Doesn't this statement prove there's a God?

[AnthonySorensen]

You were suggesting that God was wrong for saying someone should be put to death for their crimes. You were essentially saying since God tells us not to kill then he shouldn’t kill either. God is an all powerful being who can do anything he wishes. We can’t judge God. That is what you were doing.

Using this failed logic you were asking me to explain it to you. Like I said your argument was based on ignorance.

 

[Faithdancer]

I was having this discussion with another person and they were having trouble seeing my point.

In the bible there are various verses forbidding fornication…but (according to atheists if there really is no God )…why does going against this law cause so much destruction in abortions, unadopted children and unwanted children.

Am I making sense?

If you are saying that fornication is a root cause of abortions, unadopted and unwanted children, I completely agree. For those who are not familiar with the term fornication, in the Christian faith it refers to any carnal relations out of wedlock. Leaving aside the moral question completely, I don’t see how anyone can dispute that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a main contributor to abortion statistics.

 

[Faithdancer]

the more I sit here, reading, the madder I’m getting. In fact, I probably shouldn’t even write this, but, really, I don’t understand.
Are you a child? I’m a minor, and I don’t act like you. If someone BEGGED me to answer a question, I would do it. So what if someone “twisted” your words? So untwist them, why can’t you?
This is the world wide web, and this a public forum. We can’t really “butt” in if you know what I mean. So your reason for not answering me is not valid. I’m not an idiot. I’m begging for help.
Why hasn’t anyone else stepped up, for that matter? this is not a joke, this is my life, my faith. I can’t go anywhere when I don’t have the map. I have to say, if I didn’t believe in God, this site would probably make me a person with no religion.

ReachingFaith, you are obviously quite intelligent and curious, and a teen to boot, right? Might I suggest reading Peter Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa, or a similar work? It’s a great way to get acquainted with the real philosophical underpinnings of Catholic theology. Of course, there is the Summa itself, but it is daunting- and I say that as a graduate student who has been getting a very heavy dose of the Summa for the last several months! However, I have fallen so in love with Aquinas’ brilliant explanations, and his frequent reliance on Aristotle, that I am strongly considering returning to Holy Apostles next Fall to complete a master’s in philosophy, once I’ve finished their theology program. Never thought that would be the case, six months ago.

 

[AnthonySorensen]

If you are saying that fornication is a root cause of abortions, unadopted and unwanted children, I completely agree. For those who are not familiar with the term fornication, in the Christian faith it refers to any carnal relations out of wedlock. Leaving aside the moral question completely, I don’t see how anyone can dispute that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a main contributor to abortion statistics.

Yes I’m also saying the efficiency of his laws prove his existence.

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes I’m also saying the efficiency of his laws prove his existence.

Well, Aquinas didn’t feel that one proof was sufficient for those without faith, so he came up with 5. I’m not sure that the socioeconomic downside of extramarital sex was one of them, though I totally agree that it is wrong, and in violation of natural and divine law.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Morals don’t change. Now if you have any serious questions… you know this site has a search feature.

Sure they do. Even a person with the best intentions can have their morals changed through education. As some one becomes more aware of the ramifications and ripple effects that their behaviours have their morals may evolve with the intention of minimizing those consequences.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So you’re asking why we would could stone someone 2000 years ago but we can’t now?

You can stone some one now, though I highly discourage it. But this does appear to be one of those rules that regardless of the time in which it happens comes across as a horrible example of how to behave for societies that have a concern for the physical and mental well being of its people. Especially since the offenses for which stoning was applied were relatively light, such as picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

 

[JDaniel]

I was having this discussion with another person and they were having trouble seeing my point.

In the bible there are various verses forbidding fornication…but (according to atheists if there really is no God )…why does going against this law cause so much destruction in abortions, unadopted children and unwanted children.

Am I making sense?

Anthony:

You are making sense, but in sort of a back-door way. As a proof for the existence of God it doesn’t consist of the typical (quasi-scientific) dialectic and demonstration that a priori arguments generally pass through. Instead, one has to actually care about the aborted, unwanted, unadopted children, or at least be intelligent enough to understand that abortion (et al) is a violation of the unable-to-speak-for-themselves’ rights to precisely the same right(s) as grown, and partially grown, human beings own by participation in that same reciprocation that provides those rights to every last human being on earth, whether on this side of a mother’s belly skin, or the other.

The truth is, without God there’s no compelling rationale for such moral leaning, even from the standpoint of sheer emotionality.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yes exactly and when we go against them there are disastrous results. Don’t you think the sheer efficiency of his laws and commands prove he exists? Why can’t non believers see this? Because they don’t know the difference between right and wrong?

Anthony:

No, I think non-believers know right from wrong - when it suits them.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I think I see the error you are making, Anthony, at least from the perspective of a non-believer. A non-believer would say that the law itself–no fornication, chaste living–was invented by human beings who observed how destructive such behaviors were. These laws were interpreted religiously–God said it–but behind the law was human insight.

The Buddhists or the Greek philosophers are an example of this. Consider this quote, from the Greek philosopher Epicurus: “We cannot live pleasurably without living prudently, gracefully, and justly; and we cannot live prudently gracefully, and justly, without living pleasurably.”

Epicurus, who was an atheist, also preached chastity, writing: “sexual passion has never done a man any good; to the contrary, he should count himself lucky if it has not done positive harm.”

For him–and for the Buddhists–virtue is not a divine command but is wisdom and prudence – common sense.

The origin of the prohibition against pork, or the rite of circumcision, can be similarly explained by a non-believer as being connected with good hygiene.

Portofino:

The thing that is wrong with that is that it presumes that God’s laws were given to man whilst man was living in societal frameworks. They were given to man much earlier than that. They were given to man when it was imperative that man go forth and multiply, or be eaten. Man had to grow the population despite the presence of those moral proscriptions. Man didn’t have time yet to “observe” the destruction wrought by imprudence.

Also, remember, many non-theists today regard those early people as brute savages, creatures without the mental acuity to be able to formulate such rules for the “betterment of mankind.” It’s interesting that when non-theists need early man to be nothing more than a savage dolt, he’s that, and when they need him to be extraordinarily capable of gleaning impeccable moral rules from the less than understandable wild, he’s that. Rather inconsistent, wouldn’t you say?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Consensual or not, in the modern western world I don’t think that most people see the scenarios listed as worthy of execution.

*"[23]If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."*

My personal opinion, I don’t see the world being better off if we were to follow this advice.

TS:

Then it should be just fine that married women sleep with men that are not their husbands, or that married men sleep with women that are not their wives. You don’t see any problem with that.

Here is the answer to the other part of your question about killing children.

If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him. Lev 20:9.

He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:17

‘* Cursed is he who dishonors his father or mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ Deuteronomy 27:16*

Do you think the “children” that are being spoken of are little, bitty children? Do you think they are referring to 12 year olds? Or, 13 year olds? Or, might they be referring to 26 year olds, or 27 year olds, or older? I’m starting to think that the first word of your handle is, well, inappropriate.

 

[JDaniel]

Society is constantly changing, this is a fact. Religion is constantly changing? Am I to understand your comment to mean that the Catholic Church, and her truth is constantly changing or did I not understand your point?

Hello, StrawbwerryJam!

“Truth” cannot constantly change. That would be the contradiction of contradictions. “Truth” is not like “theories” or “hypotheses” which change whenever new evidence is unearthed. The Catholic Church was assured by Jesus Christ that it would always be the repository of Truth. So, it doesn’t change.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Conversation with another poster?

This is, a thread on Catholic answers forum in the Philosophy forum.
This is NOT your personal discussion with another poster here.

I am NOT done speaking and will not be done unless a moderator here decides so, not by your decision. You are not Catholic Answers.

Strawberry:

But he is the OP.

God bless,
jd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

TS:

Then it should be just fine that married women sleep with men that are not their husbands, or that married men sleep with women that are not their wives. You don’t see any problem with that.

Do you think the “children” that are being spoken of are little, bitty children? Do you think they are referring to 12 year olds? Or, 13 year olds? Or, might they be referring to 26 year olds, or 27 year olds, or older? I’m starting to think that the first word of your handle is, well, inappropriate.

Actually, I think that, like me, would not see it appropriate to use blunt force trauma with stones to terminate some one’s life because the person engaged in a non-lethal infraction. I also don’t think that you really see the age of the child as being a factor in whether or not it is appropriate to put him or her to death for a verbal infraction. I think that you are a kinder, better person than that. Like me, I’m sure you’d also find the site of such an execution taking place as being disturbing.

If I’m wrong about this then please let me know. I know that I may be wrong as not every one feels this way. This form of execution is still implemented in the middle east. Videos of it make their way out through various news reporting entities.

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, how does this make any sense? I’m here to learn, teach me! Why would God inspire writings that are not recommended at home??

ReachingFaith:

Welcome to CAF. I’m not quite sure what your question is. Would you mind expanding on it a little?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

why would God command something that is fundamentally wrong, no matter what the age? you don’t kill people for rape, or rebellious ways–I’d be dead!

RF:

Very funny!

Don’t forget, we all live under a modern rule of law (of course, that’s sometimes arguable) but our early fathers and mothers didn’t. They were their own “law.” Righteous retribution was the law of primitive peoples - otherwise criminals would do as they pleased, without regard to the rights of others; and, without regard to others’ personal sufferings.

In the absence of laws, courts and police, within reason (usually, but not always), men did what had to be done. A rapist could not be simply permitted. Death by stoning for rape was, I am sure, a rather effective deterrent. And, what was meant by “rebelliousness” against one’s parents was considerably more than the rebelliousness you probably exhibit toward your parents from time to time!

Seriously, this is very confusing. Society changes, but right and wrong, MORALS, are not supposed to change, according to the Catholic church. Something which is wrong can never be right, no matter what the circumstances.
So teach me, please. Strawberry has a point, I feel.

I’m not sure if that was his point, but, you are correct: provided we have fully understood the wrongness of an act. But, there are sometimes mitigations. For example, we know stealing is wrong. But, if I am hungry, practically starving to death, and I steal a little food from someone who has some, should I be stoned to death for it? The advantage of our court system is that a judge can often determine if the sentence the law prescribes is too harsh in certain circumstances. The judge doesn’t obliterate the wrongness of the act, just tempers down the punishment to fit the crime.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, I do not. Strawberry is asking why the bible mentions such a thing at all, and so am I. Why would God say such a thing?

I would appreciate any answer.

Reachingfaith:

The Bible is a series of 67 books (for Catholics, 73 for Protestants, if memory serves) that are written by about 43 or 44 men, at different times, and in different parts of the (barely) civilized world. The OT consists of 7 covenants - man with God and God with man. Men wrote the canonized Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit did not write them, per se.

Earlier times depicted men that were more savage, lawless, brutal. God expected mankind from Adam to love Him with a filial love (like yours for your parents, when you’re not being too rebellious!). Various cultures of men did not. So God wound down His search for a worthy civilization, by testing them to see which race would rise to the top. The Jewish race rose to the top to become His chosen people. The coming of Christ was to be the eighth and final covenant, as Christ changed everything. Instead of simply allowing primitive man to forge his own way, He put an aspect of Himself into the world to simply forgive us. “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”

This is an oversimplification, but it’s probably fairly accurate. (Anyone who wants to jump in and help, feel free.)

The early earth was being prepared for the onslaught of man. A much earlier earth would probably not have sustained 7 - 40 billion people, if what we see is really Reality. (But that’s another topic.) Also remember, the creation and preparation of the world is a roll-out (to us, if not to God). Probably too much unnecessary rhetoric. I look forward to your questions.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

People always tell me I’m stubborn and proud. I don’t mean to react badly to anyone. I cringe when “Catholics” fire at the people who have honest questions. It does nothing.
So, if I understand you, the Catholic Church is interesting to you? do you want to find a faith? And pardon me for my lack of knowledge, but what exactly is an agnostic? I’m a little foggy on that.
Whoops, your religion box is “catholic leanings”. I must be up too late…anyway, I’ll talk to you soon.

Reaching:

An ‘agnostic’ is a middle of the roader, someone who does not necessarily disbelieve in God, but also has an extent of doubt.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, if one lives in the middle east in certain areas applying some of them would help the person fit right in. The OT and the Quran are consistent in the style of their prescribed punishment. I question whether many of the rules were ever appropriate for any society; killing some one just doesn’t seem like an appropriate response to a comparatively minor infraction.

TS:

Such as?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

ok, but here’s the thing: is it right to stone people for sins? We don’t do that now, it’s murder. It’s not just morally wrong, it’s illegal.

Reaching:

These were the punishments of savage men on savage men. Today, our court and legal system wouldn’t allow it. Back then, there was no court and legal system. there was only savage men and more savage men.

My question: morals are never supposed to change. It’s a doctrine of the Church, as far as I know. But these things were commanded by God, correct?

No, they were decided on by men of admittedly limited intelligence. Remember, Morals may not change, but punishments handed out are always subject to change. As I stated in and earlier post, it is always wrong to steal, but there may be mitigations that alter the punishment.

God bless,
jd