P
phooney
Guest
Hi Pier,Hi phooney,
Is this what you’re looking for?
amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031
Yes, that does look like the exact kind of thing I was referring to, thanks.
Have you read it?
Hi Pier,Hi phooney,
Is this what you’re looking for?
amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031
He could even do it without interfering with that ‘free will’ thing too!But God, on the other hand… God is certainly *capable *of responding, he just chooses *not *to. Curious. He certainly would *care *about the discussion, right? And he certainly would do something to change someone’s mind - because there’s a pretty HUGE consequence to *not *changing someone’s mind: hell. Eternal damnation and suffering forever and ever.
No, but I have one of her other books, which is very good…Hi Pier,
Yes, that does look like the exact kind of thing I was referring to, thanks.
Have you read it?
Of course he could.He could even do it without interfering with that ‘free will’ thing too!
It is that vagueness that enables the extremes in the religions. Through this, some can justify doing evil things. However, the vagueness also, somewhat, enables “good” people to claim it is about nothing more than love. (Though anyone who has fully read the bible, would have to admit that a few books need to be ignored for that to be a valid stance.)It is just too vague and open to interpretation.
I don’t think I could say it any better. To expand on it, however, I think many people once they have lost faith, until they are ready to give up the need for objective evidence, they will never regain their faith. Some will, admittedly, go back to faith with claims of evidence being their driving reasoning for returning but, likely, because they chose not to look for the counter-arguments. (Many have said Behe or Gentry convinced them to return to their faith but one has been completely proven wrong and the other’s experiments are valid but his interpretations are incorrect - another example of trying to make the evidence fit the theory.)When the very existence of that ‘expert’ is what is in question, I don’t see how faith of either kind can be rationally used to determine the existence of that ‘expert’.
This is one reason why I am most interested in the objective evidence for a God. I see it as the only rational path to formation of such a belief, a belief that I think must logically come before such ‘trust’. The momentous unforced belief that is the faith of common understanding is inherently illogical.
I guess I’m not all that up on “Elvis”, I thought he was still alive. People have seen his face in toast - that stuff never gets made up.I happen to believe in evolution, enjoy reading about science, lack belief in ghosts, think Elvis is dead and think long and hard about theological questions.
A guy that one person might claim is a non-believer, Richard Dawkins, says that putting god in place for answers you don’t have, is a cop-out and science would say “we don’t know yet, but we almost certainly will know in the future”. I would have to strongly agree.I don’t know how we developed language, so god exists. I don’t know how the eye formed, so god exists. I don’t know why the universe is so good for life, so god exists, etc, etc.
Note: The first part of this is meant to be sarcastic. Forgive me (you do that, don’t you?) if you don’t find humour in it.But God, on the other hand… God is certainly *capable *of responding, he just chooses *not *to. Curious. He certainly would *care *about the discussion, right? And he certainly would do something to change someone’s mind - because there’s a pretty HUGE consequence to *not *changing someone’s mind: hell. Eternal damnation and suffering forever and ever.
I wasn’t making an argument; I was dismantling yours.It’s true because I said so is a valid argument to make - when you truly believe that god exists because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god.
This is more of a slogan than it is an argument.Catholics who think that everyone needs religion are self-serving.
I suppose if this humors you…If you were not able to grasp the point that was being made by myself of phooney, I apologize. I can’t dumb it down any more than this.
I don’t disagree; I also don’t see the point. But since you insist on making it, please provide a coherent argument.Religion does not make a person good.
Having no religion does not make a person bad.
Isn’t this the guy who wrote that popular treatment of the hope of reconciling Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity? What I find amusing is when scholars or researchers feel that they are competent enough in their field of expertise to begin uttering authoritative quips about the veracity of another’s. The audacity is all the more laughable and the insult doubled when the field in question is actually much more than that. One only needs to look as far as almost any headline, or, if you prefer your points codified in historical context, Nazi Germany, to see coutless good people doing evil things. I think we wacko religious folks call it sin. One needn’t be religious to be both “good” and fallen. But I’m sure we agree on this much.Steve Weinberg said it well…
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Or, maybe your Dad would send your brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, and friends in his stead. Maybe he could see the bigger picture and knew that this would be the best way.You the know the funny thing is that God could stop all of this debate right now, if he wanted.
I mean, let’s say I was having a forum debate on if my real-life dad was alive. Well, if my dad knew about it he’d be pretty concerned I think. So if my dad never posted on the forum or did anything about it, he would probably be in a capacity where he either *couldn’t *or didn’t want to. If he didn’t want to, maybe he just didn’t care about the discussion? I mean, after all, what are the real consequences of someone debating if he’s alive or not? Well, there aren’t that many.
Yes, I certainly think He does.But God, on the other hand… God is certainly *capable *of responding, he just chooses *not *to. Curious. He certainly would *care *about the discussion, right?
Back to free will and God’s timing vs. ours…As a believer in a perfectly just and perfectly merciful God, I don’t think that God “holds off” on providing “sufficient” evidence to people in order to “tease” them.And he certainly would do something to change someone’s mind - because there’s a pretty HUGE consequence to *not *changing someone’s mind: hell. Eternal damnation and suffering forever and ever.
Thank you for your well thought out post, Exalt. I do think the existence of threads like this could just as easily be used as an argument for the existence of God.Anyway, just a few thoughts. The existence of a thread like this is, in itself, an illustration of an argument against the existence of God.
Unfortunately this is highly error prone. If your dad wanted to tell you its time to eat right now in the dining room, you may get a myriad of people telling you different things. Your brother might tell you its time to eat in the kitchen since you usually eat there. Your other brother might tell you that a movie was rented and everyone is going to eat in the family room, since he rented one earlier in the day and talked to his sister about discussing it with dad, but his sister forgot to talk to dad about it. Your other brother might tell you that dinner is still cooking and it will be 30 minutes before eating, because he doesn’t think that dad could cook a full meal this quickly. Your sister might tell you that dad isn’t feeling well and do your own thing for dinner since he was not well earlier in the day, and she mistakenly thinks he is still resting. Your other sister might tell you that its time to eat outside on the patio to enjoy the nice day since, it really is beautiful. Your Aunt might call you up, thinking today is Friday when it is really Thursday, and tell you that there is going to be a surprise party for your dad and to head over to her house for dinner. Your other sister might tell you that dad choked on some food and mom took him to the hospital, so you should go there, since she is mad at you. Your neighbor might call you and act surprised that you didn’t know that there was a block party going on, and to come outside to help set up. Your other brother might tell you that he ate already and make it sound like everyone ate already due to miscommunication. Your mom might tell you to go to the store and get some food since dad said earlier that he was missing an ingredient (but then decided to cook something else). Your friend that’s coming over soon might tell you that you are supposed to call and order pizza, since has food allergies and doesn’t trust other people’s cooking, but the way he says it makes it sound like the whole family will eat pizza.Or, maybe your Dad would send your brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, and friends in his stead. Maybe he could see the bigger picture and knew that this would be the best way.
He, the Creator, has told us directly. People, the creation, are the ones who mess up and get it wrong at times, not Him.**What’s the point? What benefit can you see out of doing it this way, (as I see a lot of negatives)? Why not tell you directly and save so much confusion and error (especially when people ask God over and over for help, why not help in the most accurate way possible)? ** Especially since critical decisions are made based upon what could easily be (and most often is, as there is no religion that encompasses the majority of the population) faulty information.
He told us directly… or your church told you he told THEM directly? That’s the point, and it stands. The supposedly all knowing creator has chosen a stupid, inefficient, intentional and unintentionally error prone method of communication. It would be within his ability to communicate clearly if he existed, and to everybody if he actually wanted us all to believe in him. I can’t speak for anybody else, but there hasn’t been any such thing for me.He, the Creator, has told us directly. People, the creation, are the ones who mess up and get it wrong at times, not Him.
And please pardon me, because I understand that there are those who do not believe. But the (invisible!) grace received through the sacraments helps us to get it right, and also to stay that way…
His gift to us, to help us. :yup:![]()
Now phooney, you know we aren’t supposed to talk politics…He told us directly… or your church told you he told THEM directly? That’s the point, and it stands. The supposedly all knowing creator has chosen a stupid, inefficient, intentional and unintentionally error prone method of communication. It would be within his ability to communicate clearly if he existed, and to everybody if he actually wanted us all to believe in him. I can’t speak for anybody else, but there hasn’t been any such thing for me.
I don’t understand your first line. He supposedly has told people two thousand years ago, directly, (and the random person here or there, and there are many other random people who claim to see things too) but not me.He, the Creator, has told us directly. People, the creation, are the ones who mess up and get it wrong at times, not Him.
And please pardon me, because I understand that there are those who do not believe. But the (invisible!) grace received through the sacraments helps us to get it right, and also to stay that way…
His gift to us, to help us. :yup:![]()
Hi Aleii,God knows that these errors will occur, whether out of malice, or the person didn’t understand or hear correctly, or misunderstanding of meaning, or misunderstanding of timeframe, or accidents, or “telephone game” type relaying. There are a huge number of religions/viewpoints out there, and 10 people on the street will likely give you 10 different answers to the God question.
What’s the point? What benefit can you see out of doing it this way, (as I see a lot of negatives)? Why not tell you directly and save so much confusion and error (especially when people ask God over and over for help, why not help in the most accurate way possible)? Especially since critical decisions are made based upon what could easily be (and most often is, as there is no religion that encompasses the majority of the population) faulty information.
Your answer is vague and can be used as justification for many religions. When something does not make sense to me, I can not simply keep on status-quo; I feel compelled to search for a more definitive answer to ensure that I have not been mistaken, or on the wrong path entirely. I’m glad things have worked out well for you and brought you closer to God, though my experiences have been quite different.Hi Aleii,
Even when Jesus was right there, teaching and hanging out and eating with His apostles and disciples for three years, there were those who didn’t believe Him. I think if God were to do what you are asking, people would take Him for granted anyway, just as they did in the earlier years.
As for “What is the point?”: that is the way God operates. As a believer, I accept that God’s ways are not my ways, and that His wisdom is unfathomable to me in this lifetime. I trust in God, and I trust that there is a good reason for how He chose to spread the Gospel message. My trust in Him has been reinforced over the years. I have found that every painful, frustrating, or confusing event in my life so far has brought me (and others) closer to God, even when it made absolutely no sense at the time.
Que?"Now phooney, you know we aren’t supposed to talk politics… "
And these are the people that your god has chosen to give his message to you, rather than doing it himself. According to them anyway. But on matters of faith the pope is infallible, right? According to the vatican council anyway. Your god can’t even be bothered to confirm his #1 spokesman himself. No time to appear to everybody in the world to say “I don’t have time to deal with you all, but this guy is infallible” poof“Yes, the point being, the Church is made up of saints and sinners (meaning everybody in it, and there’s always room for more)…”
Except for the poor fig farmers who would have to try to fend off hordes of angry christ followers from cursing and and withering their trees. But seriously, what does that have to do with the fact that god would rather go with his “stupid, inefficient, intentional and unintentionally error prone method of communication.” than speak to anybody directly. And while there certainly are some valid and noble rules in the bible, which are valid and noble regardless of whether it was Jesus character from the bible that said them or not, they are hardly unheard of from other cultures that had no experience of Christianity until recent times. The golden rule has had many incarnations for example. The rules of the bible are also woefully out of date and lacking in extensive detail, and worst of all are intended to be unchanging. The masses of codified rules that we currently have dwarf the amount of rules in the bible, develop with the culture they are a part of, and obviously have much more relevance to things like modern company law and computer fraud. So what if everybody just followed these laws, and the proper channels for changing them? Then we’d still have illness and accidents.“phooney, here’s a hypothetical. What if everyone followed Christ’s laws? That would include the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule. Then the only problems in this world not caused by sin would be caused by illness and accidents, correct?”
Assuming they wanted to stay married, and assuming kids could be expected to understand and agree with all the laws, and assuming that it was God who was responsible for the laws and assuming that he cares about our thanks, and assuming that god exists. You need to buy an occam’s razor.“Other than that, people would stay married. Kids would listen to their parents, who would be setting excellent examples by giving thanks to God for the better lives we would be leading.”
Neither of our scenarios are especially likely, are they?“Okay, now, how likely is this to happen?”
I don’t, as I don’t believe in God. If I appear to, then it is only because I am trying to give examples of things according to your mythos. This is a very funny thing to say though, as it is another example of theists trying to have it all one way. I’ll just illustrate this by saying, “fine, as long as you do not put the praise for anybody’s good fortune on God” and leave it at that.“And please, do not put the blame for anybody’s problems on God.”
"PS: Another question, phooney.
God is an easier target? I think religion has caused more problems than hollywood? They’ve made less claims about how I should live my life?With all the people-owned, people-run organized businesses in this world, where the heads of these places live cushy lives, why don’t you get on their cases, instead of ours? How about Hollywood, where the over-paid court jesters (indeed!) think we should be doing things their way?"
Well, I don’t believe that. There’s a lot of ‘ills’ out there, these days and that one church doesn’t have that kind of power any more, even if I thought all they did was ‘cause ills’.“Ri-i-ight! And some would have us believe the Catholic Church is the cause of all ills. Guess again.”
Not that there’s any reason TO believe in a supernatural struggle for souls. How could your god even struggle anyway, for a start? I’ll stop ‘complaining’ when people stop making ridiculous unfounded claims, esecially those that are supposed to apply to me.“Again, you don’t want to believe in the supernatural struggle for souls, that’s your business. But please don’t complain about it here.”
I did indeed touch on subjects unrelated to this thread - I do apologize phooney…Not that there’s any reason TO believe in a supernatural struggle for souls. How could your god even struggle anyway, for a start? I’ll stop ‘complaining’ when people stop making ridiculous unfounded claims, esecially those that are supposed to apply to me.
Aleii,Your answer is vague and can be used as justification for many religions. When something does not make sense to me, I can not simply keep on status-quo; I feel compelled to search for a more definitive answer to ensure that I have not been mistaken, or on the wrong path entirely. I’m glad things have worked out well for you and brought you closer to God, though my experiences have been quite different.