Happy is he who does not see yet believes?

[ateista]

Yes, but what does ‘in My name’ actually mean? I’ll tell you one thing - it doesn’t just mean asking for whatever YOU feel like asking for and tagging the words ‘in Jesus’ name’ at the end, as so many people think it does.

So, obviously it is against God’s will that the starving sould have enough rain, so they can feed themselves? Because hard as you try to pray for rain in a drought-stricken area, the rain may or may not fall there. Is it God’s will that those people should starve? Very peculiar indeed.

How can anything asked for that is contrary to God’s will be asked for ‘in His name’? And why WOULD anyone think that God would ever promise to do anything that is contrary to His will?

You tell me. The phrase "whatever you ask in my name… " is very simple. Jesus could have phrased it properly: “whatever you ask in my name, and it is my will, will be honored…”. Do you accuse Jesus of sloppy wording?

It would be like asking you to honour agreements that you didn’t make or intend to make, that were not signed by you, but rather by someone else forging your signature.

Aha! So the Bible is just a forgery? I would agree to that.

It seems clear that what is asked for must, if we are truly asking ‘in His name’, be consonant with God’s will, even Jesus taught us so in His prayer at Gethsemane. And ultimately (and IIRC there’s even liguistic scholarship to back this up) THAT is what it means to ask ‘in My name’

Do you have a personal hotline to God? If so, why don’t you share his phone number?

 

[LilyM]

So, obviously it is against God’s will that the starving sould have enough rain, so they can feed themselves? Because hard as you try to pray for rain in a drought-stricken area, the rain may or may not fall there. Is it God’s will that those people should starve? Very peculiar indeed.

There IS both enough rain and enough food on this earth to feed every single person. The problem, in case you didn’t hear the first million times it’s been said, is DISTRIBUTION - ie corrupt governments who have no interest in getting their people properly fed and would rather spend money on arms or hoard it for themselves than spend it on agriculture, infrastructure or food. Human evil, resulting from our abuse of our free will.

You, of course, have already decided that you could do a much better job at being God than God can, and that because God doesn’t act as you think He should that He doesn’t exist Ever seen ‘Bruce Almighty’?

You tell me. The phrase "whatever you ask in my name… " is very simple. Jesus could have phrased it properly: “whatever you ask in my name, and it is my will, will be honored…”. Do you accuse Jesus of sloppy wording?

I accuse you of sloppy logic, because in this case ‘in My name’ automatically means ‘which is according to my will’ - if it’s not according to His will, it’s not ‘in His name’.

Kinda like when you say you’re married you don’t need to ALSO separately specify that you have a husband or wife, the latter fact is inherent in the former. In fact to do so is tautology - needless repetition - and Jesus, not being sloppy, didn’t waste words.

Do you have a personal hotline to God? If so, why don’t you share his phone number?

Clearly, since you know so much more about His ways than I do, you must have it already

 

[Dan86]

I don’t think that it’s about blind faith. I think it’s a question of trust.

 

[ateista]

There IS both enough rain and enough food on this earth to feed every single person. The problem, in case you didn’t hear the first million times it’s been said, is DISTRIBUTION - ie corrupt governments who have no interest in getting their people properly fed and would rather spend money on arms or hoard it for themselves than spend it on agriculture, infrastructure or food. Human evil, resulting from our abuse of our free will.

Don’t be so simplistic. Partially it is true, but not fully. There are many instances when even the best intentions and desires are insufficient to alleviate problems, and God never interferes. But the problem is deeper than that.

If someone is truly “loving” and caring then does not use such excuses, like “there are others whose duty is to help, and I am just washing my hands like Pontius Pilate”. That is not the sign of “love”.

You, of course, have already decided that you could do a much better job at being God than God can, and that because God doesn’t act as you think He should that He doesn’t exist

And what else can you bring up as an actual argument? Because such a generic put-down is not convincing. As for me, I start with your assertion of “love” and caring, and extrapolate from the meaning of these words. If someone really cares, then such a being does not “outsource” the helping process onto others.

Ever seen ‘Bruce Almighty’?

Unfortunately I did. One of the dumbest and stupidest movies I have ever seen.

I accuse you of sloppy logic, because in this case ‘in My name’ automatically means ‘which is according to my will’ - if it’s not according to His will, it’s not ‘in His name’.

Nonsense. Supposedly God “loves” us. Try to pray for the healing of the sick, and see what result does it bring. None whatsoever.

Kinda like when you say you’re married you don’t need to ALSO separately specify that you have a husband or wife, the latter fact is inherent in the former. In fact to do so is tautology - needless repetition - and Jesus, not being sloppy, didn’t waste words.

Only by your “definition” of marriage.

Clearly, since you know so much more about His ways than I do, you must have it already

I certainly know what “love” means, and by that definition, God does not love us at all.

 

[Sarpedon]

Jesus did not say: “whatever you ask in my name, I may or may not fulfill, depending on whether I deem it appropriate”. It was a simple, straightforward promise. It was not coerced, it was freely given. And it is not fulfilled. That is the naked truth. What do you call someone, who promises, and does not deliver?

Can you provide the verse number and book you are attempting to paraphrase?

 

[eddydenton]

Aha! So the Bible is just a forgery? I would agree to that.

Do you have a personal hotline to God? If so, why don’t you share his phone number?

Ateista, you are being just as dogmatic in your belief as anyone who believes in God. Just as you can’t prove God exists, you also can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Trying to make an argument by twisting people’s words around is not an intelligent argument, it is just wordplay. If you want to have an intelligent argument about the existence of God don’t just try to trip people up with words. It just makes you look like you don’t have an intelligent argument yourself

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Jesus said to Thomas: You see me and believe. Happy is he who does not see me and yet believes.

I have recently been thinking about this statement? Why should one be expected to believe contentedly without any justification?

If the Chinese government told you they’d just sent a party of five men to the Mars, found proof of extra-terrestrial life but didn’t bring back any proof, but said to you “happy is he who does not see yet believe”, would you believe them?

What argument is there for blind faith?

we have the living church, the secular historical evidence, and scripture spanning more than 5,000 years, these would be evidence of an activity before any court in the land, its all documented along with appropriate relics.

there is the mathematical evidence of a pre-expansion infinity, there are logical proofs i.e, free will as an expression of the Almighty vs. blind mathematical determinism.

with all this evidence, it is irrational to be an atheist, it is willful ignorance. i have yet to see arguments convincing in favor of a G-dless universe, that requires ‘blind faith’

as to the theological arguments of blind faith, that is non-sequitur.
no need for the adjective ‘blind’, faith means to beleive when you cannot see.

further, the doubt Thomas had was not a doubt in the existence of G-d, it was a doubt in the Resurrection

to truly ask intelligent questions, an extensive vocabulary, and an intellectual demeanor does not suffice, one must also know the subject about which one asks well enough to ask a question with some significance.

we dont need the manner of faith about which you speak, an assumption of some parity between belief and disbelief, and we simply choose to believe and you choose not to. there is no such parity.

we have theological faith as a virtue in that we believe that the Eternal Sacrifice applies to us, personally.

we have mountains of evidence, as much as one has for any event that occurred prior to the memory of the oldest living human.

“blind faith” is not what we have, its what an atheist has in the irrationality of atheism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I just want to know if God exists. But He hasn’t given me that. I can’t see how it is for the best that I doubt His existence. That only leads to sin and eventually Hell (according to Christian belief).

I am very open to arguments that are based in reason but too often I am asked to believe in something that just seems illogical and I can’t follow something in good faith if it is not reasonable and logical.

if you want logical proof of a G-d. here is my defense. i wonder how you could doubt that a creator exists, if logic is the currency you prefer. after all it is illogical to believe that we simply came into existence from nothing.

no doubt your reply will be that it is not proof of an Abrahamic G-d, you are correct. that is the territory of the recorded history of Judaism and Christianity to show. as they do so with mountains of evidence. which i would be happy to discuss with you.

for now here is your logical proof of an infinite, self existent Creator, based on accepted scientific cosmology.

---

it has come to my attention in various conversations that the accepted big bang theory proves the existence of an infinity prior to the expansion.

here is why.

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

 

[eddydenton]

The idea of Faith is something that baffles me endlessly. God, if He exists, wants us to believe in His existence. He leaves traces of evidence in history, that is dubious at best, and expects us to believe in Him through a thing called Faith. If God wants us to believe, given that He can do anything, why doesn’t He make us believe. I’m sure God could think of a way to make us believe that is a little more convincing than some man-written accounts that are two thousand years old.

if you want logical proof of a G-d. here is my defense. i wonder how you could doubt that a creator exists, if logic is the currency you prefer. after all it is illogical to believe that we simply came into existence from nothing.

no doubt your reply will be that it is not proof of an Abrahamic G-d, you are correct. that is the territory of the recorded history of Judaism and Christianity to show. as they do so with mountains of evidence. which i would be happy to discuss with you.

These mountains of evidence that the Judeo-Christian tradition upholds is simply not enough to justify believing in the existence of God. There is Old Testament scripture, which can hardly be taken as hard evidence unless you believe stories such as Jonah, Noah or the Genesis to be literal historical accounts. Then there is the new testament. Four accounts which all differ slightly which were written by men 2000 years ago. Why does God make it so hard to believe in God? And don’t say because we need Faith. Faith is just a word used to justify believing in something with no evidence.

Personally I actually do believe in a creator, but not one that is the almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing arbiter of good and bad who can only be followed through one particular church. I believe in God as an initial cause, who has infinite existence and breathes life into the universe but is not in control of it.

Perhaps it is irrational to be an atheist; something cannot come from nothing. But to believe in a Christian God who is all-good, all-powerful and all knowing is also irrational. I could spend hours explaining why but basically if God is all-good then He cannot have created evil. If he did not create evil He is not all-powerful. If God created evil when He made the world then he is not all-good. If humans have free-will then God cannot be all-knowing. If God knows all, even the future, then logically humans don’t have free will to decide because is already planned for them (see my thread on free-will vs determinism).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The idea of Faith is something that baffles me endlessly. God, if He exists, wants us to believe in His existence

.

theological ‘Faith’ is not an unjustifiable belief in G-d. the faith we talk about as Christians is Faith in that the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ is applicable to you, it is Faith, as in claiming that share of the Sacrifice for yourself.

this is a common misconception in our times. the people who wrote the new testament were intimately involved with Christ, they never gave credence to the idea that people might doubt His existence, rather they were concerned that people would doubt His resurrection. you are called to believe because a church was left behind to minister to you.

He leaves traces of evidence in history, that is dubious at best, and expects us to believe in Him through a thing called Faith. If God wants us to believe, given that He can do anything, why doesn’t He make us believe. I’m sure God could think of a way to make us believe that is a little more convincing than some man-written accounts that are two thousand years old.

the traces He left in history is the Catholic Church, we trace ourselves back all the way to words Jesus spoke to Peter in Matt 16:18. that is, 5000 years of documentation is good enough for legal proceedings, why is it insufficient for you? do you have an argument to support your disbelief, or is it just opinion?

These mountains of evidence that the Judeo-Christian tradition upholds is simply not enough to justify believing in the existence of God.

surely you believe in all manner of things with less proof, say the existence of the asian continent, or the asteroid belt (i assume that you have been to neither). it seems as though you may simply choose not to accept the evidence in this particular case for your own reasons, because you surely accept the existence of these other things with less evidence.

There is Old Testament scripture, which can hardly be taken as hard evidence unless you believe stories such as Jonah, Noah or the Genesis to be literal historical accounts.

some things are obviously allegory in the old testament. is the point they make any less truthful for the use of that allegory?

in the story of the turtle and the hare, is the moral of the story less true because no tortoise and hare have ever actually held a footrace?
of course not, thats not a justifiable argument to make then. some parts are obviously allegory, some literal,

Then there is the new testament. Four accounts which all differ slightly which were written by men 2000 years ago. Why does God make it so hard to believe in God?

my buddies could write stories about last weekends fishing trip that would vary by more than the Gospels. no two people have the same viewpoint on any activity, ask criminal lawyers trying to corroborate more than one witnesses testimony. and i don’t see why the age of the documents would matter to their veracity.

its not hard to believe based on the evidence, as above, you accept other beliefs with less, but for some reason this is a special case

And don’t say because we need Faith. Faith is just a word used to justify believing in something with no evidence.

as above, that is not Faith as it is meant in the Scripture. people misuse that word more than any other.

Personally I actually do believe in a creator, but not one that is the almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing arbiter of good and bad who can only be followed through one particular church. I believe in God as an initial cause, who has infinite existence and breathes life into the universe but is not in control of it.

good for you, you have found a way to avoid the irrationality of atheism, while at the same time negating any effect of a Deity in your own life.

let me say that this position may be even more irrational than atheism. you admit a Creator than assign Him no motive in the creation.

can you show me anything else in the world that someone created, but for no purpose? if a man makes a vase, it is to hold wine, if he makes a car it is to travel, if he draws a picture, it is to be admired.

that position would seem to be nonsensical in the greater context of the world, and His involvement in it as recorded in Scripture

Perhaps it is irrational to be an atheist; something cannot come from nothing. But to believe in a Christian God who is all-good, all-powerful and all knowing is also irrational. I could spend hours explaining why but basically if God is all-good then He cannot have created evil. If he did not create evil He is not all-powerful. If God created evil when He made the world then he is not all-good. If humans have free-will then God cannot be all-knowing. If God knows all, even the future, then logically humans don’t have free will to decide because is already planned for them (see my thread on free-will vs determinism).

these arguments are all philosophy 101 fallacies.

1. G-d did not create evil, he created Free Will which was used to create evil. you are not responsible for crimes your children commit just because you sired them are you?
   of course not.
2. G-ds omniscience has no relation to our free will. thats based on the cosmological fallacy that G-d is subject to time as we are. from my mathematical defense of the existence of G-d we can see that G-d, is necessarily outside this universe and therefore not subject to the laws of time or physics.

the best analogy may be that of the universe as a balloon in G-ds hands, he sees all time as a singularity, for him there is no future to know. it all happened at the same time for Him, instantaneuosly.

we think in terms of time, not Him

further, i am yet to be convinced that there is some causal link between Gods omniscience and my free will. by what mechanism are they interacting?

 

[ateista]

Can you provide the verse number and book you are attempting to paraphrase?

Certainly. Here it comes: John 14:11-14

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

 

[ateista]

Ateista, you are being just as dogmatic in your belief as anyone who believes in God. Just as you can’t prove God exists, you also can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Trying to make an argument by twisting people’s words around is not an intelligent argument, it is just wordplay. If you want to have an intelligent argument about the existence of God don’t just try to trip people up with words. It just makes you look like you don’t have an intelligent argument yourself

Do you really think that I am twisting words? I am using the language according to the actual meanings of the words. Which part of my posts do you percieve as “twisting”?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. Thank you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you really think that I am twisting words? I am using the language according to the actual meanings of the words. Which part of my posts do you percieve as “twisting”?

no, you are not twisting words at this point, but you are ignoring the rest of the contract by which we hold covenant with G-d.

as has been mentioned before, you cannot interpret one clause in a contract with out knowing how its meaning is altered by all the addendum’s and clauses of that contract.

 

[Layman]

From memory:

Thomas was one of Christ’s immediate disciples. Can you imagine what it must have been like to have been near someone as charismatic as Jesus?

Then there were his miracles, profound teachings and exorcisms, which drew thousands of seekers; probably the modern equivalent of millions, given the population levels at the time.

Jesus is executed. He comes back from the dead himself, having previously raised Lazarus from the dead.

Then Thomas says something a bit crass: “I won’t believe until I put my finger in His wounds”.

Hence Christ’s response. People who don’t need tangible proof are more blessed, almost by definition, as they can perceive the truth when they hear it.

**However, it doesn’t hurt to ask. Not for proof upfront, but for blessings and graces, especially for others. **Then wait. I have a notion all prayers get answered, but maybe not the way you want, and maybe not immediately.

God isn’t an automated miracle dispensing machine; ‘insert prayer, get sign.’

I remember reading in a biography of St. Padre Pio about a local woman who had an idiot child in Church with her. In frustration she threw the child at a statue of the saint he was named after, screaming that as he was named after him, he could have him.

The kid bounced off the statue, got up, and started saying, “Mama, mama!”.

He was cured!

Here’s a thought:

1. 
   *]Consider what you were like before you started taking your religion seriously;
   *]Look up Plenary Indulgences, and get a few, for yourself and the Holy Souls, who can’t get them for themselves.
   *]Attend a few well-sung Latin Masses;
   *]Try fasting and making small sacrifices for Christ’s sake. My opinion: if you want something, give something in return;
   *] Re-read the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins, and what the Church explains about them. Make sure you’re not unconsciously breaking them.
   *]See what happens.

 

[fhansen]

Other things could be said about the reasons for faith. The Church teaches that man has a built-in need to know the truth-a need he can choose to follow or not. There exist indicators which point to the transcendent – “something bigger” -going on here in our universe and indicators which suggest that there’s much we don’t know. These include the very “flawedness” and also the ignorance of humans as to where we came from, what we’re doing here, and where we’re going, as well as the existence of moral evil and the existence of love. The commission of morally evil acts which go way beyond reasonable necessity should tell us that something’s not right. But if something’s not right here-if the world’s unnatural or out of sync in some way-why should that be?- and who can know the truth? It’s as if God’s leaving a part of this process of finding the truth to ourselves-that we have a role to play and a responsibility for playing it and if we make even modest attempts to find the answers (asking/seeking/knocking) then He responds with the gift of faith-the ability to believe in something which may well make sense but is nonetheless impossible for us to know or believe on our own. And then we respond by seeking more-seeking less modestly-and He responds with increasing our faith even more. It’s a process whereby we’re asked to give God the benefit of the doubt and then He proves Himself to us in increasingly greater ways.

 

[ateista]

no, you are not twisting words at this point, but you are ignoring the rest of the contract by which we hold covenant with G-d.

Eddy thinks otherwise. Hopefully he will explain what he has in mind.

as has been mentioned before, you cannot interpret one clause in a contract with out knowing how its meaning is altered by all the addendum’s and clauses of that contract.

Well, it is rather simple. Sure, human contracts have a lot of small print, which are usually laywer-speak, and which try to make sure that the language is unambiguous. Those, however, cannot not contradict the main passage - if they do, the contract becomes unintelligible. And that is precisely the case here.

The quoted passage (John 14) is crystal clear. It promises the fulfillment of any prayer, no matter how outlandish it might be. If that is contradicted by the rest of the text, then the “contract” is null and void.

Now, for clarity’s sake, could you quote passages, which explicitly say that the John 14 does not really say what it seems to say? Not just some generic observations, but actual passages?

 

[Sarpedon]

Certainly. Here it comes: John 14:11-14

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Let’s examine the context of the passage, starting from the beginning of the chapter.

Jesus begins by saying that the Father has provided eternal security to his people (mansion with many rooms). He goes on to say that He will prepare the way for them. Thomas asks how they can know the way, and Jesus says that He is the way, for they know the Father through Jesus.

Philip then asks Jesus to “show us the Father”. Jesus expresses exasperation at this, and explains again that “I am in the Father and the Father in me.”

Jesus goes on to say that true believers will imitate Him in their works. He says that if they ask for anything in His name it will be granted, "that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

Christ goes on to say that true believers will follow the Commandments. The Father will send the Holy Spirit as a counselor. Christ will not leave them “desolate”. The Holy Spirit will aid them once Jesus departs to the Father. They should not fear Jesus’s departure, for He will be going to the Father .

Clearly, Jesus is reminding his disciples of His nature and telling them that they need to put their words into practice in order to be true believers. If they do this, Jesus will come to their aid and join them in the completion of God’s mission.

Notice the part that I bolded. Obviously, not every possible desire leads to the glorification of God. If all desires did, then Jesus would not need to come to earth. Jesus is saying that if they ask for something and it is in line with His plan for the glorification of the Father, He will grant it.

To argue the contrary would mean that Jesus abruptly changed topics in the middle of a speech without clarification and told the disciples that He would fulfill their every fantasy, which goes against His whole mission of salvation.

Note that the “glorification of the Father” needs to be understood in terms of Divine Selflessness, not human egos.

 

[fhansen]

Don’t be so simplistic. Partially it is true, but not fully. There are many instances when even the best intentions and desires are insufficient to alleviate problems, and God never interferes. But the problem is deeper than that.

If someone is truly “loving” and caring then does not use such excuses, like “there are others whose duty is to help, and I am just washing my hands like Pontius Pilate”. That is not the sign of “love”.

I understand that you’re bothered by a God who has the power to right wrongs and apparently doesn’t. I, as a Christian struggle with this question at times as well. But I contend that the freedom and power to “play god” –to be the hands of God or those of satan-has been given to mankind and that it makes no sense to blame God -or anyone else for that matter- for not doing everything within their power to right the wrongs which exist unless we ourselves are also doing everything within our own power, big or little as it may be, to do the same. Otherwise, can we really honestly say that we care what God does?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, it is rather simple. Sure, human contracts have a lot of small print, which are usually laywer-speak, and which try to make sure that the language is unambiguous. Those, however, cannot not contradict the main passage - if they do, the contract becomes unintelligible. And that is precisely the case here.

i might say that they can contradict each other because the purpose of clauses are to alter the function of the ‘main passage’ including negating that passage under the appropriate circumstances,

however, the Scripture has no ‘main’ passage that i know of. some may be considered more important than others but i won t claim that specific knowledge.

nor is this contract unintelligible, the Church teaches the meaning of the Covenant quite clearly.

The quoted passage (John 14) is crystal clear. It promises the fulfillment of any prayer, no matter how outlandish it might be. If that is contradicted by the rest of the text, then the “contract” is null and void.

it says nothing to that affect, because you fail to mention the first qualifier which is ‘if you believe in me’ without that the rest of the verse is meaningless in terms of a promise. nor the qualifier immediately succeeding the verse which is ‘if you love me you will keep my commandments’ no responsible biblical scholar interprets Scripture in this manner, for the above mentioned reasons.

Now, for clarity’s sake, could you quote passages, which explicitly say that the John 14 does not really say what it seems to say? Not just some generic observations, but actual passages?

sure, what about the first commandment, ‘you shall have no other gods before Me’

do you mean to say that one could simply ask G-d for permission to form a clay idol and worship that pile of clay as the ancients did?

that is one of thousands of conditional clauses that affect the passage that you quote.

that is why it is important to interpret Scripture in its entirety, not piecemeal. that is for the adherents of sola scriptura, not for we Catholics

or as the Church says, the Bible must be interpreted in the full light of Scripture.

these sorts of misunderstandings are exactly why that is the general rule