For Christians who believe that only Christians go to heaven

[dskysmine]

The use of “atheist” and “agnostic” in this sense is not semantically different. He never asserts that he or anyone else has disproven God, only that he sees no evidence. In fact, I have seen him say he’s open to evidence; isn’t this what you mean by agnostic? I agree there are atheists who state with 100% certainty there is no God, but back to the scientific method, science does not prove negatives outside of the specific case of things that contradict what is proven.

The Criticism I made to the video owner is not about Skepticism… I also call myself a Skeptic although I am Catholic. The Criticism I made was that he made vast amounts of conclusions on what God “should be in case He exists” that it made me doubt where did he get these conclusions from. He is defining “good” from his own belly button. Anybody can do that and say they will go to Heaven, the problem is that they don’t have a lot to back that up. Christianity can back all of it through the Incarnation, Passion and Death, and Ressurection of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
The only issue I have with it is that he makes a false use of the word skepticism when in fact he doesn’t use it for the conclusions he himself makes about what is good and what is not.
God bless,
D

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not sure what Brahe’s theory is off the top of my head, so I can’t comment on it.

Basically if you took the Copernican sun-centered model and changed your reference frame from the sun to the earth for the most part you’ve got Brahe’s model. In my opinion Brahe’s more important contribution is the observational data. Kepler was able to use this data to show the planet’s movement’s were better modeled by ellipses than circles. Later it was also shown that Kepler’s laws of planetary movement can also be derived from Newton’s F=ma and F=G(m1m2)/(rr).

 

[Poseidon]

Poseidon:

You see the quagmire? What exactly does, “pretty much motionless” mean? Might it, perhaps, mean “motionless but moving?” It doesn’t matter what the reference is. It means its a “strong hypothesis,” i.e., “theory.” It does not mean it’s a “fact.” Perhaps Tycho Brahe’s model will become the theory 50 years from now. Or, maybe another one. Or, maybe heliocentrism augmented. Neither of us knows.

God bless,

jd

I say “pretty much motionless” because the sun is not perfectly motionless in respect to the planets. It wobbles back and forth very slightly as it swings the planets around it. Imagine you are swinging a small child around in a circle - the child is moving much less than you, because you’re much bigger, but you have to lean back a bit and spin in a much smaller circle to keep your balance. The sun and planets do the same thing on a much grander scale.

And no, of course we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. That’s not what science proposes to do. It just figures stuff out as well as we can.

 

[JDaniel]

You can use what ever model meets your needs at the time…

TS:

But, whichever you choose, it is not a Fact. It may describe the Fact perfectly, but it is still not the Fact. Neither does “explanatory power” become a Fact. It means the model is pretty darn good. That’s all.

These too books together are slightly over 100 USD and they may exercise your math skills a bit. But if this is a topic in which you’ve got genuine interest you may find them to be worth the money.

Thank you sincerely for those recommendations. I will look for them as I can. Which one would you suggest I buy first?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The sun is a reference point that is nice to use for some observations. You may find almost motionless in some reference frames, but moving at a high speed in another. The chosen reference frame will depend on what you are doing.

TS:

Yes, I believe that’s the science.

Proofs are never the result of science. Models of explanation supported by observational data are.

I concur.

The reference does matter as motion of this type only has meaning within the context of a reference frame. See International Celestial Reference Frame.

My meaning really was that I wasn’t hung on a reference point. I know how important reference points are when dealing with position. Thanks for reminding me.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I say “pretty much motionless” because the sun is not perfectly motionless in respect to the planets. It wobbles back and forth very slightly as it swings the planets around it. Imagine you are swinging a small child around in a circle - the child is moving much less than you, because you’re much bigger, but you have to lean back a bit and spin in a much smaller circle to keep your balance. The sun and planets do the same thing on a much grander scale.

And no, of course we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. That’s not what science proposes to do. It just figures stuff out as well as we can.

Poseidon:

Excellent post!

God bless,
jd

 

[jochoa]

youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs&feature=related

Here is a very good video from an atheist youtuber in response to Pascal’s Wager, asking the question “what if I’m wrong?” I am just curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on the video, because I thought it made some excellent points. I also have seen a very big misconception on the part of many Christians here where they think that atheists are atheists based on rebellion, pride, unwillingness to repent our sinful ways, etc, instead of the real reason (for most of us) of us simply not being convinced of God’s existence.

Any thoughts?

Excellent topic, my friend! Thank you for the discussion!

The main point I would like to present is in reference to the question of: When standing in front of God in the afterlife, what will God say was where he was mistaken throughout all of his research and analysis?
One of the frequent mistakes atheists, myself once included, make is founded on a misunderstanding of the purpose for God creating.
Since many atheists either do not assign a purpose to God for creating or they assign an incomplete purpose, such as having beings worship Him, their analysis of what God should do falls out of alignment with what He does. Since their logic, given the limited purpose, is perfect, the atheist tends to reject any concept of God because all current writings of God fail to support the idea of a perfect Creator/God.

To resolve this and to come to know God, recognize the purpose of God creating is the everlasting experience of limitless joy with unbreakable peace.
To achieve this purpose, God must freely create an everlasting society of a limitless number of true friends, in which He may also participate as a friend within the society, given He must create this from absolutely nothing.

To begin the initial stages of pondering this, try to resolve how to create a true friend given absolutely nothing. In other words, it is just you initially existing in an infinite amount of space.

Please keep in mind, it is important to not fall into the trap of, “I certainly would not do what the Christian God did.” Only make declarations as to what would you do, such as, “I would create another person like me.” “I would create the opportunity for him/her to freely choose to be with me.” “I would create Catholic Answers Forums to experience greater joy!!”

I assure you that the only solution to achieve this purpose was written and defined by the Catholic Church a long time ago.
-The story of the events that will occur from beginning to end, in order to finally achieve the purpose is the Story of Creation and is The Holy Bible.
-The things you must do as the Creator is in perfect alignment with the Theology of the Holy Trinity: 3 persons in 1 person and 1 person in 3 persons: The Nicene Creed.
-The rules which govern the heavenly society is the Greatest Commandments of Jesus Christ.
-The rules which govern the earthly society are the Greatest Commandments in unity with the Sacraments of Catholicism.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and excellent food for thought!

Thoughts?

 

[JDaniel]

Excellent topic, my friend! Thank you for the discussion!

The main point I would like to present is in reference to the question of: When standing in front of God in the afterlife, what will God say was where he was mistaken throughout all of his research and analysis?
One of the frequent mistakes atheists, myself once included, make is founded on a misunderstanding of the purpose for God creating.
Since many atheists either do not assign a purpose to God for creating or they assign an incomplete purpose, such as having beings worship Him, their analysis of what God should do falls out of alignment with what He does. Since their logic, given the limited purpose, is perfect, the atheist tends to reject any concept of God because all current writings of God fail to support the idea of a perfect Creator/God.

To resolve this and to come to know God, recognize the purpose of God creating is the everlasting experience of limitless joy with unbreakable peace.
To achieve this purpose, God must freely create an everlasting society of a limitless number of true friends, in which He may also participate as a friend within the society, given He must create this from absolutely nothing.

To begin the initial stages of pondering this, try to resolve how to create a true friend given absolutely nothing. In other words, it is just you initially existing in an infinite amount of space.

Please keep in mind, it is important to not fall into the trap of, “I certainly would not do what the Christian God did.” Only make declarations as to what would you do, such as, “I would create another person like me.” “I would create the opportunity for him/her to freely choose to be with me.” “I would create Catholic Answers Forums to experience greater joy!!”

I assure you that the only solution to achieve this purpose was written and defined by the Catholic Church a long time ago.
-The story of the events that will occur from beginning to end, in order to finally achieve the purpose is the Story of Creation and is The Holy Bible.
-The things you must do as the Creator is in perfect alignment with the Theology of the Holy Trinity: 3 persons in 1 person and 1 person in 3 persons: The Nicene Creed.
-The rules which govern the heavenly society is the Greatest Commandments of Jesus Christ.
-The rules which govern the earthly society are the Greatest Commandments in unity with the Sacraments of Catholicism.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and excellent food for thought!

Thoughts?

Jochoa:

Very profound, Jochoa. Very profound.

God bless,
jd

 

[ANewWorld]

ANW:

This is what I specifically called you out for. I’m sorry I didn’t specifically use the phrase, “Provide evidence for where I said Galileo was tortured” but this is what I’m referring to for all of your last statements that you are calling “naked assertions.”
All of your so-called “undeniable facts” are simply NOT undeniable facts. They are mere assertions, which you are currently augmenting to suit you.

Quote:
Furthermore, my assertion that this is how the Church behaved during the Dark Ages is not a slap in the face (and I apologize if you interpreted it that way, though your rebuttal was a blatant ad hominem attack)
No it wasn’t and you know it.

Quote:
unless you are also implying that John Paul II was slapping the Church in the face and I am certainly not implying this. During his apology, he expressed sorrow for “everything from the Crusades to the Inquisition, the forced conversions, to sins against women and anti- Jewish acts”
Please read some history, especially of and around this period. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

God bless,
jd

I have apologized SEVERAL times to you for misunderstandings. You’re reaction is to call me a liar and an embellisher. Hardly respectful, hardly charitable.

As Poseidon said, of course things can change on new evidence and the Church agrees with that. They’ve ceded this stuff to science, it doesn’t conflict with their teachings, and as you like to assert towards me, “you know it,” only I’m going to say “you should know it” since I do not claim to have divine ability to declare unequivocally what you know or don’t know.

 

[ANewWorld]

The Criticism I made to the video owner is not about Skepticism… I also call myself a Skeptic although I am Catholic. The Criticism I made was that he made vast amounts of conclusions on what God “should be in case He exists” that it made me doubt where did he get these conclusions from. He is defining “good” from his own belly button. Anybody can do that and say they will go to Heaven, the problem is that they don’t have a lot to back that up. Christianity can back all of it through the Incarnation, Passion and Death, and Ressurection of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
The only issue I have with it is that he makes a false use of the word skepticism when in fact he doesn’t use it for the conclusions he himself makes about what is good and what is not.
God bless,
D

I am in agreement with you on his false skepticism in judging what is good. However, I am in agreement with the video on his assessment of God’s knowing his every thought and why he’d reason the way he does. This is actually consistent with Catholic teaching (likely he just stumbled upon this I’d venture to guess).

 

[ReachingFaith]

I just wonder why it is that this site is made for questions, but when you have some, no Catholic wants to answer you. I have been called a liar, pm’d and told off, asked rapid-fire personal questions about myself…and never did get a helpful response!
Just saying…y’all make us look pretty bad as Catholics. I apologize to all of you who are truly here to help people, but the common tactic seems to be to accuse, confuse, and buddy-up with your own group. and I’m talking just in my own experience. Surely other people see this?

 

[davidv]

I just wonder why it is that this site is made for questions, but when you have some, no Catholic wants to answer you. I have been called a liar, pm’d and told off, asked rapid-fire personal questions about myself…and never did get a helpful response!
Just saying…y’all make us look pretty bad as Catholics. I apologize to all of you who are truly here to help people, but the common tactic seems to be to accuse, confuse, and buddy-up with your own group. and I’m talking just in my own experience. Surely other people see this?

What question did you ask on this thread that didn’t get answered? There wasn’t one from you in the last 10 or so posts.

 

[ReachingFaith]

What question did you ask on this thread that didn’t get answered? There wasn’t one from you in the last 10 or so posts.

I would ask you to re-read the post, and see that I’m putting my two cents in, remarking on the site in general.
And what you said doesn’t answer the question in any way, either. Why are Catholics so remiss to help those who need it?

 

[davidv]

I would ask you to re-read the post, and see that I’m putting my two cents in, remarking on the site in general.
And what you said doesn’t answer the question in any way, either. Why are Catholics so remiss to help those who need it?

Please demonstrate that Catholics are remiss. The Knights of Columbus alone were responsible in 2011 for charitible contributions of more than $158 million and more than 70 million hours of volunteer service (source Columbia magazine July 2012). To me your question contains a false assumption. And as such it is invalid and cannot be answered.

 

[ReachingFaith]

Please demonstrate that Catholics are remiss. The Knights of Columbus alone were responsible in 2011 for charitible contributions of more than $158 million and more than 70 million hours of volunteer service (source Columbia magazine July 2012). To me your question contains a false assumption. And as such it is invalid and cannot be answered.

The Knights of Columbus, while I’m sure are very heroic, are not who(m?) I’m speaking about, and if you honestly didn’t know that, my bad for being so unclear.
Let me re-phrase that.
Why are the Catholics on this site in particular so reluctant to answer questions? There, that should be pretty darn clear.
Edited in: And, imho, you are actually proving my “assumption” (as regards this site) with your reponses to me. Confuse, refuse, and label.

 

[jochoa]

I just wonder why it is that this site is made for questions, but when you have some, no Catholic wants to answer you. I have been called a liar, pm’d and told off, asked rapid-fire personal questions about myself…and never did get a helpful response!
Just saying…y’all make us look pretty bad as Catholics. I apologize to all of you who are truly here to help people, but the common tactic seems to be to accuse, confuse, and buddy-up with your own group. and I’m talking just in my own experience. Surely other people see this?

Hello, my friend! As I read and re-read your post, I am trying my best to perceive what questions are you seeking answers to.

When I consider your opening sentence, I, myself, am wondering whether or not your sentence is a genuine question or a statement to open the presentation of your ideas. Though to offer my best genuine answer to “Why it is that this site is made for questions, but when you have some, no Catholic wants to answer you?” 100% of the time, when a question on Catholic Answers goes unanswered, it is because those who can offer the answer, do not know the answer.

When I consider your ending question, though it appeared to me to be rhetorical, I will share that I have witnessed this on occasion.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I would ask you to re-read the post, and see that I’m putting my two cents in, remarking on the site in general.
And what you said doesn’t answer the question in any way, either. Why are Catholics so remiss to help those who need it?

1. Fair enough. Perhaps you can find all of your questions and try re-asking them? If I find a thread that I notice you’ve started I’ll do my best to answer (although I might not be able to) your question.
2. So, why do Catholics on this site tend not to answer other people’s questions?

Well, for one thing, that’s a generalization I disagree with-the Catholics on this site from what I’ve seen at least try and respond to posts-very few posts get NO real answers, at least in my experiences here.

Anyway, part of the reason is that it IS a Catholic website-I know you’re looking for Catholic Answers, and we SHOULD try and provide them, but sometimes if somebody asks a question people deem to be insulting they won’t answer it.

Also, some questions ARE subtly insulting. Let’s take this as an example-“Why does the Church hate gay people?” People might just say over and over “We don’t hate gay people”. It doesn’t technically answer the question, but only because it’s an invalid question to begin with.

 

[JDaniel]

I have apologized SEVERAL times to you for misunderstandings. You’re reaction is to call me a liar and an embellisher. Hardly respectful, hardly charitable.

ANW:

Where did I call you a liar? What post #?

As Poseidon said, of course things can change on new evidence and the Church agrees with that. They’ve ceded this stuff to science, it doesn’t conflict with their teachings, and as you like to assert towards me, “you know it,” only I’m going to say “you should know it” since I do not claim to have divine ability to declare unequivocally what you know or don’t know.

To give you a little background: “doctrine” is changeable. “Dogma” is not. New scientific evidence may, or may not, alter doctrine. It may simply open it up to debate among scientists and theologians, but the Church might still stand behind the doctrine. The Church does not look for speculative hypotheses or theories. For the Church to change either, she will have to view the evidence and be convinced by it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I would ask you to re-read the post, and see that I’m putting my two cents in, remarking on the site in general.
And what you said doesn’t answer the question in any way, either. Why are Catholics so remiss to help those who need it?

Reaching:

You asked one question of me and I answered you as best I could, considering the question. I hope you are taking that into consideration, or is there more you’d like to ask?

In answer to your second question, above, hang around here for a while and keep your eyes open for those who are here with often sinister ulterior motives. It happens all the time. Even a good Catholic can over-react to some of this.

Anyway, ask your questions.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The Knights of Columbus, while I’m sure are very heroic, are not who(m?) I’m speaking about, and if you honestly didn’t know that, my bad for being so unclear.
Let me re-phrase that.
Why are the Catholics on this site in particular so reluctant to answer questions? There, that should be pretty darn clear.
Edited in: And, imho, you are actually proving my “assumption” (as regards this site) with your reponses to me. Confuse, refuse, and label.

Reaching:

Catholics on this forum are not reluctant to answer questions. But this is a Philosophy forum. It is more about opinion than about dogma and doctrine. The Apologetics forum is more suited to answering questions to do with dogma and doctrine. So perhaps, you’re asking your questions on the wrong forum.

If you want our ideas and opinions about one of another matter, then, here, you’ll find a give and take sort of discursive modus operandi. I can’t say for sure, but you might try the Apologetics forum for questions you want to be simply answered.

God bless,
jd