Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[PRmerger]

To create from ex nihilo does not logically lead to the ability to defy the laws of nature.

LOL!

Creatio ex nihilo, then, is subject to the laws of nature?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This, again, is not a correct articulation of Catholic teaching.

It this part of your “preference” code?

Creatio ex nihilo, then, is subject to the laws of nature?

Multiple derail attempts. You did exactly what you denounced in forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14386563&postcount=271 Are you not ashamed for your dishonesty?

And with all those attempts you keep on avoiding the question:

And all that cannot declare which verses are literal and which ones are allegorical. The problem is that this distinction is important. Maybe you don’t care if there was a literal “Adam and Eve”, and a literal “talking serpent”, and a literal flood, etc… and that is fine if only you would come clean and declare that all that is just a fairy tale… but I cannot see that happening.

I repeat. I am aware that Catholics are not Sola Scriptura apologists. If, however, the Bible plays ANY role, even some miniscule role in your belief, then it is dishonest to NOT acknowledge that you don’t have the ways and means to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[PRmerger]

Multiple derail attempts.

I think I’ve made my point, Vera. You read me loud and clear.

Which is why you’re not responding.

I do want to emphasize, for the lurkers, that there is this inconsistency rearing its ugly head again.

“It’s just a preference”

But then there’s the “You have to do this this way, in order for it to be right”.

This is, clearly, an incoherent paradigm.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I repeat. I am aware that Catholics are not Sola Scriptura apologists. If, however, the Bible plays ANY role, even some miniscule role in your belief, then it is dishonest to NOT acknowledge that you don’t have the ways and means to separate the wheat from the chaff.

We have a ways and means committee at the Holy See. It’s in the Councils and the authoritative teachings of the Popes, who concern themselves with the vital questions of doctrine but leave everything else for theologians to consider.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the current device most people use for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Protestants have no such guide that goes back two thousand years. They may invoke the Bible, but that was assembled and authorized by the Catholic Church more than a thousand years before Martin Luther.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the current device most people use for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Where in the catechism can one find the list of the literally correct verses as opposed to the allegorical ones? Just because the believers don’t care if there was an actual talking serpent and a real tree of knowledge, or if Jesus actually walked on water, that does not make the problems irrelevant. It is allegedly the task of the church to go and spread the gospel, but they cannot fulfill this task, since they cannot answer these important questions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Where in the catechism can one find the list of the literally correct verses as opposed to the allegorical ones? Just because the believers don’t care if there was an actual talking serpent and a real tree of knowledge, or if Jesus actually walked on water, that does not make the problems irrelevant. It is allegedly the task of the church to go and spread the gospel, but they cannot fulfill this task, since they cannot answer these important questions.

Allegorical verses, while not literal, still contain the seed of truth in them.

Whether there was an actual talking snake or a Devil that hissed evil thoughts is irrelevant.

Adam and Eve were seduced to try something they knew they were not supposed to try based on the lie that it would make gods of them. That is the choice all of us have to make to this day, whether we will obey “Thy will” or “My will.”

The author of Genesis needed an image to describe Satan, and the snake is as good as any.

A man who could rise from the dead is certainly a man who could walk on water.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Allegorical verses, while not literal, still contain the seed of truth in them.

Not true. They MAY contain a seed of truth. But that needs to be substantiated.

Whether there was an actual talking snake or a Devil that hissed evil thoughts is irrelevant.

Adam and Eve were seduced to try something they knew they were not supposed to try based on the lie that it would make gods of them. That is the choice all of us have to make to this day, whether we will obey “Thy will” or “My will.”

The author of Genesis needed an image to describe Satan, and the snake is as good as any.

A man who could rise from the dead is certainly a man who could walk on water.

The rest is just a legend. The point is that one needs to know the exact events, not just a fairy tale. And one needs actual supporting evidence if the story is to be taken seriously.

 

[Aloysium]

Not true. They MAY contain a seed of truth. But that needs to be substantiated.
The rest is just a legend. The point is that one needs to know the exact events, not just a fairy tale. And one needs actual supporting evidence if the story is to be taken seriously.

What should be obvious is that without a relationship with God, there is absolutely no way to know Him. Therein lies the substantiation of the truth. Without that, you are correct in observing that there is only legend. You may wish to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if scripture is too obscure. It was for me too. CS Lewis is also good reading, if you are interested in Christianity, but there is something off-putting about the organization that the world understands to be the Church.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not true. They MAY contain a seed of truth. But that needs to be substantiated.

The rest is just a legend. The point is that one needs to know the exact events, not just a fairy tale. And one needs actual supporting evidence if the story is to be taken seriously.

I begin to see that you will not take any aspects of the bible seriously without having been there on the scene to substantiate them, since how else could they be substantiated?

Kind of silly, isn’t it?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What should be obvious is that without a relationship with God, there is absolutely no way to know Him.

Unfortunately it is God’s fault that he hides above the clouds, where we cannot reach him. No matter how many times we pray to him to show his face… nothing ever happens. The usual answer to this is always the same: “How you dare to demand that God meets you on your own terms?”. And they add: “you miserable piece of stinking excrement!” (or words to that effect).

I begin to see that you will not take any aspects of the bible seriously without having been there on the scene to substantiate them, since how else could they be substantiated?

Kind of silly, isn’t it?

Not really. If some claim is contradicted by the known laws of nature, then no amount of testimonial “evidence” makes it acceptable.

 

[PRmerger]

Not really. If some claim is contradicted by the known laws of nature, then no amount of testimonial “evidence” makes it acceptable.

This is circular, Vera.

“Miracles can’t happen because there is no God”

and

“God doesn’t exist because miracles can’t occur”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not really. If some claim is contradicted by the known laws of nature, then no amount of testimonial “evidence” makes it acceptable.

This assumes that those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus were lying because nature would not allow a resurrection. So even those who saw the resurrection (including yourself if you had been there to witness it) would deny what they saw with their own eyes. Either that or those who saw the risen Jesus lied about seeing him. It’s all a grand hoax?

Something of a Catch 22 there?

God doesn’t exist because miracles are impossible. I saw a miracle, but God still doesn’t exist.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This assumes that those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus were lying because nature would not allow a resurrection. So even those who saw the resurrection (including yourself if you had been there to witness it) would deny what they saw with their own eyes. Either that or those who saw the risen Jesus lied about seeing him. It’s all a grand hoax?

It is just another unsubstantiated legend. The boring argument: “liar, lunatic or lord” needs the fourth one: “legend”. The fun stuff is that you (in general) vehemently deny to take the Bible as literally accurate description of what happened, but then - when it suits you - you start to assert that - IN THIS CASE - it is historically correct. Catch 22 - indeed!

God doesn’t exist because miracles are impossible. I saw a miracle, but God still doesn’t exist.

Show me real, bona fide a miracle, then we can talk.

A good miracle would be having a few thousand amputees, then a heartfelt prayer, and then the lost limbs regrow on public television at a previously announced time. I am ready to watch.

 

[PRmerger]

A good miracle would be having a few thousand amputees, then a heartfelt prayer, and then the lost limbs regrow on public television at a previously announced time. I am ready to watch.

This is interesting…it presupposes that you understand that something can’t come from nothing, yeah?

And yet, you refuse to accept this in your face miracle of a huge “amputee” growing a limb out of nothing: the creation of the universe ex nihilo.

 

[PRmerger]

It is just another unsubstantiated legend. The boring argument: “liar, lunatic or lord” needs the fourth one: “legend”.

You’ll have to explain how this legend developed. Who told it originally, and to what end? And what did he receive for it?

The fun stuff is that you (in general) vehemently deny to take the Bible as literally accurate description of what happened, but then - when it suits you - you start to assert that - IN THIS CASE - it is historically correct. Catch 22 - indeed!

This is some more peculiar fundamentalism rearing its head: things MUST be either literal OR historical…

Imagine if your child came home sneering about how valueless education is because “Some of the things they make me read are not literal–they didn’t actually, but some of the things are ‘historical when they want them to be’’. Sheesh! I demand that things either be ALWAYS allegorical or ALWAYS historical!”

You’d need to sit down and have a talk with your child and say, “Dearest, you are making an either/or demand where none needs to be. Atheists do this a lot. And so do fundamentalists. But the judicious approach is to accept allegory when it’s, em, allegory, and history when it’s…history. There isn’t always a need to make this weird demand. It’s ridiculous.”

 

[alliWantisGod]

If people aren’t continually seeking truth, then they end up in a spiritual stalemate and fail to believe. Catholicism is more about just believing. It’s faith and reason. The more one asks the more knowledge one gains. Now of course someone can become biased through on source of knowledge opposed to the other, so it’s also good to read things from both sides. But no two opposing ideas can be equally correct

 

[jmcrae]

Divine simplicity and the trinity.

How are these contradictory?

They are two attributes of God.

An applie is both red and (mostly) round. Saying that it’s red doesn’t contradict its roundness.

Similarly, the three Persons of God don’t in any way contradict His Divine simplicity. There are not three Gods; there are three Persons in one divinely simple God. He doesn’t suddenly become complex, in having three Persons.

 

[jmcrae]

The trinity is defined as having three internal distinctions, and simplicity as having no internal distinctions.

There are not three internal distinctions. Where does that come from?

He is one God, in three Persons. The three Persons of God share in one divine Nature, and one divine intellect. Does the fact that God has both a nature and an intellect (two attributes) also cause Him to not be simple?

Because if having more than one attribute doesn’t take away His simplicity, then neither does being three Persons.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is just another unsubstantiated legend. The boring argument: “liar, lunatic or lord” needs the fourth one: “legend”. The fun stuff is that you (in general) vehemently deny to take the Bible as literally accurate description of what happened, but then - when it suits you - you start to assert that - IN THIS CASE - it is historically correct. Catch 22 - indeed!

Show me real, bona fide a miracle, then we can talk.

A good miracle would be having a few thousand amputees, then a heartfelt prayer, and then the lost limbs regrow on public television at a previously announced time. I am ready to watch.

Surely you jest!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

There are not three internal distinctions. Where does that come from?

He is one God, in three Persons. The three Persons of God share in one divine Nature, and one divine intellect. Does the fact that God has both a nature and an intellect (two attributes) also cause Him to not be simple?

Because if having more than one attribute doesn’t take away His simplicity, then neither does being three Persons.

According to Feser, your conception of God is heretical. As I quoted earlier:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html

There is also no distinction within God between any of the divine attributes. God’s eternity is His power, which is His goodness, which is His intellect, which is His will, and so on. Indeed, God Himself just is His power, His goodness, etc… This doctrine is… an absolutely binding, infallible, irreformable teaching of the Church, denial of which amounts to heresy.