faith and morals

[Lasting_faith]

Lasting faith;11440491:

Every time you doubt, something I have never done, BTW, pick up a grass straw or a leaf, could we make one by our own knowledge? No. So it is a very logical conclusion to say that God do exist. And if we believe in God we must believe in Satan. But it is very important to understand that we shall not WORSHIP Satan. He do exist, as the evil force, but God are the good and loving force and will win in the end. And how do we know God will win? Love and understanding is always stronger then evil ever can be.

If both good and bad would be a myth or just a good story we would know it by now. There are all evidence that say: God is real. Science can not explain God, but everything do not need a scientific explanation. Some may ask “what evidence” and for a good reason. I do understand that it can be hard to have faith sometimes and even impossible some other times. So what evidence? Do you think a lie would last for 2000 years? People was not stupid then, they saw with their own eyes what Christ did do. They saw that He did die, and keep in mind that those who did witness that where not what we today call Christians. Why would they lie? Behind every lie is a need or goal to not tell the truth. They did not gain anything. If the only people who would have seen Christ die had been his disciples we would have a problem with what really did happen, but those who did see it where Roman soldiers who had no interest to tell “a good story”. And what make the truth even more true is what did happen after the Crucifixion. If it all would have been a lie we would most likely have only The Old Testament and a Jewish faith. But truth will ALWAYS win. It was not a well staged “show”, it was the truth.

Thank you for your in depth response. I will try to respond but please respond if I haven’t answered all your points

1. You claim no doubt, however doubt gives “antibodies” to help preserve, strengthen and bring faith to the next level (Tim Keller “Reason for God”) except in my case.
2. If you were to understand how a grass and straw came “to be” through the evolutionary process, I don’t think you would change your belief anyway.
3. Science can not prove nor can you God exist. Is it not possible “our God” was created from a more powerful SuperGod of the multiverse to have our God believe He is the only God? You nor I can prove either way nor can “our God”. In 2 Kings 3:26 the king of Moab is being slaughtered by Israel, Judah and Edom and sacrifices his firstborn to his God, Chemosh, and “there was an outburst of divine anger against Israel” and they retreated. Is Chemosh more powerful than Yahweh or was Yahweh mad at Israel for not killing their firstborn to Him? Another suspicion of Yahweh’s omnipotence is in Judges 1:19 “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Are iron chariots God’s kryptonite or is there something more powerful than Him?
4. If He is the creator, then Deism is as far as you can go but you still need to explain who created God. HINT: Man did.
5. Why worship a creator who created Satan and evil Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)?
6. If anything God is energy as we see from the first law of thermodynamics it can be neither created nor destroyed but again you are stuck in deism at best.
7. I never said anyone was lying, just beliefs that are not true. History shows people die and do things with good intentions with bad beliefs. Look up Heavens Gate, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones People Temple, alien abductees, Mormons…
8. Many biblical writings are Forged, see Bart Ehrman’s book Forged. Many Christians scholars agree.
9. Are you saying God did not protect His word from mistranslations and allowed us to fight over the truth with our salvation at risk. Would you do that to those you love and want their salvation? That is incompetence and mean, not perfection.
   10 The New Testament has many contradictions. To many to list. These troubled me,
   The Gospel of Luke claims (2:1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus. But Matthew claims (2:1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive–possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod’s death to 4 B.C., Luke and Matthew contradict each other. An OT problem is Why don’t the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 prior to Moses smashing them not match the re-written ones in Exodus 34?
10. Homer’s Odyssey has accurate historical accounts and topography but that doesn’t mean Achilles and other Gods existed. Spider-Man takes place in NYC thus he exist?

Thanks again for the exchange. I look forward to more.

It is late here in Finland I am pretty tired. I will dig in to your response tomorrow and try to answer as good as I can. I am not a “learned wise old man” (even though I am 53, soon 54) and I have this strange thing that nobody can explain, I can read a book for years and still don’t understand the first word even, the only book I understand is The Bible, and for some reason I am able to learn a new language just by listening to it in a few months, my grammar may be a bit bad because I need to write as I would talk. But all what I know is what I hear or see, but I will do my best to answer despite this small disadvantage. Meanwhile, try to not get suspended or banned, read the rules as good as you can. But I will be back tomorrow, now out with my dog and a shower and then some ZZZ.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you were to understand how a grass and straw came “to be” through the evolutionary process, I don’t think you would change your belief anyway.

An understanding of evolution does not preclude an appreciation of God as the creator. In fact the beauty of evolution can give one an even deeper appreciation of the greatness of God. To me, evolution is certainly more inspiring than the “rabbit out of a hat” magic trick that some people espoused as a literal interpretation of Genesis.

In 2 Kings 3:26 the king of Moab is being slaughtered by Israel, Judah and Edom and sacrifices his firstborn to his God, Chemosh, and “there was an outburst of divine anger against Israel” and they retreated. Is Chemosh more powerful than Yahweh or was Yahweh mad at Israel for not killing their firstborn to Him?

The action reported in 2 Kings is simply what happened. What you draw from that event is up to you. The scripture does not say that Chemosh was more powerful than Yahweh. It merely says that Israel retreated. If you read the commentaries on this verse you will find that the Israelites feared Chemosh - regardless of whether or not this fear was justified. The Israelites were, after all, still human, and subject to superstition. And since they were on foreign soil, it is easy to see how they might lose heart and retreat. You really should read some commentaries on the scripture before assuming it shows one thing or another.

Another suspicion of Yahweh’s omnipotence is in Judges 1:19 “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Are iron chariots God’s kryptonite or is there something more powerful than Him?

You misunderstand the anticedent of the word “he”. It does not refer to the Lord. It refers to Judah. Thus the verse does not show a failure of omnipotence of God as much as it shows a limitation in Judah. Just because the Lord was with Judah, that does not mean the Lord is going to lend Judah the full force of His omnipotence. You are assuming a very simplistic relationship between God and Man, when in fact it is much more complicated than either you or I can fathom.

If He is the creator, then Deism is as far as you can go but you still need to explain who created God. HINT: Man did.

Again, totally unsubstantiated speculation. If you are going to criticize Christians for believing in something without substantiation, you should try to put yourself on more solid ground than the ones you are criticizing. So far you aren’t doing too well.

Why worship a creator who created Satan and evil…

It is an error in logic to assume a solution to a problem just because there is some mystery in it. Just because you can’t figure out why God does something does not mean God doesn’t exist. It means your thinking is limited. Get over it.

If anything God is energy…

Resorting to pseudoscience? Do you even know what energy is, scientifically speaking?

I never said anyone was lying, just beliefs that are not true. History shows people die and do things with good intentions with bad beliefs. Look up Heavens Gate, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones People Temple, alien abductees, Mormons…

Examples of people who had bad beliefs do not constitute an attack on all beliefs. If a large group of unrelated people independently submit to torture and death to proclaim what they witnessed, we would do well to listen to them. In the case of Heavens Gate, Branch Davidians, and Jim Jones, you don’t have that. You have one deranged person who imposes his will on others. And in no case did any of them submit their bodies to torture by their opponents. They took the coward’s way out and killed themselves. This is nothing at all like Christian martyrs.

Are you saying God did not protect His word from mistranslations and allowed us to fight over the truth with our salvation at risk. Would you do that to those you love and want their salvation? That is incompetence and mean, not perfection.

Again you are drawing conclusions from your inability to understand the will of God. Only an extreme arrogance can hold this view. For someone who realizes that they are limited this is not such a stumbling block.

The Gospel of Luke claims (2:1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus. But Matthew claims (2:1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive–possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod’s death to 4 B.C., Luke and Matthew contradict each other.

When we say that the bible is the inspired word of God, we do not mean that God dictated every word and the various authors wrote it down. You have to take the bible for what it was intended to be. The Gospels were not intended to be a secular history book, in the modern sense and standards of historical accuracy. They were meant to convey the good news of salvation. Perhaps Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John could not get a job in journalism today, or even as writers of a history textbook. But that does not mean they were not chosen by God to deliver the good news.

 

[PendingTheist]

When did the Vatican abolish condom use? How could they? Last I check they have no authority to create legislation in any of those countries, nor have they tried.

Given the false accusations made, there is nothing to agree or disagree with.

Your correct. Abolish is the incorrect word. Rather Pope Benedict endorsed using condoms in male prostitutes when we know this disease can spread through heterosexual sex as well. Should that woman get infected through heterosexual unprotected sex, the fetus is at hi risk of infection. What is your opinion on that knowing abstinence will not be followed despite being preached.

reuters.com/article/2010/11/23/us-africa-pope-aids-idUSTRE6AM42K20101123

youtube.com/watch?v=Y65AXiDFPCM

 

[Abu]

PendingTheist #23
Pope Benedict endorsed using condoms in male prostitutes

False.

Useful commentary on the Pope’s statements and how they are twisted are here:
tinyurl.com/2at2lp4

and here:
tinyurl.com/24dzohf

Pope Benedict XVI:
“This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.”
Find it on page 119 of Light of the World.

 

[Cathoholic]

PendingTheist

When you say this,

Then the bible has contradictions, thus it is fallible so who knows what to believe.

You are putting your own thoughts forth as infallible. Do you see that? You are merely substituting one source of truth with another alleged source.

The conclusion of this road you are going down of course is nihilism—which you see too.

so who knows what to believe.

The problem in order to get that far you must objectively assert as a (false) foundation:

Then the bible has contradictions, thus it is fallible.

The other false foundation built-in to your premise is that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

And the last false foundation built-in to your premise is that we would operate upon a sola Scriptura methodology (except when it comes to your interpretation of the Bible).

Incidentally, I have no issue with you “interpreting” the Bible. But the Church expects us to “interpret” the Bible in HARMONY with Her teachings/Sacred Traditions.

So go back in the Bible and ask yourself: “What are the POSSIBLE changes in teaching if I read the Bible merely as history?”

1-Man changes
2-God changes
3-Both God and man change
4-Neither God or man change

You and I agree that the answer above cannot be number 4 (and that is self-evident—I am not God—although there are some people i.e in the New Age movement perhaps who really think they are God. Sickness and death that we all eventually have to deal with, usually has a way of refuting that idea sooner or later though, even in the most ardent New Ager.).

So you are left with reading the Bible (with the false premise of sola Scriptura, which we can deal with later) with . . . .

1-Man changes
2-God changes
3-Both God and man change

Who do you think “changes”? If you get this correct, you will begin to see why some of the Bible statements make sense, and other points you just mischaracterized (we can deal with those specifics later too but I want to get some principles down first).

 

[ynotzap]

Quote: Who created God? Another statement: Man created God, God is a myth. If so why doesn’t the idea of God disappear? I have read statements like “God of the Gaps”-what science can’t explain, God is used to fill up the gap until science advances, then the concept of God is no longer needed. Another statement, “The primal cause is flawed.” In other words God was not the primary cause of creation. In all of these statements man renders a picture of himself as self-sufficient, independent and ruler of his own life and self-determined. He is self contradictory.

It is a fact that existence is not our totally dependent becoming nature. eg. progression can’t exist without a beginning. Human experience, the criterion of our knowledge, shows us that we progress from cause to effect. We create a series of events. If we regress from effect to cause infinitely, we will have no beginning because there is no ending in our regression. This proves that a Primal Cause is necessary. If we didn’t exist we couldn’t cause our own existence and therefore there would have to be an “Uncaused Cause” an “Unmoved Mover” and an “Uncreated Creator”. This Being we call God.

Another obviously contradictory statement: Who created God?
Using Thomistic logic one would respond: If God was caused then He is the effect of a greater cause, and He couldn’t be God in the first place. If God was not caused and He exists then Existence is His nature. “I Am Who Am”.

We can rationalize God’s existence from the observation of our world. Not all are capable of this, but many are aware of a higher power, even primitive cultures show this. What God requires is faith in Him and that is a gift of grace. God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. So many arguments are beating the air.

 

[PendingTheist]

You are putting your own thoughts forth as infallible. Do you see that? You are merely substituting one source of truth with another alleged source.

If I were to say there are known biblical errors, rather than contradictions, leading to the conclusion of biblical fallibility, would that be satisfactory?

The conclusion of this road you are going down of course is nihilism—which you see too.
And the last false foundation built-in to your premise is that we would operate upon a sola Scriptura methodology (except when it comes to your interpretation of the Bible)

Are you Harmonizing scripture with church teaching? Are you then using confirmation bias to have scripture fit the changing teachings as our secular culture matures?

.Who do you think “changes”? If you get this correct, you will begin to see why some of the Bible statements make sense, and other points you just mischaracterized (we can deal with those specifics later too but I want to get some principles down first).

According to Hebrews Jesus is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. Malachi says God does not change or He does not change His mind depending on the version you read. Although we see examples in scripture where He says one thing and does another. Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 5:9 say punishment is only passed onto the 3rd and 4th generation. “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” But Deuteronomy 24:16 says we are responsible for our own sin. “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Ezekiel 18:22 “The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer for his father’s iniquity, and a father will not suffer for his son’s iniquity; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness and the wicked person according to his wickedness”. Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge each person according to his conduct, O house of Israel, declares the sovereign Lord. Repent and turn from all your wickedness; then it will not be an obstacle leading to iniquity." However, despite in Malachi 3:6 in which God says He doesn’t change or go back on His promises depending on the version, He certainly changes His mind in Joshua 7:15: “The one caught with the riches must be burned up along with all who belong to him, because he violated the Lord’s covenant and did such a disgraceful thing in Israel” BUT despite repenting, Archan and his family are stoned. Achan told Joshua, “It is true. I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel in this way”. Even if Archan confessed he sinned but did not repent by feeling remorse and asked for forgiveness, why kill his family after the promises made earlier? It’s these verses that concerned me as a previous doubter. It pushed me to further study because if God could change His mind here on earth, whose to know what He may decide in heaven.

 

[angell1]

i wiuld sitll like an answer to my original please. i think we are getting way off topic here. it is rather important for my current state of mind.

why would some customs and disciplines be seen as evil and then be ok some time later? also, how do we deal with something like modesty that seems to change constantly?

 

[Lasting_faith]

You seem to have get many good answers so I stick to pure Christianity in my answer.

There are two kinds of atheist, I am not saying you are, you only have doubts and maybe a bit hard to believe in God at this point of your life. One is a person who really don’t want to believe because it would change their life too much so they are seeking for evidence AGAINST the truth. The other kind is those who badly want to believe but lack the strength and above all, courage to put their life in the hands of God. Actually, fear of flying is very close to that. People are afraid of giving their life in the hands of pilots they don’t know. I don’t know which kind you are but I would guess the latter. There really is nothing wrong in having doubts, they say it is normal, and it may happen to me one day, who knows.

So what is it to put your life in the hands of God? I can not answer that because I have always being sure God exist, long before I knew He is called God. But a life in the hands of God is a good life. My life have not been easy, far from it, and at many points I could easily have thought “well, it seem like God is just a good story” but I have not, so far, done that. There are too much evidence that God is real and not a story. I have been the witness of too many miracles in my life to doubt. To have faith is not to be weak, to have faith is not to lose control over ones life, in fact, it is to gain control. Without God we do things we should not do, and we all know what that may lead to. With God we have a free will, but also the knowledge of what He want us to do, and that knowledge is what make us do what is right. I am not saying a atheist are bad nor live a life that is evil and wrong, I say, merely, that a life in faith is easier because we know what to do. No need to figure out for our self what is OK and what isn’t. And then there is the question of eternal life. Death do make us fear what will happen to us after we have passed away. For some it is more calming to think it is it, nothing, we just cease to exist, but why? Why would that be a better way? There is no logic in that thought. Who just want to stop being alive? Not many I reckon. Hence I hope you think a bit deeper, forgetting book-knowledge and contradictions that really are not contradictions.

God gave us a free will, let us use that as He want because one ting is more true and sure then anyone can deny, who want to do what is wrong? Faith alone will not save us, but faith will make it much easier.

 

[Cathoholic]

angell1. You stated,

why would some customs and disciplines be seen as evil and then be ok some time later? also, how do we deal with something like modesty that seems to change constantly?

Please give some specific examples with quotes so we can respond.

(Saying: “something like modesty” is not a specific example of what the church has and has not taught concerning disciplines or faith and morals.

If you want specifics addressed you will first have to say which specifics you are alluding to).

Recall what I asked in post 8.

I’m not sure of the examples you cite (perhaps you can give quotes and I will try to address those issues as well). Remember to take actual quotes in an official capacity–not merely what some theologian might say about what he/she says the Pope thinks. . . .

PendingTheist.

Lots of half truths asserted with your ideas.

I asked you to think about the principles and right away you start quotin’ and totin’ Bible verses while ignoring the principles I have stated to you. Think about the principles involved first. Every one of your issues have answers, but not if you throw out the principles on how to deal with these issues.

we see examples in scripture where He says one thing and does another

Aside from the fact that this is a partial truth, WHY do you think that “seemingly” happens PendingTheist?

 

[angell1]

angell1. You stated,

Please give some specific examples with quotes so we can respond.

(Saying: “something like modesty” is not a specific example of what the church has and has not taught concerning disciplines or faith and morals.

If you want specifics addressed you will first have to say which specifics you are alluding to).

Recall what I asked in post 8.

PendingTheist.

Lots of half truths asserted with your ideas.

I asked you to think about the principles and right away you start quotin’ and totin’ Bible verses while ignoring the principles I have stated to you. Think about the principles involved first. Every one of your issues have answers, but not if you throw out the principles on how to deal with these issues.

Aside from the fact that this is a partial truth, WHY do you think that “seemingly” happens PendingTheist?

thank you, this was a halpfulanswer actually. i’m in exam period at themoment so i dont’ really have time to go digging for quotes. i just thought people would know what i was referring to.

but perhaps the things i’m thiking of, the popes just used stronger language because of its implications. for example, i think it was pope gregory (forget which number) in the 1700s that said female altar servers were evil. but maybe he was afraid this would open up all kinds of can of worms in regards to female ordination?

and pope pius x and women in the choirk, i’ve been reading a bit more about that and seems like he didn’t even enforce his own rule. and i get the feeling he was specifically talking about schola cantorem which were situated behind the alter rail, which none of the choirs nowadays are

 

[ccmcmg]

thank you, this was a halpfulanswer actually. i’m in exam period at themoment so i dont’ really have time to go digging for quotes. i just thought people would know what i was referring to.

but perhaps the things i’m thiking of, the popes just used stronger language because of its implications. for example, i think it was pope gregory (forget which number) in the 1700s that said female altar servers were evil. but maybe he was afraid this would open up all kinds of can of worms in regards to female ordination?

and pope pius x and women in the choirk, i’ve been reading a bit more about that and seems like he didn’t even enforce his own rule. and i get the feeling he was specifically talking about schola cantorem which were situated behind the alter rail, which none of the choirs nowadays are

I do intend this post as charitably as possible:

As I have mentioned many times, I really encourage you to find a good Catechism class, or RCIA class to attend, or a theology class at a Catholic college/university. Your many questions would get more authoritative answers in person, perhaps where it would be easier to explain your questions. Many/most of us are not theology majors, apologists, or much more than lay people who have our opinions and similar resources, and occasional incorrect interpretations or teachings. However, in such a diverse population such as CAF, if you wait long enough or word the comments correctly, you can eventually get an opinion or comment that you agree with, even if it’s the only 1 of 100.

As explained many times on CAF, there are different ways the Pope can give opinions/directives on things, and whether are not they are infallible church teachings, tradition, Tradition, etc. As for female altar servers, when being an altar server was considered a step towards becoming a deacon or priest, it would make sense not include women, which is what it was referring to back then.

God bless.

PS: It wasn’t Pope Gregory; an easy google search will find you the correct pope who made comments in the 1700s regarding female altar servers. If you have time to post and read, then it wouldn’t take much longer to find a good Catholic reference on the verifiable Catholic teachings websites. Just trying to save you time and confusion.

 

[ynotzap]

ans. to post 27 by pending theist.
I’m putting forth the conclusions of what I understand and believe. The Catholic church is my teacher and also life itself. Any mistakes are strictly mine. Reason has confirmed my faith and my faith has confirmed my reason. Where my reason stops my faith continues with more confirmation of the truth. I am a Catholic Christian. I’m not a scripture scholar although I have some knowledge. The teaching church supplies very knowledgeable and
enlightened teachers. I have be very exposed to some of this knowledge.

Jesus knew that He would have to guarantee His church the gift of infallibility in her teaching of faith and morals. He was well aware of man’s limitations and fallibility, his finiteness. If His church was to survive the onslaught of man’s intervention, and the forces of evil He would have to confirm her in the truth. This Truth is Himself, the Head of the church, and The Holy Spirit, its soul. Private interpretation is fraught with self-righteousness and error. Is Christ so divided. St. Paul in his letters warns many times of this danger. A good example of this is "life is what I say it is (subjective thinking) and not objective, life is some other than what I think, something outside myself. Situation ethics is such an example. Truth is one, is God so divided? There are apparent contradictions in the Bible but instead of saying " I simply don’ understand we pass judgement. It wasn’t to me Jesus guaranteed infallibility but to the teaching body of the church with the Pope teaching "from the chair. All human diligence, study, and prayer goes into the proclamation of doctrine. A step in Faith is made on Jesus’s promises, and not on the fallibility, or expertise of human intelligence. Her teaching have been confirmed for me and then some. Inerrancy of th bible: The immunity from all possibility of error, and from error de facto which belongs to Holy Scipture by virtue of their divine inspiration. ST. John affirms (l0-35) The scripture can not be broken (contradict itself). Inerrancy of the Bible is a dogma of our Faith. Personally I submit to this dogma, even when I see apparent contradictions. Reason can bring you to the door of faith, but grace of belief carrys you over the threshold. WE believe what we don’t see, the reward of faith is that we see what we believe (St. Augustine) I’m more then satisfied with my Faith in Christ and His Church. If we have to have all the answers before we believe we are setting conditions before God, is it right and just that He should bow to our demands, He already died for us what more? We can have an encounter with God, if we are humble enough to ask for it. When it comes to reason and faith, reason bows, it is by Grace we are saved through Jesus Christ.

 

[Cathoholic]

PendingTheist didn’t answer. I have seen other posts since by PendingTheist elsewhere thus I am assuming PendingTheist isn’t going to follow up on this thread for whatever reason (and that is fair enough. I can understand losing interest in a given thread). So this is not concerning PendingTheist’s posts but just generalities.

There are good reasons why you should accept the fact that God exists. I won’t get into them here as that is not directly what this thread concerns.

There are good reasons why you should accept the fact that God is unchangeable. I won’t get into them here either as that is also not directly what this thread concerns.

There are good reasons why you should NOT try to operate on a sola Scriptura methodology. If one is tempted to do so, the most obvious reason NOT to do so is because the Bible does not teach it and teaches quite the opposite. So there is an oral tradition too that my fill out objections like PendingTheist’s (although again we are not dealing specifically with PendingTheist’s objections) that are just as authoritative as Scripture.

So if there is a written Tradition (the Bible) and an oral Tradition, then you obviously need someone with God-given authority (otherwise you would not have for instance the Bible because there is no one who has the authority to definitively say WHICH BOOKS/LETTERS etc. belong in the Bible).

So someone’s objections like we’ve seen from PendingTheist (although not exclusively discussing PendingTheist posts) erroneously must assume . . .

• Erroneously assume God does not exist
• Erroneously assume God is changeable
• Assert the Bible (why?) when convenient for their argument, ignore it when the Bible refutes their argument
• Fail to carry out detailed careful Scripture exegesis
• Erroneously ignore oral Tradition
• Erroneously ignore an authoritative teaching office (Magisterium) exists

Then they look at the way God deals with some men over others and erroneously ASSUME their own CONCLUSION – that God changes.

But they don’t even HAVE to look at the way God deals with people of differing cultures or ages (epochs), etc.

They can look at the way God deals with any one man. Take Moses for example. Moses was to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. Then Moses was NOT to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land.

What happened?

Did God change? Or did Moses change?

We of course know Moses sinned (and thus changed) but people like PendingTheist cannot use a person such as Moses (or King David, or you or I), because the answer is too obvious and destroys their preconceived false premises too overtly.

So they cook up instances separated by time and sometimes space or cultures and make the same objections.

They assume you won’t think it through so they try to slip this by you (and they even “slip it by” themselves). But we are not going to accept these phony premises.

Now these people would say WE are the ones with “phony premises” but if they think the issues through it doesn’t work (i.e. why use the Bible and IF you do, WHY use a sola Scriptura methodology which the Bible itself condemns? If you are certain of your position WHY NOT just use Moses?, etc. etc.).

The problem with these people is they have so long been their own personal authority that when corrected it is really impossible to say (without grace) “Thanks. You are correct.”

We as Catholics are NOT our own personal authorities (assuming we are living out the faith).

If God entrusts a Magisterium for the sake of the world, God will likewise protect that Magisterium (again another issue so I won’t deal with it here).

They often resort to insulting comebacks such as, “You sir are an idiot” not really dealing with the issues that Catholic Christians raise. I can think of one relatively contemporary hot-selling atheist book, which is filled with insults that never deals substantively with so many of the issues the author thinks he/she is dealing with. We’ve all seen it on various forum posts too.

Then they walk away proverbially patting themselves on the back crowing with one another about how “enlightened” they are.

But thinking themselves wise they became fools (see Romans Chapter 1).

I go through an example of this whole construct (backwards) about WHY God seems to change (read Deuteronomy 7:4 over several times) in a post on this forum here. Although I don’t focus on the “God changing issue” there, the information is exemplified on that post. I even try to use (not assert) a sola Scriptura method to try to help people in a sola Scriptura mindset that would not be amenable to simple authoritative correction from the Church.