Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?

[MPat]

Catholicism doesn’t seem to help me engage with reality, live a good life, or tell me anything meaningful about God. It doesn’t “work” for me.

Doesn’t “seem to”? I’m pretty sure there’s something interesting behind those words. Would you like to give more details here?

I mentioned the timestamps in the digital frames.
videoforensicexpert.com/how-to-tell-if-video-is-edited/

One hex editor, lots of work - and they’re faked.

Anyway, let’s face it: you didn’t look at the timestamps of a single video you have been offered, have you?

Oh, and the link clearly explains the process used in court: the evidence is presumed to be good, unless the expert finds something specifically wrong with it. You, on the other hand, presume that evidence is bad, unless it could be proved to be “unfakeable”.

I’m not suggesting that video is “unfakable” or that any acceptable evidence must be impervious to fraud. It’s just that contemporary HD video seems like better and more reliable evidence than ancient documents based on anonymous hearsay.

So, now you are not suggesting that? Good. But I’d say you should state your new position more fully before we can discuss it.

Thus, let’s start with the question: what do you expect form good evidence?

My position: I do not and cannot believe any human or group of humans speaks for God or has God’s authority unless they provide sufficient evidence for this claim. I am willing to accept the miracle I described above as evidence for the RCC’s claim to speak for God. If an Imam did the same miracle but invoked Allah and asked Allah to endorse Muhammad as the final prophet, then I would accept Islam. Ditto with other religious traditions.

Sorry, but you were supposed to explain why you consider some specific claims to be “outrageous”. Yet I do not see that word here…

The substance inside could be temperature sensitive like wax, or some combination of oils. It could also be a substance that liquefies after a certain amount of time. It could be activated magnetically or chemically in some fashion. Many chemicals can change state between solid and liquid with the right conditions. Put that monstrance in a lab for one year and don’t let any priests tamper with it. Put it under video surveillance and test it to see what happens.

So, in other words, you say that handwavium was involved? (If you don’t get that joke, look at tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum and tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave.)

Also, to remember your original post, I think it’s remarkable that all this hand wave happened without anything even similar to a video (not to mention anything about timestamps or different angles).

Wait, I don’t understand. How can I testify to myself? I’m saying what I think I would do given a set of circumstances. Obviously, I could be wrong. But, it is my opinion that I would convert to Catholicism if a miracle similar to the one I described were captured on authenticated video or occurred right in front of me. I don’t always act reasonably, but go ahead and subject me to the test!

Perform this miracle right now, video it with timestamps, upload it to this thread, and see what I do! I’m perfectly willing to be tested, go for it.

Thank you, it is nice to see that you have acknowledged that you hold this specific belief when it is supported with next to no evidence (I guess we can afford to be generous and count the bias towards pleasant beliefs as evidence here). So, we see a double standard - and maybe it’s time to move to looking for a single standard hiding behind it?

So, since we can dismiss all this talk about evidence - for you do hold a pleasant belief with little evidence - is there something specific about Catholicism that is not pleasant to you?

 

[LethalMouse]

I was the one who posted about our Lady of Light and I am not an atheist.

You posted a video I never watched with nothing to indicate what it was other than random url characters. But yes you are technically right

I however saw it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14111039&postcount=270

So that was where the atheist comment came from

It is obvious you have not studied the apparitions and what was going on at the time. Her appearances coincide with events in history. It is not as simplistic as you seem to think and there is much to learn about the apparitions. Why assume otherwise?

I am really surprised by posters that claim to be healthy skeptics when in reality they are just skeptics…

First the convenience of the apparitions is exactly one of my issues with them.

As skeptic I prefer infallible mandatory Catholicism. I trust little involving religion outside that zone.

I believe in God 99%
I believe in being Catholic about 95% since I have not found a infallible teaching I can argue with
I believe little said by Catholics/Christians/Jews/Muslims outside of the above.
Humans are…meh.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholicism doesn’t seem to help me engage with reality, live a good life, or tell me anything meaningful about God.

What do you use to tell you something meaningful about God?

The Christian Scriptures?
A beautiful mountain?
Philosophy?

And when you do this, what is the canon by which you determine whether this is actually God speaking or just the Almighty Self?

It doesn’t “work” for me

That’s not a very good criterion for discerning truth.

Believing in Santa* may work for you–it may make you live a good life, may make you happy…but surely that’s not what you want to embrace.

*Santa–the jolly fat elf who lives in the North Pole and delivers presents, miraculously,to every good little boy and girl.

Please desist from saying, “But Santa does exist! St. Nicholas was a bishop who actually lived!” Or “Santa exists in the hearts and minds of all the loving parents in the world who place presents of love and joy under the Christmas trees on every Christmas morn!”

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14112906:

fladreamer;14112525:

…The apostle Thomas witnessed countless(hyperbole) miracles from fish being multiplied, to lepres being healed, to Lazarus being raised from the dead, yet he needed to touch the holes left by the nails and spear in order to believe. So asking to witness a limb grow back in matters of minutes as evidence is not overkill IMO.

I’m sorry, I don’t recall where in scripture it states that Thomas witnessed those events.
Could I trouble you to cite the verses?
TIA

If it’s not written, it never happened? As an apostle you’d think he may have bee around Jesus, and as such may have witnessed some supernatural occurrences…

Hang on!

Your original argument was that Thomas’ doubt was unusual because he HAD seen earlier miracles. And I agree. If he HAD seen Jesus’ powerful miracles he would not have been belatedly skeptical.

But it is precisely because of;

• Thomas’ otherwise inexplicable act of doubt after the Resurrection
• His being the only named disciple who behaves so unusually relative to the other disciples
• His name being absent from earlier accounts of of Jesus’ miracles - he isn’t mentioned in the Synoptics

…that I think you need to demonstrate what makes you think he actually did see those earlier loaves and fishes miracles, lepers being healed, dead people being raised to life.

It’s your questionable reasoning here that makes me ask for chapter and verse citation.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Doesn’t “seem to”? I’m pretty sure there’s something interesting behind those words. Would you like to give more details here?

If you want to start a thread about why I don’t believe in the current version of Catholicism, feel free to do that. However, I’d like to stay at least sort-of on task in this thread.

One hex editor, lots of work - and they’re faked.

Anyway, let’s face it: you didn’t look at the timestamps of a single video you have been offered, have you?

Oh, and the link clearly explains the process used in court: the evidence is presumed to be good, unless the expert finds something specifically wrong with it. You, on the other hand, presume that evidence is bad, unless it could be proved to be “unfakeable”.

So, now you are not suggesting that? Good. But I’d say you should state your new position more fully before we can discuss it.

Thus, let’s start with the question: what do you expect form good evidence?

Let’s sum this up: you want to discredit the notion that video evidence is somehow better than ancient texts right? You want to suggest that they’re similar if we apply the same skepticism to both. In that case, I’ll agree that they both fail to be sufficient evidence to prove an outrageous claim. Do you believe in Bigfoot or the Lochness monster? There are grainy videos of that stuff too, just like Zeitoun. Do you believe Satyha Sai Baba is a god? There are color, close-up videos of him healing people and performing other miracles. I don’t believe these things either. But, what’s strange to me, is that the ancient world is full of reports of things far more fantastic than Zeitoun, Bigfoot, or Satyha Sai Baba. The ancient world’s testimony would lead one to believe the world is over-brimming with the miraculous and stupendous! Shouldn’t we expect to see some more miracles now that far more people have the ability to record them? You’ve failed to answer the essential question here.

Good evidence should be a reasonably reliable report of reality. The 4 R’s. I don’t believe the NT or other hagiographies qualify, but I would accept video of the miracle I described as good evidence. Of course something like that could be faked with computer graphics, but who in Hollywood is going to commit their resources to a pious fraud in support of the Catholic Church? Besides that, of course the tape should be examined and analyzed by experts. Chain of custody and interview of witnesses is important too.

Sorry, but you were supposed to explain why you consider some specific claims to be “outrageous”. Yet I do not see that word here…

A claim is outrageous in so far as it is not reciprocated by the common experience of humanity. In order to truly flesh out what I mean by an “outrageous claim” I would have to spend a considerable amount of time carefully defining it, because I am sensing you are the punctilious sort. Are you an elementary school teacher or some kind of administrator in a small company? Just curious. But wait, what if you told me your job is to fly into space and through a wormhole on the Lochness monster in order to report the daily news to your space alien overlords? Can you see how the second job description is more “outrageous” than the first two?

So, in other words, you say that handwavium was involved? (If you don’t get that joke, look at tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum and tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave.)

Also, to remember your original post, I think it’s remarkable that all this hand wave happened without anything even similar to a video (not to mention anything about timestamps or different angles).

Bring it into a lab and test it. I support that 100%. I’m not sure how they could fake that “miracle” but there are ways to determine it.

Thank you, it is nice to see that you have acknowledged that you hold this specific belief when it is supported with next to no evidence (I guess we can afford to be generous and count the bias towards pleasant beliefs as evidence here). So, we see a double standard - and maybe it’s time to move to looking for a single standard hiding behind it?

So, since we can dismiss all this talk about evidence - for you do hold a pleasant belief with little evidence - is there something specific about Catholicism that is not pleasant to you?

I have made rational decisions in the past many times, and I’m not aware of a reason why I should believe I would suddenly act unreasonably if I were to see excellent evidence for Catholicism like I described. Let’s find out! It’s easily testable, and I’m perfectly willing to be tested. Go ahead an perform this miracle and we’ll see what I do.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What do you use to tell you something meaningful about God?

The Christian Scriptures?
A beautiful mountain?
Philosophy?

And when you do this, what is the canon by which you determine whether this is actually God speaking or just the Almighty Self?

Reason and nature. Neither are my own invention, and I believe they tell us about God. Now, my opinions about what they tell us are of course my own and I’m just a fallible human being with no special insight into anything. I’m certain to be wrong about all kinds of things, and I am continuously looking for new evidence and re-examining my beliefs. I’m ready to change my beliefs at the drop of a hat if I learn a new truth or discover that a belief I hold is false.

That’s not a very good criterion for discerning truth.

Believing in Santa* may work for you–it may make you live a good life, may make you happy…but surely that’s not what you want to embrace.

*Santa–the jolly fat elf who lives in the North Pole and delivers presents, miraculously,to every good little boy and girl.

Please desist from saying, “But Santa does exist! St. Nicholas was a bishop who actually lived!” Or “Santa exists in the hearts and minds of all the loving parents in the world who place presents of love and joy under the Christmas trees on every Christmas morn!”

It’s just a joke, lighten up people! Belief in Santa is not analogous to belief in the supreme authority of the RCC.

 

[lax16]

You posted a video I never watched with nothing to indicate what it was other than random url characters. But yes you are technically right

I however saw it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14111039&postcount=270

So that was where the atheist comment came from

Fair enough. He was commenting on my post though.

Why not watch the video? It’s well done. Unsolved Mysteries I think. Besides, it does answer the OP’s question.

First the convenience of the apparitions is exactly one of my issues with them.

By not even being open to the events surrounding the apparitions you are missing how convenient they actually were! The symbolism of Guadalupe, including skin color, quickly conveyed a message to the masses. Our Lady of Light was stopping a massacre of Christians my Muslims by appearing with an olive branch and doves, even though she never said a word. She was first seen by Muslims, btw.

As skeptic I prefer infallible mandatory Catholicism. I trust little involving religion outside that zone.

I’m skeptical too. But I am not defiantly close-minded.

I believe in God 99%
I believe in being Catholic about 95% since I have not found a infallible teaching I can argue with
I believe little said by Catholics/Christians/Jews/Muslims outside of the above.
Humans are…meh.

Ah yes, humans. Proof positive how necessary Jesus Christ is/was, to show us how to live, love and treat one another. Without him, I would treat others according to how I feel about them. Instead, I remind myself each day to treat everyone with dignity with God’s help.

 

[e_c]

**1. **YES, it’s called reporting the news.
If 500 or 1,000 people said they saw a dead man come back to life…someone somewhere would want to make note of it, even if they were not Christian.

**2. **You’re missing the point.
Which is…the claims made about various witnesses and miracles are coming from a source that a great many people do not trust.

1. Find just one other human figure of that time who did not have official historians but had a roughly equivalent amount of contemporary history written about him.

There isn’t one. The New Testament is a MASSIVE collection of writing for the time. You may not realize this, but even the “letters” of the NT were more like encyclopedias back then… They would have taken LOADS of cash and time, to make no mention of the Gospels.

1. They don’t trust them because of what they say, not because of who is saying it. It’s a skewed hermeneutic for that reason.

Hold the phone.

**3. **Are you saying that your definition of “God” – and any Christian and (astute) Greek’s definition of “God” – is: “existence in itself”?

Yes. You’re very late to the party. Like around 900 years late, unless you are Greek and then you are more like 2400 years late.

HEY EVERYBODY… HERE’S SOMETHING “LIKE” A VIDEO OF A MIRACLE EXCEPT BETTER: THE SHROUD OF TURIN. Go nuts with that. “It’s a fake!” “No it’s not!” Whatever. I like what Bp. Morerod says - “Everyone is just going to believe what he wants anyway.”

Here’s my last contribution to this thread…

What it comes down to is this: “If God really exists AND wants everyone to believe in Him, He would just appear and do some tricks and then everyone would believe in Him.”

There are only a few options. One, there is no God, two, He doesn’t want everyone to believe in Him, three, tricks would not make everyone believe in Him, four, it is better that people find Him in different ways.

The Catholic takes the fourth option. Here’s a thought - God could have in-built faith into us, but He didn’t. Forget tricks, He could have simply hard-wired us. But He didn’t. Parsimony would demand that, wouldn’t it, if it were simply about getting everyone to believe?

Peace…
e_c

 

[LethalMouse]

Ah yes, humans. Proof positive how necessary Jesus Christ is/was, to show us how to live, love and treat one another. Without him, I would treat others according to how I feel about them. Instead, I remind myself each day to treat everyone with dignity with God’s help.

Idk, I think that our internal state affects our belief.

If I ran the risk of being “bad” I might have not gone away. But by nature I function like a Christian even when atheist. In developing my own purpose aside from God I came up with the same ideas as Him as I later discovered.

I also found the Catholic church when I got past what fallible humans moght say interprets the Bible as I do. So perhaps I am a bit of a Protestant catholic by cheat? Lol, but I did personal interpretation and then decided that the CC agreed with me so cool. Lol.

I am not built for blind faith, if I could strongly interpret something far off I might lean toward myself. But even on this forum, sometimes somwone tosses out something that seems to highly contradict what I think via solid Catholic teaching. I have in each case of research found their presentation to be inaccurate

 

[e_c]

First the convenience of the apparitions is exactly one of my issues with them.

As skeptic I prefer infallible mandatory Catholicism. I trust little involving religion outside that zone.

I believe in God 99%
I believe in being Catholic about 95% since I have not found a infallible teaching I can argue with
I believe little said by Catholics/Christians/Jews/Muslims outside of the above.
Humans are…meh.

Sorry I just have to address this too - it is too interesting - and then I’m out.

LM - Pay close attention to Scripture and you will notice that theme of convenience… it even exists with people’s NAMES. Like “Veronica,” for instance. And isn’t it convenient that Our Lord was baptized in the LOWEST place on the planet not under the ocean? Isn’t it convenient that Christ was crucified, of all possible ways to die, since such a death perfectly recapitulates the Passover ritual with the blood and the doors? Isn’t it convenient that… we could go on and on and on, it’s not “convenient,” it’s providential.

As for the “belief x%,” well, nobody is explaining what exactly that means. I’ll give it a shot. Belief, as understood in the Catholic tradition, is not about a feeling of confidence primarily. This is generally what people mean when they use numbers, as if they were gambling. Faith is a habit, it is only an act when it begins or must appropriate something new, and it can “overflow” from the higher intellect into the other faculties to create the “feeling” of confidence. The habit is a habit of perfect certainty, but there are other kinds of judgments that can take place.

So let’s be sure to make that distinction. We should not be suggesting to people they do not need to give their full “100%” assent to these things, even though this is actually primarily a habit that “takes care of itself” so to speak once it begins.

Why the obsession with the %'s in this thread? Anyway, peace…

 

[lax16]

Idk, I think that our internal state affects our belief.

If I ran the risk of being “bad” I might have not gone away. But by nature I function like a Christian even when atheist. In developing my own purpose aside from God I came up with the same ideas as Him as I later discovered.

I also found the Catholic church when I got past what fallible humans moght say interprets the Bible as I do. So perhaps I am a bit of a Protestant catholic by cheat? Lol, but I did personal interpretation and then decided that the CC agreed with me so cool. Lol.

I am not built for blind faith, if I could strongly interpret something far off I might lean toward myself. But even on this forum, sometimes somwone tosses out something that seems to highly contradict what I think via solid Catholic teaching. I have in each case of research found their presentation to be inaccurate

I have yet to meet someone that does not demand to be treated with dignity even when they do not return the favor.

How can you claim to develop your own purpose aside from God when you already knew God?

I also find that I agree with the Church - to me it is common sense. It is not blind faith. The Church has never asked for blind faith, welcomes questions and sinners and provides for our faith in many ways. Including apparitions.

 

[LethalMouse]

I have yet to meet someone that does not demand to be treated with dignity even when they do not return the favor.

How can you claim to develop your own purpose aside from God when you already knew God?

I also find that I agree with the Church - to me it is common sense. It is not blind faith. The Church has never asked for blind faith, welcomes questions and sinners and provides for our faith in many ways. Including apparitions.

I mean in the typical sense of how humans do. Plrnty born and raised more devout than me stray to “develope their own” and they contradict God.

Luciifer knew God better than most.

Heck I saw 2 angels and a demon before, read BEFORE becoming an atheist. (With another human witness to negate personal mental issue)

Which is 1. Why I doubt the efficiency of “proven miracle”

1. Which is why I reference Lucifer, he had knowledge and great favor. Does not mean we cannot make a choice. I just say humans are better at pretending we don’t know.

I have seen the 2 and 1

I have seen God maybe twice. Not counting one for sure because I was drunk lol

Anyway nothing contradicted my born in faith ie: “catholic”

But there was nothing particular to say it was the way to go persay.

And I always have the option of doubt via the second human and I having been swept up in soen strange mini mass hysteria and the fact that although I have no other signs of mental issue I can acknowledge that it is always possible that there was a momentary break in the situation that had no other witness.

The final decision to stay was largely based on a “it doesn’t matter if I went momentarily crazy”

Following God doesn’t hurt me.

And so long as the CC’s infallible teaching stays within conformity to my understanding, it also does not hurt me and seems the legit venue.

If there is no God and I am to die pointlessly it does nothing ill to me to have been Catholic. At least not according to how I would have lived anyway as an athesit.

I am in a sense an arrogant submissive to God? Idk

But I have a catch 22 in my faith in the CC.

There is one item for examoke I know the majority of opinion of clergy and Catholics. I disagree…

The church in teaching still does not issue it.

I beleive this numbers game is proof the church “cannot” via divine leadership.

However if it did… well I would find it near impossible to believe they are guided and controlled by the divine.

So conditional loyalty to the church, chosen unconditional loyalty to God.

Of course if God were to tell me something otherwise in oarticular either for or against my “own idea” I would surely have to acceot it.

 

[LethalMouse]

Sorry I just have to address this too - it is too interesting - and then I’m out.

LM - Pay close attention to Scripture and you will notice that theme of convenience… it even exists with people’s NAMES. Like “Veronica,” for instance. And isn’t it convenient that Our Lord was baptized in the LOWEST place on the planet not under the ocean? Isn’t it convenient that Christ was crucified, of all possible ways to die, since such a death perfectly recapitulates the Passover ritual with the blood and the doors? Isn’t it convenient that… we could go on and on and on, it’s not “convenient,” it’s providential.

As for the “belief x%,” well, nobody is explaining what exactly that means. I’ll give it a shot. Belief, as understood in the Catholic tradition, is not about a feeling of confidence primarily. This is generally what people mean when they use numbers, as if they were gambling. Faith is a habit, it is only an act when it begins or must appropriate something new, and it can “overflow” from the higher intellect into the other faculties to create the “feeling” of confidence. The habit is a habit of perfect certainty, but there are other kinds of judgments that can take place.

So let’s be sure to make that distinction. We should not be suggesting to people they do not need to give their full “100%” assent to these things, even though this is actually primarily a habit that “takes care of itself” so to speak once it begins.

Why the obsession with the %'s in this thread? Anyway, peace…

I use the % as a note to my 3rd person concept. Many believe themselves 100% on anything and question the effects.

They in fact do not have the 100% and that is why.

I also think theologically the % is a marker of certain things along the way. A believer at 51% complaining about God

An atheist at 51% complaining about God.

Lol neither believe their own beleif and that number is representative of why things in a way.

And yes I am not opposed to grand convenience.

And again I DOOOO NNNNOOOOTTTTT say any of these apparitions are untrue!!!

I simpky have sone doubts. And not of the grand scheme so much but the human convenience of those involved.

And to note when these people who gain much from their visit and I mean much worldly wise, they see someone who conforms to their self image, and makes them famous and gains them donations, treatment etc.

In some cases people do whacky things like pretend to have cancer just for notoriety amoung a small section of people.

Idk, you mention the Egypt one and I said that one actually sounds the most legit!!!

The others I am not even concerned with much anyway. They have no affects unless you need “more” for your faith.

I need not the “extra” so I dont need to run out and research every in and out.
I may in time out of curiosity investigste some asoects, but the little I have read and heard don’t “wow” me for now.

Even if they are real and I beleive them 100% tomorrow they would change literally nothing in my existence… so I do not get the obsessions.

Peopke care more about whether morphin Mary appeared to 3 poor kids than the rest of the faith…

Honestly in a way who cares?

Who cares if what I saw happened?

If you are a devout cathokic and I tokd you what I saw that has nothing new to be noted by you… then what does it matter? It doesnt you will still be the same devout catholic even hearing and believing me… so why is it the center peice for some people.

Perhaps for an atheist who converts over it yeah, oerhaos for me the last thing I saw that solidified my faith yes it was imoortant… but still. Not to you who already have that faith.

 

[lax16]

I mean in the typical sense of how humans do. Plrnty born and raised more devout than me stray to “develope their own” and they contradict God.

Luciifer knew God better than most.

Heck I saw 2 angels and a demon before, read BEFORE becoming an atheist. (With another human witness to negate personal mental issue)

Which is 1. Why I doubt the efficiency of “proven miracle”

How would seeing two angels and a demon contribute to your doubts of proven miracles? Wouldn’t that cause just the opposite?

1. Which is why I reference Lucifer, he had knowledge and great favor. Does not mean we cannot make a choice. I just say humans are better at pretending we don’t know.

Of course, free will.

And I always have the option of doubt via the second human and I having been swept up in soen strange mini mass hysteria and the fact that although I have no other signs of mental issue I can acknowledge that it is always possible that there was a momentary break in the situation that had no other witness.

The Church takes the same position before declaring anything a miracle.
However, I do not understand why an apparition seen by thousands or millions falls into this category? Especially people who were not Christian. They would have nothing to gain from claiming to see a vision of the Blessed Mother.

But I have a catch 22 in my faith in the CC.

There is one item for examoke I know the majority of opinion of clergy and Catholics. I disagree…

The church in teaching still does not issue it.

I beleive this numbers game is proof the church “cannot” via divine leadership.

I am not following you here. What numbers game?

 

[LethalMouse]

How would seeing two angels and a demon contribute to your doubts of proven miracles? Wouldn’t that cause just the opposite?

No no, not add to doubt, just a clear thing not ending doubt. And I am not really a doubter of miracle as a whole. I am in doubter of some specific miracles. Earlier in the thread you could note my very pro miracle stanc ein general.

I am not following you here. What numbers game?

On one item that I believe would be proof the church was not divine, last I read like 80 somwthing percent of the clergy believe in opposite of me.

So humans it would make sense for them to issue it out as a teaching to make people do what they think.

And they have the numbers to do it!

But they do not.

Why?

Well the secular answer might be to not risk losing sone catholics like me… but that would prob only be at most like 30% so idk…

And the other answer is that if I am right about the issue, then God does not allow the clergy to issue the teaching because it would be untrue.

So I lean most heavily toward the second answer. That the vast majority of clergy with human agendas would love nothing more than to issue a teaching but God proves His guidance by not allowing it

 

[fladreamer]

Hang on!

Your original argument was that Thomas’ doubt was unusual because he HAD seen earlier miracles. And I agree. If he HAD seen Jesus’ powerful miracles he would not have been belatedly skeptical.

But it is precisely because of;

• Thomas’ otherwise inexplicable act of doubt after the Resurrection
• His being the only named disciple who behaves so unusually relative to the other disciples
• His name being absent from earlier accounts of of Jesus’ miracles - he isn’t mentioned in the Synoptics

…that I think you need to demonstrate what makes you think he actually did see those earlier loaves and fishes miracles, lepers being healed, dead people being raised to life.

It’s your questionable reasoning here that makes me ask for chapter and verse citation.

John 11:16 Either way you slice it, even if Thomas was indeed conveniently absent (for your thesis to stand) each and every time Jesus performed a miracle, why would he not trust the direct witnesses of these miracles whom he knew and could directly talk to, while you would trust the words of men you could not pronounce the name of nor could talk to, who lived around 2000 years ago? That’s a very shaky platform to stand on to call somebody else’s reasoning ‘‘questionable’’.

 

[lax16]

No no, not add to doubt, just a clear thing not ending doubt. And I am not really a doubter of miracle as a whole. I am in doubter of some specific miracles. Earlier in the thread you could note my very pro miracle stanc ein general.

I doubt once I look into it, not just because of what I think it is.

On one item that I believe would be proof the church was not divine, last I read like 80 somwthing percent of the clergy believe in opposite of me.

So humans it would make sense for them to issue it out as a teaching to make people do what they think.

And they have the numbers to do it!

But they do not.

Why?

Well the secular answer might be to not risk losing sone catholics like me… but that would prob only be at most like 30% so idk…

And the other answer is that if I am right about the issue, then God does not allow the clergy to issue the teaching because it would be untrue.

So I lean most heavily toward the second answer. That the vast majority of clergy with human agendas would love nothing more than to issue a teaching but God proves His guidance by not allowing it

What do you mean “proof that the Church is not divine”?

The Catholic Church’s teachings are laid out in the Catechism and are taught in RCIA - available to any and all. Just because our current Pope, for example, allows discussion of topics that might veer out of bounds does not mean the Church is not divine.

It is just an example of how we should keep open the lines of communication with all people, not just the rule followers.

 

[LethalMouse]

What do you mean “proof that the Church is not divine”?

The Catholic Church’s teachings are laid out in the Catechism and are taught in RCIA - available to any and all. Just because our current Pope, for example, allows discussion of topics that might veer out of bounds does not mean the Church is not divine.

It is just an example of how we should keep open the lines of communication with all people, not just the rule followers.

No, I think you are thinking we sort of disagree more than we do. But in this case what I am saying is…

Okay so the Pope could comeout and be like “I am racist”

But he would not/could not say “Catholics, it is true that revealed to us through scripture and divine guidance we all must be racist.”

Now obviously we agree on that.

But there may be issues that you might think the church should issue a doctrine on that it has not. You may want that to look on a certain side of the issue.

I if they issued a doctirne would not hope or believe, I would wholeheartedly expect it to be on a certain side of the issue.

If it did not come down on that side I would question divine guidance.

So to me some issues that are held in limbo “no direct doctrine” free for us to beleive. Either way.

In which I am vastly outnumbered by both lay and clergy… I beleive it either

1. Impossible for the clergy to issue it due to God not allowing it
2. It would for me call into question CC claims of divine guidance as if the Pope declared infallibly that we should be racist.

 

[lax16]

No, I think you are thinking we sort of disagree more than we do. But in this case what I am saying is…

Okay so the Pope could comeout and be like “I am racist”

But he would not/could not say “Catholics, it is true that revealed to us through scripture and divine guidance we all must be racist.”

Now obviously we agree on that.

But there may be issues that you might think the church should issue a doctrine on that it has not. You may want that to look on a certain side of the issue.

I if they issued a doctirne would not hope or believe, I would wholeheartedly expect it to be on a certain side of the issue.

If it did not come down on that side I would question divine guidance.

So to me some issues that are held in limbo “no direct doctrine” free for us to beleive. Either way.

In which I am vastly outnumbered by both lay and clergy… I beleive it either

1. Impossible for the clergy to issue it due to God not allowing it
2. It would for me call into question CC claims of divine guidance as if the Pope declared infallibly that we should be racist.

If a pope were to declare anything infallible that goes against scripture, I would first find out if he really said it then second see if he’s in the right state of mind or senile.

The Church cannot and will not go against Scripture.

 

[LethalMouse]

If a pope were to declare anything infallible that goes against scripture, I would first find out if he really said it then second see if he’s in the right state of mind or senile.

The Church cannot and will not go against Scripture.

I am agreein, however as we know there are issues that two people can read the Bible and the CCC and still disagree on.

We know how those thing can be debated. And some have no official weigh in directly, Only hotly debated meanings of the two writings (Bible and CCC)

I really didn’t want to list items because I am not interested in spawnjng a debate on the detail of a particular topic but I will give an example since you aren’t getting my point

Guns. Many about 40% of lay catholics can read the bible and CCC and supoort guns about 20% of clergy the same.

About 60% of lay and 80% of clergy are against guns.

If the clergy’s numbers led to a council or a papal statement saying soemthing like “Catholics owning guns is a sin” in infallible fashion I would doubt the truth of divine guidance.

If there is divine guidance and my thoughts are accurate then even if 80% becomes 100% they will never issue such a thing.

I do believe the fact that it won’t happen but that is a belief and not a solid knowledge.

So in beleif I believe that it can never happen but I acknowledgethat it in a theory “could” and I acknowledge what affect that would have on my faith in the church.