Atheists: you cannot disprove the existence of GOd

[CatsAndDogs]

All I’m going on is the fact that the Bible says I should be. I know I shouldn’t work on the Sabbath, so I’m not excused.

Show us where it says that YOU yourself should be stoned if you work on the sabbath?

If you can’t do that, then you obviously are talking out of the vaccuum of your prejudices.

 

[SFTor]

Show us where it says that YOU yourself should be stoned if you work on the sabbath?

If you can’t do that, then you obviously are talking out of the vaccuum of your prejudices.

So the Bible does not say that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death?

Quote:

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)"

 

[BlaineTog]

Now I’m really confused. I thought the Bible was the inerrant word of God, where he or whatever revealed him or herself to the faithful. Is this not the case?

God reveals himself through the Bible. But it isn’t the only place he reveals himself.

And lastly, where do we find the rest of the story?

Matthew 12:1-12, Mark 1:21-22, and especially Mark 2:23-3:6 are all instances in which Jesus supersedes the sabbath prohibition on work.

 

[SFTor]

God reveals himself through the Bible. But it isn’t the only place he reveals himself.

Matthew 12:1-12, Mark 1:21-22, and especially Mark 2:23-3:6 are all instances in which Jesus supersedes the sabbath prohibition on work.

I understand. Why then do we need the Old Testament at all?

Why don’t we just get rid of it, and stick with the New Testament?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

So the Bible does not say that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death?

Quote:

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)"

Are you subject to being killed for working on the sabbath, according to this?:

(( You must remember, it’s not what some disembodied de-contextualized selection of verses from the bible says, it’s what the Church says that is definitive. ))

CCC:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a3.htm#2173
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p1.htm#582

2173 The Gospel reports many incidents when Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath law. But Jesus never fails to respect the holiness of this day. He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” With compassion, Christ declares the sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing. The sabbath is the day of the Lord of mercies and a day to honor God. “The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: “Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . .” In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it. This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor, which his own healings did.

 

[whitenight21]

The Word of God begins with the Old Testament, and it is completed with the New Testament.

God’s old covenant with the Jews has been fulfilled by God’s new covenant with humanity through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The two testaments need each other, for one alone is incomplete without the other.

The Old Testament is just as equal to the New Testament because they are both the Word of God.

We cannot throw away the Old Testament, because it is the direct conversation between God and the chosen Israel.

The Word of God can only be understood in fullness with both Testaments.

 

[SFTor]

Are you subject to being killed for working on the sabbath, according to this?:

(( You must remember, it’s not what some disembodied de-contextualized selection of verses from the bible says, it’s what the Church says that is definitive. ))

CCC:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a3.htm#2173
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p1.htm#582

2173 The Gospel reports many incidents when Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath law. But Jesus never fails to respect the holiness of this day. He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” With compassion, Christ declares the sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing. The sabbath is the day of the Lord of mercies and a day to honor God. “The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: “Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . .” In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it. This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor, which his own healings did.

OK, I think I understand. What the Church says takes precedence over what the Bible says. Can I then disregard the Bible and simply listen to what a Catholic priest tells me is the right way to think?

 

[SFTor]

The Word of God begins with the Old Testament, and it is completed with the New Testament.

God’s old covenant with the Jews has been fulfilled by God’s new covenant with humanity through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The two testaments need each other, for one alone is incomplete without the other.

The Old Testament is just as equal to the New Testament because they are both the Word of God.

We cannot throw away the Old Testament, because it is the direct conversation between God and the chosen Israel.

The Word of God can only be understood in fullness with both Testaments.

Now I’m confused again. So I should expect to be killed for working on the Sabbath?

 

[BlaineTog]

I understand. Why then do we need the Old Testament at all?

Why don’t we just get rid of it, and stick with the New Testament?

The Old Testament is there to teach us God’s Justice.

The New Testament is there to teach us God’s Mercy. You need both to get a clear picture of God.

 

[SFTor]

The Word of God begins with the Old Testament, and it is completed with the New Testament.

God’s old covenant with the Jews has been fulfilled by God’s new covenant with humanity through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The two testaments need each other, for one alone is incomplete without the other.

The Old Testament is just as equal to the New Testament because they are both the Word of God.

We cannot throw away the Old Testament, because it is the direct conversation between God and the chosen Israel.

The Word of God can only be understood in fullness with both Testaments.

Here’s something else I’ve never understood: what was so special about God’s chosen people, the people of Israel? Why didn’t he just reveal himself to everyone?

 

[SFTor]

The Old Testament is there to teach us God’s Justice.

The New Testament is there to teach us God’s Mercy. You need both to get a clear picture of God.

OK. But if they contradict each other, as is clearly the case with the whole Sabbath thing, which takes precedence? If God is speaking through the text of both books, how can I just disregard one and believe the other?

Wouldn’t I just be inserting my own judgment into the inerrant word of God if I did that?

 

[BlaineTog]

OK. But if they contradict each other, as is clearly the case with the whole Sabbath thing, which takes precedence?

They don’t contradict each other. Some of the prohibitions in the Old Testament were no longer necessary when Jesus returned, but this still wouldn’t be a “contradiction.” So to answer your question, the NT, more or less.

Here’s something else I’ve never understood: what was so special about God’s chosen people, the people of Israel? Why didn’t he just reveal himself to everyone?

God wanted to demonstrate his faithfulness, so he devoted himself to one people even though that people would betray him time and again. However, he also wanted to demonstrate how dependent on him we are, so he chose a people that weren’t capable of surviving on their own. Then, when he’d made his point, he sent Jesus, as which point the revelation spread to all people.

 

[SFTor]

They don’t contradict each other. Some of the prohibitions in the Old Testament were no longer necessary when Jesus returned, but this still wouldn’t be a “contradiction.” So to answer your question, the NT, more or less.

God wanted to demonstrate his faithfulness, so he devoted himself to one people even though that people would betray him time and again. However, he also wanted to demonstrate how dependent on him we are, so he chose a people that weren’t capable of surviving on their own. Then, when he’d made his point, he sent Jesus, as which point the revelation spread to all people.

Is the list in the New Testament of things we don’t have to worry about anymore complete? Can we assume that if Jesus didn’t talk about it in the New Testament, the prohibition of the Old Testament still stands?

 

[BlaineTog]

Is the list in the New Testament of things we don’t have to worry about anymore complete? Can we assume that if Jesus didn’t talk about it in the New Testament, the prohibition of the Old Testament still stands?

Someone’s probably written up that list, though I have no idea where it might be. The Catholic Catechism is something of a summary of everything you might ever need to know about the Catholic faith, so if you’re wondering about something in specific, that’s probably where to look.

 

[Paladin_V]

Second, it may be that people everywhere have had a problem with randomness.

So if people have a problem with randomness… they shouldn’t believe in evolution should they? The materialist view is that this universe is random, the product of chance (that is to say, it was not designed or created, which implies a designer, aka God). So, as an atheist, there should be nothing wrong with randomness. After all, everything that exists is random, right?

 

[Paladin_V]

And, Paladin, to answer your assertion about my motivations, my atheism is not entirely a matter of lack of evidence (though that certainly plays a part).

To be honest, among the arguments that are most prominent to me is the definitional one. That is, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent, coherent, non-contradictory definition of God that holds up to rational criticism. I think that if God were defined clearly, it would be much easier to prove or disprove (and believe or disbelieve); but the whole concept of God is much too slippery to make enough rational sense to justify belief.

So, I am agnostic when it comes to knowledge of God, because the word is too poorly defined. As a result of this lack of knowledge, I am an atheist because I cannot believe in something so ill-defined.

Fair enough, sorry for assuming your reason for disbelief. I was just thinking about the definition of God argument. I guess the first thing I’d say is that perhaps God is more clearly defined by Catholicism than you realize (that is to say, his attributes are defined). But even still, when all is said and done, it is still “too slippery” as you said.

The reason why, though, is that we believe God to be first and foremost, a person (really a community of persons, but we don’t have to get into that). How do you define a person? If I was to ask me for a definition of yourself, is there any way I could walk away knowing you fully and clearly? I might be able to get a vague idea of what you look like and perhaps a tad bit of your personality. But really, how could you define yourself? Even if you were to give me every experience you’ve ever had, there is something above and beyond that. How can you account for the “something else” beyond your experiences and physical body, that makes you, you?

The only way I can really get to know you is by experiencing you and having a relationship with you. The same with the God that we believe in. The only way to understand God is through a relationship with Him, which requires belief in Him. Just because an unconventional relationship is required, doesn’t mean it doesn’t really exist.

So, I don’t really think the definition argument holds up. If you are truly seeking to find a definition of a particular person, or a clear understanding of a person, you don’t do that through abstract reasoning and talking to other people. You do that through seeking a relationship with that person.

So, if you don’t believe in God because you don’t have an understanding of what He is like, or because some other people haven’t told you very clearly what He is like, then the first thing you ought to do is seek a relationship with God and find out for yourself.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

OK, I think I understand. What the Church says takes precedence over what the Bible says.

An extremely crude and simplistic way of saying it, but yes, the Church contains the full deposit of faith in which the bible is an extremely important part.

Can I then disregard the Bible and simply listen to what a Catholic priest tells me is the right way to think?

You should listen to the Church, not to any particular Priest.

Is it sensible to imaging that any particular scientist speaks for all of “Science”? It’s the same with Priests and the Church.

ALSO, the Church doesn’t tell anyone how to think, as if that’s possible. What the Church is authorized to tell us is what to believe which is absolutely true in the area of faith and morals (and perhaps some other things, though I’m not off-hand sure what those things are), as well as some disciplines to perform to show proper “etiquette” within the society of the Church’s people (and with all others, to some extent).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Here’s something else I’ve never understood: what was so special about God’s chosen people, the people of Israel? Why didn’t he just reveal himself to everyone?

His people were chosen well before Israel existed.

He chose Adam and even. They goofed, but God held to the covenant that He made with them. Adam and Eve’s “people” were God’s chosen people at that time.

Then God chose Seth’s people. Then God chose Noah’s people. Then God chose Abram->Abraham’s people. Then God chose Israel’s people. Then God chose Moses’ people. Then God chose David’s people. Then God chose Jesus’ people.

This narrowing (until Jesus’s people) line of people have always been “the Church”, aka God’s Chosen People.

The reason that God decided to expose (present, reveal, whatever) Himself (and OURSELF as more and more fully human people) in this way only God knows for sure, but my choice of theology as to why it was done this way is that God wanted a singular “injection point” of His revealed truth to be the way that mankind would receive Him, so that we’d (mankind would) have to listen to our revealed-to brother, and perform the confirmable experiment of hintgetting-belief-faith-prayer-confirmation-hintgiving.

The reason for history is for mankind to learn the consequences of sin. The reason for diffuse/“natural law” revelation is to keep all of mankind from utter despair. The reason for direct revelation, via the line of God’s chosen people, is to give mankind a way to actual hope.

To simply “infuse” every individual with “complete knowledge and wisdom” is to disallow the necessary learning process for God’s children.

A Father teaches wisdom, which in the earthly realm must be a gradual and meaningful process.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

OK. But if they contradict each other, as is clearly the case with the whole Sabbath thing, which takes precedence? If God is speaking through the text of both books, how can I just disregard one and believe the other?

The heresy of Marcion (or Marcionites) is an example of your “problem”:

Doctrine and discipline:

We must distinguish between the doctrine of Marcion himself and that of his followers. Marcion was no Gnostic dreamer. He wanted a Christianity untrammeled and undefiled by association with Judaism. Christianity was the New Covenant pure and simple. Abstract questions on the origin of evil or on the essence of the Godhead interested him little, but the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old Testament had to be set aside. The two great obstacles in his way he removed by drastic measures. He had to account for the existence of the Old Testament and he accounted for it by postulating a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTor

Wouldn’t I just be inserting my own judgment into the inerrant word of God if I did that?

That’s why you listen to the Church instead of other so-called authorities, or your personal interpretations of some sub-set of the full deposit of the faith, such as the “bible alone”.

 

[MerryAtheist]

“rejects faith”… How do even walk out your front door in the morning? Atheists act on faith all the time… etc. etc.

Clearly, we are not in agreement on the meaning of “faith”.

What you call “faith” in daily life, I would more accurately term a “reasonable expectation”. I don’t “have faith” that my car will start, I have a “reasonable expectation” that the ignition switch will complete an electrical circuit and all the other parts will act in unison to create combustion in the piston chamber, starting the vehicle. This is a reasonable expectation to have, given that previous attempts have succeeded, and I understand the basic mechanics of the process. Turning the key in my vehicle is not, therefore, an act of faith because I am not doing so blindly, lacking evidence that it will work.

But the above is not even important here, because in the sense that I am talking about in this thread (if you re-read my initial post, it’s right there as plain as day), “faith” is meant to refer to a means of acquiring knowledge. When I say the atheist rejects faith, I mean it in that sense. So even if I were to agree with you that I need “faith” to walk out the door each day, that particular meaning of faith is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

What I am saying is that the believer presumes to have knowledge of God first and foremost by faith. The nonbeliever (that’s me) rejects faith as a means of acquiring knowledge of any sort.

Why does the nonbeliever reject faith as a means of acquiring knowledge? You answered that question yourself when you wrote:

Faith and belief are two different things. Belief is subject to verifiable, demonstrable proof. Faith is not.

You are quite right. Faith is not subject to proof, and that alone is enough to reject it as a base for knowledge of God, or anything else for that matter.