).

I don’t agree that anyone who doesn’t have such existential doubts is a liar, but I think such people are, with all due respect, most often a bit shallow in their engagement with the darkness and complexity of life.

Edwin

Indeed. It’s a part of our fallen human condition to have the kinds of doubts you outlined. I’ve looked into the large expanse of stars at night and thought about how huge the universe is and how insignificant we all are down here with our petty squabbles and whatnot and I’ve thought along with the Psalmist, “What is man that you are mindful of him?” Of course that question implies there is someone listening to the question, but still, there are times when it seems like it’s all for nothing and we’re all just worm food waiting to be served up. What draws us back from such moments is the knowledge that we are loved by God. In our worst circumstances we know that we are loved by God. That’s really want it all comes down to, IMHO.

 

[Contarini]

This may be the essence of your skepticism, not mine.

You cannot believe that Christ is God and at the same time believe for a moment that you might be wrong. Either you believe in your certainty or you don’t. You cannot have it both ways. It was, I recall, Aquinas who disputed Siger of Brabant’s heresy that a thing might be true in religion and at the same time false in philosophy.

Which is of course completely irrelevant. No one is saying that it’s philosophically false to believe in God.

One cannot believe in God and at the same time believe that God might not exist. Do you understand how silly that sounds?

Yes, I do understand how silly that sounds to people who have never stared into the abyss.

I am very happy that both living Popes are clearly people who have, and that Catholicism generally has a very healthy sense of the abyss. I’m sorry that some folks find it helpful to mimic Protestant fundamentalism in their manner of approaching the Faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am curious to know what you would constitute as proof? Non-Christian historians wrote about Jesus. Why would they made it up?

The “did Jesus exist” question is a bit of a red herring, because as DaddyGirl said the vast majority of historians do believe that Jesus existed–the real question is how far the historic Jesus corresponds to the accounts in the Gospels. However, most of the non-Christian references to Jesus amount to saying “Christians believe in this guy” and don’t constitute independent confirmation. The only likely exception, it seems to me, is Josephus, and Josephus’ account as we have it has almost certainly been interpolated by Christians, raising some doubt as to whether the whole passage was inserted by Christians (I think it wasn’t, for what it’s worth).

Many Christians died for their faith. For what purpose if they didn’t believe that such a person exist?

I don’t think anyone suggests that those Christians who died knew that Jesus wasn’t real. (Bear in mind that the accounts we have of the deaths of the Apostles are themselves early Christian legend for the most part.)

Again, I don’t think the deniers of Jesus’ historicity have sound historical ground. There’s much more question about how far the Gospel portraits of Jesus are accurate.

If it is by popular vote, dead or living

Why would it be?

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You should start with Pope Benedicts book ‘Introduction to Christianity’, and then move on to some Epistemology but baby steps.

Your insults are getting to be legion. Oh well, I shall ignore your posts since you resort to insults when logic fails you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m sorry that some folks find it helpful to mimic Protestant fundamentalism in their manner of approaching the Faith.

And I’m very sorry that some Episcopalians like to mimic rank skepticism in the declaration of their faith. You are getting to be notorious for that. And so predictable.

 

[Skeptic92]

Your insults are getting to be legion. Oh well, I shall ignore your posts since you resort to insults when logic fails you.

You mean you’re telling me to ‘grow up’ because I actually have studied the position, and have come to an informed conclusion (based upon logic, which you ignored and then simply insulted me) contrary to your, frankly illogical, position?

Don’t try to take the moral high ground, when you were the first to launch insults when you were arguing from ignorance. My suggestion was a friendly one: that you need to do some hard reading and study so that your epistemological position is rationally informed, as at the moment it isn’t.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I find it…curious…that you believe in a religion and an entire belief system and base your life on it, but…you have not investigated its facts?

So far, we cannot factually “prove” that any religion is “true”. If we could, everyone would be that religion.
We can’t even prove that a man named Jesus existed! Though most historians and scholars do believe and agree he did.

This is why all religions are based on “faith”.

.

I’ve most certainly investigated the facts, yes.
No, if someone doesn’t accept a rational argument for something, it’s not the problem of the argument.
I suggest you look into J.P. Holdings’ work. He isn’t Catholic, but he quite thoroughly debunks the Christ myth theory and also defends the reliability of the NT, and Biblical inerrancy in general.
I suggest you read the posts of this thread that came before yours. No informed Christian says that faith is belief without evidence, as the common atheist slogan goes, and the way you seem to define it.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

WARNING

Discuss the issue, not each other.

 

[frobert]

… No informed Christian says that faith is belief without evidence, as the common atheist slogan goes, and the way you seem to define it.

Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence. The word faith is often used as a conceptual synonym for hope, trust, belief or knowledge.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith​

“Well, I guess there is no way to logically prove the existence of God.” Campbell answers, calmly, “If there were Father, what would be the value of faith?” …

Source: The Power of Myth [Joseph Campbell, Bill Moyers]​

 

[tonyrey]

The “did Jesus exist” question is a bit of a red herring, because as DaddyGirl said the vast majority of historians do believe that Jesus existed–the real question is how far the historic Jesus corresponds to the accounts in the Gospels. However, most of the non-Christian references to Jesus amount to saying “Christians believe in this guy” and don’t constitute independent confirmation. The only likely exception, it seems to me, is Josephus, and Josephus’ account as we have it has almost certainly been interpolated by Christians, raising some doubt as to whether the whole passage was inserted by Christians (I think it wasn’t, for what it’s worth).

I don’t think anyone suggests that those Christians who died knew that Jesus wasn’t real. (Bear in mind that the accounts we have of the deaths of the Apostles are themselves early Christian legend for the most part.)

Again, I don’t think the deniers of Jesus’ historicity have sound historical ground. There’s much more question about how far the Gospel portraits of Jesus are accurate.

Why would it be?

Edwin

Those who deny that Jesus existed are still faced with the problem of how His sublime teaching originated. Any person with good will can recognise it as overwhelming evidence for the truth of Christianity.

 

[hope19]

Those who deny that Jesus existed are still faced with the problem of how His sublime teaching originated. Any person with good will can recognise it as overwhelming evidence for the truth of Christianity.

I agree with you. All those teachings were not invented.

 

[oldcelt]

Those who deny that Jesus existed are still faced with the problem of how His sublime teaching originated. Any person with good will can recognise it as overwhelming evidence for the truth of Christianity.

Most historians acknowledge that the man Jesus existed. It is assumed that he gave the teachings, although there is quite a variance in the Gospel accounts. The sticking point comes in when the question of Divinity is discussed. As always, that point is a matter of faith and cannot be proved by any scientific method.

So, since I am a man of good will and do not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus, while greatly respecting bis teachings, your last statement is incorrect. Since this is a philosophy thread, declaring such absolutes as “overwhelming evidence” seems inappropriate. Remember, it is entirely possible that Shakespeare was multiple people and yet the writings are quite sublime.

John