I love you . . . but you chose to burn . . .

[theMutant]

jahozafet:

Science and religion are not interchangeable. What differentiates the two is that science is based on proof, and religion is based on faith. If the proofs used in religion were strong enough, then it would no longer be religion, it would be science. So your analogy doesn’t work. To question in religion is heresy, to question in is science is required.

I never claimed that science and religion were interchangeable. Catholics are REQUIRED to believe that we are capable of proving the existence of God through the natural world. Your definition of the proofs required to have faith versus scientific belief might work on non-Catholics, but for any educated Catholic it won’t do at all. Your claiming that my religion holds me to a standard that you ar defining when it does not do so. It is not heresy to question in the Catholic faith and the Church teaches that true faith cannot exist without reason and that reason cannot exist without questioning.

 

[Hannibal]

YinYangMom:

It doesn’t make sense to man, perhaps, because we are limited in our ability to comprehend everything. I’m certain it makes perfect sense to Him.

you can believe this based on desire, and cling to it on faith, but it’s unreasonable by definition (i.e. it is alogical) and therefore, it’s of no value as an assertion in an exchange of ideas.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

jahozafet:

The only problem is we aren’t talking about having candy taken away from us, we’re talking about eternal torture and misery. Apples and oranges.

Instead of apples and oranges you should have said broccoli and ice cream. Sorry bad joke.

My example was meant to show that the misery the child feels is of his/her own doing. He/she would grow up to be a very selfish child if he/she would not be disicplined for his/her actions.

The example I gave hits kind of close to home. When my older sister was in her later teens (18 or 19) she didn’t want to do what she was told and was living immorally and refused to follow the rules of the household. This bad example of living was being “taught” to the younger children such as myself and my dad could not let it continue. He told her that if she did not follow the rules of the house that she needed to leave. My dad thought that the threat of kicking her out would be enough to get her to conform but instead she decided to take the advice and then proceeded to move in with her boyfriend. This upset my father greatly but it was her choice to leave. I remember our entire family kneeling down to pray that she would come back home and straighten out her life.

A few months later she called my dad up and asked if she could come back home. My dad was overjoyed at the news and my sister was more than willing to be back home and follow the rules.

That’s my personal experience. I think this is what Heaven is all about. My father was always willing to accept her back home. Likewise God is always willing to have us called to be with Him in His home (Heaven). If we refuse to be with Him, then we refuse to be in Heaven. I don’t know why anyone would chose such a path willingly, but I’ve seen enough people in my lifetime to know their are people out there that would rather be miserable than to admit they are wrong.

 

[squirt]

theMutant:

I never claimed that science and religion were interchangeable. Catholics are REQUIRED to believe that we are capable of proving the existence of God through the natural world.

Actually, it’s not proving, but knowing with certainty. There’s a difference.

 

[Hannibal]

theMutant:

Your claiming that my religion holds me to a standard that you ar defining when it does not do so. It is not heresy to question in the Catholic faith and the Church teaches that true faith cannot exist without reason and that reason cannot exist without questioning.

actually his point is correct, and you have done nothing but simply assert otherwise, without reason or evidence.

Faith is not a position based on reason, it is not even an epistemological postion. It is the claim that one can hold to beliefs WITHOUT any epistemological justification.

 

[jahozafet]

YinYangMom:

It is not blind. It’s based on reality, something tangible.
Jesus is real.
Jesus came, spoke and showed us the way to eternity.
Or are you saying our belief in Jesus is blind?

Jesus is real in your opinion. You believe that Jesus is real. It is not a provable fact.

 

[theMutant]

Hannibal:

Science is falsifiable, and works by rigorously challenging falsifiable hypotheses. Stating that you believe that an entity is ‘always correct’ is a completely non falsifiable, dogmatic view, the exact opposite of scientific tentantiveness.

Ah, but science can reach reasoned conclusions when the otherwise falsifiable hypothesis is never proven false. To argue against these conclusions simply because there may be some yet to be discovered test that would prove a situation where the hypothesis is false is illogical and unreasonable. It would be like jumping off of a cliff and relying on the belief that the gravity won’t apply because the hypothesis of gravity are “falsifiable.” That, my friend, is blind faith.

 

[YinYangMom]

jahozafet:

But nature is not perfection. Humans are inherently flawed according to catholic belief . . . original sin. We are born sinners. God created imperfect beings and expects us to behave a certain way and allows temptation and if we can’t do it well enough we fry, which is sadistic.

no,no, no.

Nature IS perfection.
What man has done to nature is imperfect.

Original sin is the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God.
That was their choice.
We pay the price for it at birth but God gave us a way out through the sacrifice of His only son.
That’s why we treasure Christ as much as we do.
He could have chosen to not die by the cross…he had that opportunity. But in obedience to the Father He offered Himself up for us because he knew if He didn’t we would never be reunited with Him or His Father at the end of the world.

God sets the price for denying Him: Hell.
But He has also shown us how to avoid it. There is an out, and once again, it’s in Jesus.

 

[theMutant]

Hannibal:

Faith is not a position based on reason, it is not even an epistemological postion. It is the claim that one can hold to beliefs WITHOUT any epistemological justification.

That may be true for non-Catholics but not for Catholics.

 

[YinYangMom]

Hannibal:

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Atheists don’t “choose” to go to hell, they don’t believe in it in the first place.

Sure they do.

Despite all the Christians on the planet spreading God’s Word revealing His existence and plan for us an athiest still refuses to believe - they even choose to dismiss it all together.

It’s still a choice.

The consequence is still the same.

 

[YinYangMom]

Hannibal:

you can believe this based on desire, and cling to it on faith, but it’s unreasonable by definition (i.e. it is alogical) and therefore, it’s of no value as an assertion in an exchange of ideas.

Why is it unreasonable to recognize man’s brain has limits while God - who has no brain because He just IS - is limited?

By definition alone, God IS unlimited … he is the Alpha and the Omega.

I think it’s unreasonable to assert man’s perception of the universe on the Creator of that universe. We’re a teeny speck in the grand scheme of things, not even on the same plane in any way shape or form as God. That’s why I don’t understand the athiests’ insistence on ‘defining’ God - trying to encapsulate Him until He meets ‘their’ standards.

 

[YinYangMom]

jahozafet:

Jesus is real in your opinion. You believe that Jesus is real. It is not a provable fact.

It hasn’t been disproven either.

 

[squirt]

YinYangMom:

Sure they do.

Despite all the Christians on the planet spreading God’s Word trevealing His existence and plan for us an athiest still refuses to believe - they even choose to dismiss it all together.

It’s still a choice.

The consequence is still the same.

So is it the atheist’s fault for not understanding the message, or the Christian’s fault of setting such a bad example that it makes faith seem like something undesirable?

Should Christians bear the brunt of the responsibility for often presenting a very distorted view of Christian/Catholic theology and love?

 

[YinYangMom]

squirt:

So is it the atheist’s fault for not understanding the message, or the Christian’s fault of setting such a bad example that it makes faith seem like something undesirable?

Should Christians bear the brunt of the responsibility for often presenting a very distorted view of Christian/Catholic theology and love?

No fault. Just choice.

Look, Christians are obliged to spread the Good News…we plant the seed.

Those who hear the word have many opportunities to learn more on their own from the source. Of course, for us Catholics that source is the Bible, the Pope, the Vatican and the Catechism. Other faiths in God have their sources. Besides, for every bad example out there of christianity there are many, many more good examples.

Don’t blame us if you don’t take responsibility for your own faith formation by utilizing as many of the tools provided to you - and in this day and age, there’s a direct internet link to the Vatican for us westerners. Those in third world countries would probably have more allowances…but again, there are many, many good Christian examples - even there.

Though I will grant that those Christians who DO send the wrong message probably would be held accountable in the end, not for the athiest not converting, but because somewhere along the line that Christian strayed off the path so there are probably other areas in that person’s life that wasn’t quite on the money. He/she certainly wouldn’t be damned to hell though.

 

[squirt]

YinYangMom:

No fault. Just choice.

Look, Christians are obliged to spread the Good News…we plant the seed.

Those who hear the word have many opportunities to learn more on their own from the source. Of course, for us Catholics that source is the Bible, the Pope, the Vatican and the Catechism. Other faiths in God have their sources. Besides, for every bad example out there of christianity there are many, many more good examples.

Don’t blame us if you don’t take responsibility for your own faith formation by utilizing the tools provided to you.

#1 … as far as I know, I’m one of ‘us’.

#2 … ‘we’ also have to take responsibility for how we present the faith

#3 … different people start from different starting points. That’s why evangelization has to take many forms. One of the saints that I admire most is St Thomas Aquinas because he was willing to start discussions about God on the starting points of those with whom he wished to discuss God.

 

[jahozafet]

YinYangMom:

It hasn’t been disproven either.

Yes, but the lack of evidence to support a historical Jesus leaves little reason to believe that he did exist, in my opinion.

 

[jahozafet]

YinYangMom:

Sure they do.

Despite all the Christians on the planet spreading God’s Word revealing His existence and plan for us an athiest still refuses to believe - they even choose to dismiss it all together.

It’s still a choice.

The consequence is still the same.

It is your opinion that atheists go to hell. Since atheists don’t believe in a hell, they’re not all that worried about going there.

It’s not a choice to believe in hell. If the evidence that one exists doesn’t make you believe, then you don’t believe. You aren’t choosing to not believe, you just don’t believe.

 

[jahozafet]

YinYangMom:

No fault. Just choice.

Look, Christians are obliged to spread the Good News…we plant the seed.

Those who hear the word have many opportunities to learn more on their own from the source. Of course, for us Catholics that source is the Bible, the Pope, the Vatican and the Catechism. Other faiths in God have their sources. Besides, for every bad example out there of christianity there are many, many more good examples.

Don’t blame us if you don’t take responsibility for your own faith formation by utilizing as many of the tools provided to you - and in this day and age, there’s a direct internet link to the Vatican for us westerners. Those in third world countries would probably have more allowances…but again, there are many, many good Christian examples - even there.

Though I will grant that those Christians who DO send the wrong message probably would be held accountable in the end, not for the athiest not converting, but because somewhere along the line that Christian strayed off the path so there are probably other areas in that person’s life that wasn’t quite on the money. He/she certainly wouldn’t be damned to hell though.

Damned to hell . . . where people Jesus loves have to suffer eternal torture and misery for non-belief.

I’m so happy that Jesus loves me!

 

[Jason_Hurd]

Forgive me for posting before I’ve read every post on the thread, but something written by (I believe) John Cardinal Newman came to mind while reading through the posts. I don’t have the exact quote, but the gist of it was that the fire that the damned experience in Hell is really the fire of God’s love as felt by those who have rejected Him. Those who have accepted Him experience it as the warm embrace of an all-loving Father. I may have gotten the quote wrong, though.

 

[theMutant]

squirt:

Actually, it’s not proving, but knowing with certainty. There’s a difference.

Point conceded. This is actually the same for scientific evidence. Science never proves anything absolutely but it can demonstrate enough evidence that we can rely on a given hypothesis with certainty. Likewise with the natural evidence for God’s existence.