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

[JDaniel]

Appreciate the responses from other posters, even though my basic question remains unanswered. I have to say, I’m discouraged by the attitude here.
An atheist or even a questioning person will not agree, it’s true. But one sure-fire way to make people doubt/dislike the faith is to a) refuse to answer the question, based on differing excuses
and,
b) respond with things that, while almost on point, are actually just one person’s opinion and not reasonable PROOF of anything.
You all must see it. I’m not the only one. If you don’t know, can’t answer…what does that say to me?
Ignorant though I may be, I am still trying to understand.

Reaching:

I’m starting to find it hard to believe that you are a Catholic that is reaching for faith. You are now sounding more and more like a seminar poster, whose purpose on CAF is distract. What’s the name of your Church? What’s the name of your Priest? Is this the first time you’ve not told the truth?

God bless,
jd

 

[AnthonySorensen]

Reaching:

I’m starting to find it hard to believe that you are a Catholic that is reaching for faith. You are now sounding more and more like a seminar poster, whose purpose on CAF is distract. What’s the name of your Church? What’s the name of your Priest? Is this the first time you’ve not told the truth?

I feel the same way. I even called him on it last night. His question has been thoroughly answered by you but he refuses to accept your answer.

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

I see your point- the wisdom of God’s Law proves God exists.

The objection would be that the prohibition of fornication is common to almost all societies (ours being the exception). The same as the prohibition of murder and theft. A society does not necessarily have to God to have sensible or effective moral laws.

I am not saying this to dismiss your argument- which actually still stands up, if God is understood as the source of all moral sense.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I see your point- the wisdom of God’s Law proves God exists.

The objection would be that the prohibition of fornication is common to almost all societies (ours being the exception). The same as the prohibition of murder and theft. A society does not necessarily have to God to have sensible or effective moral laws.

I am not saying this to dismiss your argument- which actually still stands up, if God is understood as the source of all moral sense.

If your demand for proof is easily met, by preconcieved ideas why on earth or in the universe would you bother to ask anything about anything as it was already done and explained properly for you and those living now?

 

[Faithdancer]

Sounds like you are talking about what some identify as “strong atheist” (also called “positive atheist” or “hard atheist”). I too think that there are not very many instances of these types of atheist. Most that I encounter are either “agnostic atheist” and “apatheistic”.

I had to look up the term “apatheist” ThinkingSapien, and I think that sounds about right. Thanks for the link!

 

[ANewWorld]

I…what? I’m not trying to prove any such thing! I have nothing to prove, in this position, the teachers do. I believe in God. What I want to know is why would God, who directly inspired the Bible, prescribe things that are wrong, no matter what age practiced them. It’s not that I don’t understand that “society” does things that are wrong, it’s that GOD inspired writings that told people to do these things.
Am I really so unclear?

I apologize, but I’m confused. The topic of this thread is “Doesn’t this statement prove there’s a God?” My answer was no it does not, but now you said you’re not trying to prove any such thing. I realize you are not trying to prove this to yourself, but you were trying to prove it to a non-believer were you not? That’s what I was addressing when I said you’re trying to prove it. That is, prove it to them, not yourself.

 

[AnthonySorensen]

I apologize, but I’m confused. The topic of this thread is “Doesn’t this statement prove there’s a God?” My answer was no it does not, but now you said you’re not trying to prove any such thing. I realize you are not trying to prove this to yourself, but you were trying to prove it to a non-believer were you not? That’s what I was addressing when I said you’re trying to prove it. That is, prove it to them, not yourself.

I would say you are confused.

How did you fail to notice I started the thread?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I had to look up the term “apatheist” ThinkingSapien, and I think that sounds about right. Thanks for the link!

There are lots of other terms for various dispositions that some might put under the non-religious umbrella. The dont tend to tell much about the person. For example, given the statement “there are no gods” not every atheist would say that statement is true. A strong atheist would say its true. An agnostic atheist might say its a truth claim not supported by evidence and that you could never collect enough evidence to show it is true. An ignostic atheist would say that you must first present a meaning full definition of “gods” before the statement could be considered. The apatheistic person doesnt really care. The one thing that they share in common is that none of them would assert that there exist at least one god.

These terms are not mutually exclusive. One can be atheist, agnostic, ignostic, and apatheistc at the same time. There’s not really a central doctrine from which people of these positions must pull or conform to. So the labels alone dont tell much. And from what i’ve seen many dont seek out labels for themselves and may not know some of the terms I presented.

One other term worth knowing is “misotheistic.” These are people that think there is a god but have feelings of hatred toward that entity. These people are many times mistakenly classified as atheist.

For clarification, i know some might find my use of the lower case and plural form of the word god offensive. But to limit discussion to the uppercase and singular firm cuts out consideration of people with other backgrounds. I had a friend in highschool that started to think the polytheistic deities he was taught about were not real. Eventually he stopped believing they were real all together. So he could be classified as an atheist since he lost belief of his gods.

 

[ReachingFaith]

Reaching:

I’m starting to find it hard to believe that you are a Catholic that is reaching for faith. You are now sounding more and more like a seminar poster, whose purpose on CAF is distract. What’s the name of your Church? What’s the name of your Priest? Is this the first time you’ve not told the truth?

God bless,
jd

well, sorry you feel that way, but I am a Catholic, thought obviously not a very convinced one. Name of church, priest: none of your concern, I feel. As for the truth, why are you all so upset by questions? I am not one to aggravate until I am aggravated.
My purpose here, as stated numerous times, is to find a better grasp of a faith that has been “taught” to me. If that’s all clear now, may I just say that this appears to be the wrong place, as many of you grow antsy/impatient when pushed for answers.

I am not a he, either! Why was that assumed? Do I sound like a man?
I think anyone with any common sense and reading ability will understand the question I now regret deeply for asking. My ho is that you were not able to/comfortable with answering that question.
Look at the first post where I ask. See how I was responded to.
If God is all-good, why would He prescribe what is wrong? That was the question, nothing else. It appears to ignorant little me to be a contradiction. If you can’t answer, don’t. That will say enough.
And, finally, I rather see things the opposite way! The majority of posts here seem to be the ones that “distract”. As it is, even I’M forgetting my original question in the whirlwind that ensued.
Hope that clears things up. Let me know if you need more information.

 

[ReachingFaith]

I apologize, but I’m confused. The topic of this thread is “Doesn’t this statement prove there’s a God?” My answer was no it does not, but now you said you’re not trying to prove any such thing. I realize you are not trying to prove this to yourself, but you were trying to prove it to a non-believer were you not? That’s what I was addressing when I said you’re trying to prove it. That is, prove it to them, not yourself.

I think you’re the one who needs to realize things. I am not the author of this thread, nor am I male , and I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying hard to LEARN something. Please go back and find how this “discussion” got started. I am responding to a question asked by another poster, who brought up a point that made perfect sense to me. I then asked it over, in my own point of view, and was unceremoniously refused an answer. Here I am, what seems decades later.

 

[JDaniel]

Pardon me if your question is not “do morals ever change?” That’s what I take your question to be.

My own view of the matter is that no, morals never change. Christ’s teaching is timeless because truth is timeless. Christ taught love (and non-violence) and this, to me, means:

*the burning of heretics in 1500 was wrong, just as it would be today (something which pacifist Christians, such as the Anabaptists, proclaimed even then)

*it is wrong to stone one’s children or to stone an adulteress, because it is doing violence to a brother or sister in Christ; no amount of social utility could ever make this act, which is a sin against one’s neighbor, into a non-sin

As a non-Christian, I personally don’t think that the passages in the Old Testament that spoke of slaughtering the Canaanites, or stoning adulterous women, were inspired by God. I perceive God in the Bible, but not in every single word of it.

What does generally disturb me, though, is how Christianity has been guilty of a double-standard in making no compromises to the timelessness of sexual morality. In other words, pre-marital sex and masturbation was wrong in 700 B.C.; it was wrong in 1500 A.D.; and it is wrong today.

I can’t help but deplore this double-standard regarding violence, where the burning of religious dissenters, for example (aka, heretics) was excused within the “context of the times,” or even is viewed as something which God commanded for the times. I’ve heard many times that “no one knew any better, in those days.” Well, through even a cursory study of history, I learned that people did know, at the time, even if their moral clarity put them in the minority.

It is many of these same Christians–those who view the appropriateness of violence as relative to the era in which one lives–who often condemn those in the secular culture that say, “the prohibition against pre-martial sex or against homosexuality is no longer valid; after all, times have changed.” Indeed, the Christian responds, “no – morality does not change with the fashions of the times. Morality is unchanging.”

I’ve come to the opinion that, if this is how a Christian views standards of chastity–timeless, non-negotiable, unchanging–it also should be how a Christian views standards of non-violence.

Portofino:

To say that the Catholic Church understands that the times altered the behavior of people is to say that the Catholic Church understands - nothing more, nothing less. If you really believe there were no conceptual differences between the people of 2,000 years ago and the people of today, I don’t know what to say to you. But, we will at least agree to disagree.

To say that “sexual morality” needs to change is to close one’s eyes to the sights and sounds around you. The difficulties obtained then as they do today. Husband-less women with children live a tough, tough life. The children of husband-less women more than likely turn out to be highly out of harmony with society in general. When a husband-less woman succeeds, she is worthy of great praise. If she doesn’t, she is worthy of no critique at all. The costs of husband-less women with children is borne by the rest of society and it is not insignificant. These are but a few of the reasons why even primitive societies understood the problems. But, the answer is not annihilation.

More often than not, consensual out of wedlock relations resulted in punishment for both the man and the woman. The pressures put on those small cultures were not as easily absorbed as they are today, in our huge societies. But, the problems obviously stemmed from the wives of husbands who strayed, and the husbands of wives who strayed. It’s very hard to tell an aggrieved husband or wife that they should just forget about it. Were you married, or had you a girlfriend/boyfriend, I’d like to see your reaction to that.

Now, none of the foregoing is a condoning of capital punishment. Capital punishment is never easy to digest. That should tell us something about it. That alone should tell us that if it is employed at all, it should be employed very sparingly, and with precisely clear proof of the allegations against the transgressor. The rarity of the aforementioned is, to me, the single biggest reason why it ought to be abolished.

Nevertheless, we are God’s creatures. We are God’s to do with as He pleases - not as we please. God never gives us more than we can bear. Our short lives on this planet pale in comparison to our afterlives. If you tell me you don’t believe in the “afterlife,” I will tell you that I don’t care, I do.

The A-team, as Empther calls them, will look for any crack in the ceiling to squeeze God into a hypothetical just to do Him injustice. That is something you’ll have to live with. I will not be changed, no matter how often you come to these fora and no matter how hard you try. I am reasonable. The A-team is not. But, alas

God bless,
jd

 

[ReapReason]

Did you think I expected an “atheist” to agree with me?

I am not an atheist.

 

[ReachingFaith]

see, the above post is just what I mean. You call people with questions unreasonable, and then I am confronted with people who refuse me any type of answer. What is the justice in that? I am not an atheist, so far as I know, and I find this mentality very confusing, not to mention annoying.

 

[ReachingFaith]

Pardon me if your question is not “do morals ever change?” That’s what I take your question to be.

My own view of the matter is that no, morals never change. Christ’s teaching is timeless because truth is timeless. Christ taught love (and non-violence) and this, to me, means:

*the burning of heretics in 1500 was wrong, just as it would be today (something which pacifist Christians, such as the Anbaptists, proclaimed even then)

*it is wrong to stone one’s children or to stone an adultress, because it is doing violence to a brother or sister in Christ; no amount of social utility could ever make this act, which is a sin against one’s neighbor, into a non-sin

As a non-Christian, I personally don’t think that the passages in the Old Testament that spoke of slaughtering the Canaanites, or stoning adulterous women, were inspired by God. I perceive God in the Bible, but not in every single word of it.

What does generally disturb me, though, is how Christianity has been guilty of a double-standard in making no compromises to the timelessness of sexual morality. In other words, pre-marital sex and masturbation was wrong in 700 B.C.; it was wrong in 1500 A.D.; and it is wrong today.

I can’t help but deplore this double-standard regarding violence, where the burning of religious dissenters, for example (aka, heretics) was excused within the “context of the times,” or even is viewed as something which God commanded for the times. I’ve heard many times that “no one knew any better, in those days.” Well, through even a cursory study of history, I learned that people did know, at the time, even if their moral clarity put them in the minority.

It is many of these same Christians–those who view the appropriateness of violence as relative to the era in which one lives–who often condemn those in the secular culture that say, “the prohibition against pre-martial sex or against homosexuality is no longer valid; after all, times have changed.” Indeed, the Christian responds, “no – morality does not change with the fashions of the times. Morality is unchanging.”

I’ve come to the opinion that, if this is how a Christian views standards of chastity–timeless, non-negotiable, unchanging–it also should be how a Christian views standards of non-violence.

now, this makes perfect sense to me! Is this not showing an obvious contradiction? Can you explain what makes this post wrong? Not with some sarcastic, caustic comment, or a prayer intention, but with rational, logical proofs that will convince someone.

 

[ReapReason]

see, the above post is just what I mean. You call people with questions unreasonable, and then I am confronted with people who refuse me any type of answer. What is the justice in that? I am not an atheist, so far as I know, and I find this mentality very confusing, not to mention annoying.

What are you talking about?

 

[ReachingFaith]

What are you talking about?

not you, I posted at the same time as you, and, anyway I deleted that post. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[JDaniel]

well, sorry you feel that way, but I am a Catholic, thought obviously not a very convinced one. Name of church, priest: none of your concern, I feel. As for the truth, why are you all so upset by questions? I am not one to aggravate until I am aggravated.
My purpose here, as stated numerous times, is to find a better grasp of a faith that has been “taught” to me. If that’s all clear now, may I just say that this appears to be the wrong place, as many of you grow antsy/impatient when pushed for answers.

I am not a he, either! Why was that assumed? Do I sound like a man?
I think anyone with any common sense and reading ability will understand the question I now regret deeply for asking. My ho is that you were not able to/comfortable with answering that question.
Look at the first post where I ask. See how I was responded to.
If God is all-good, why would He prescribe what is wrong? That was the question, nothing else. It appears to ignorant little me to be a contradiction. If you can’t answer, don’t. That will say enough.
And, finally, I rather see things the opposite way! The majority of posts here seem to be the ones that “distract”. As it is, even I’M forgetting my original question in the whirlwind that ensued.
Hope that clears things up. Let me know if you need more information.

Reaching:

Good. Thank you for your considerate response. If I was wrong about you, I apologize immensely. If I was right about you, I will work tirelessly to ferret you out. I’m not a pushover - even for a pretty face!

There is no short and simple answer to your question. An adequate answer presumes much. To begin, remember, it is you who thinks she knows what it means to be “all wrong.” That was not meant as a disparagement. It’s the truth. None of us knows what is “all wrong.” All we can do is project our own sensibilities on it. What is all wrong to you, might be a little wrong to the next person, or it might be not wrong at all to a third. You must, by now in your life, understand how difficult it is to obtain consensus.

It is my belief, and I believe it is the Church’s too, that God controls everything we do, i.e., everything except “sin.” If that is true, then God does seem to prescribe what is wrong. But again, it is only wrong to you and some others, and not to all. (Follow some of the conversations I’ve been recently having concerning “rape,” on other threads, to see what I mean. Some view as merely a “sexual act.” I view it as the forceful theft of a person’s closest personal possession.)

In my opinion, God does everything right. In my opinion, He does nothing wrong. All that is asked is our trustful surrender to His Divine Providence. The faster we conform to His Will, the faster will be our sublime contentment. There’s no other way to say it.
“Neither can any man say to Him, Why dost thou so? (Eccles. 8:4) For if He assigns to His creatures the end that He wills, and chooses the means which seem good to Him to lead them to it, the end He assigns them must be good and wise, nor can He direct them towards their end other than by good and wise means. Therefore do not become foolish (Eph. 5:7) the Apostle tells us, but understand what the will of the Lord is, so that doing it you may receive the promise, (Heb. 10:36) that is to say eternal happiness, for it is written the world with its lust is passing away, but he who does the will of God abides forever.” - Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence, Fr. Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure

God bless,
jd

 

[ReachingFaith]

I must be really thick, because that makes not alot of sense to me. I’m sorry, I know I must be annoying you, too. And let me assure you once and for all, I am neither male nor atheist…you need not ferret.
God is supposed to be all-good. I know that. I believe it, too, on my better days. And I know that we are supposed to believe that God has a reason for everything He does. I guess my biggest problem is trust. I find it hard for myself to submit so much of myself to things I can never know totally for sure, but must just believe on faith and hope. Again, this is probably so garbled. I know what I mean, but it’s hard to get across.
I am very tormented by the idea that there are things in my faith that are so hard to explain, maybe I begin to shift towards the people who tell me there is nothing true about what I believe. I’m scared, frankly. I’m scared because if they’re right, where does that leave me? And I want to believe, but that doubt is so violent.
I believe in God. I know He is a part of my life, but how much, and in what ways, and in all the other ways people try to convince me to change, I’m NOT knowing. Does that help to explain any? If I seem rude, I am worried. I want logical proofs, to prove to myself, for myself, that this is a true faith, and one that will enable me to serve the God I must.
It’s not just the atheists who tell me I’m wrong. My lovely “christian” friend (yes, there is a difference!) tells me that I am far too harsh in the Catholic faith. That is, I do not need confession, nor penance, or anything but a personal belief in God to get to heaven. She says Jesus died for me, and that I was saved when He did that.
So I have come to a point in my life, where I must see for myself. The word of those who have brought me into this church is no longer enough. Do you follow me? I am not a rebel, or someone who thinks she knows it all, I am just trying to satisfy myself. It hurts and discourages me when I do not get the answer I need/am looking for. I ask for your prayers now, all of you who read this. Pray that I can find what I am looking for, if you would.

 

[ANewWorld]

I would say you are confused.

How did you fail to notice I started the thread?

Going back to the first page on my PC, I obviously see it. Browsing through on the mobile phone, it escaped me somewhere. Small font, bad eyes…confusion cleared up!

 

[Bradski]

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?

What about doing something that is classed as a mortal sin which doesn’t have disastrous reuslts? If people use contraception then they don’t have unwanted pregnancies and there are less abortions (yes, I know that they could just stop having sex, but we are living in the real world).

The vast majority of Catholic women use, or have used contraception and I don’t see anything disastrous coming from that. From a purely practical point of view, that is.