Not enough evidence sir

[PRmerger]

It does seem curious that God would go through so much to come to earth via a virgin birth, speak very important messages, be tortured and crucified, then have the stories about it all passed along orally for decades after his death until someone wrote them down…and then, not ensure that any original copies of these books survive!

I’d ask God about the reasoning behind that!
That might have made the origin and meaning of Jesus’ words a bit clearer for many.

The reasoning is because we are not a people of the Book, DaddyGirl. The Muslims claim to be a people of the book. Fundamentalist Christians may claim to be a people of the Book.

But Catholics do not believe that the Bible is a compendium of the faith. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

God left us a Church, not a book, to reveal His Word.

 

[tonyrey]

It does seem curious that God would go through so much to come to earth via a virgin birth, speak very important messages, be tortured and crucified, then have the stories about it all passed along orally for decades after his death until someone wrote them down…and then, not ensure that any original copies of these books survive!

It is eminently reasonable that the God who loves us so much should let Himself be tortured and crucified even though He knew He would be ridiculed and rejected by those who prefer to live for themselves and are so blind they fail to appreciate all that He has done for them even though He has ensured that His teaching has been preserved by His Church for more than two thousand years, has been taken to the remotest regions of the planet and is accepted by people of every race, colour, class and nationality.

 

[tonyrey]

The reasoning is because we are not a people of the Book, DaddyGirl. The Muslims claim to be a people of the book. Fundamentalist Christians may claim to be a people of the Book.

But Catholics do not believe that the Bible is a compendium of the faith. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

God left us a Church, not a book, to reveal His Word.

A collection of writings is worthless unless they are interpreted by the community He has established.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

A collection of writings is worthless unless they are interpreted by the community He has established.

God is incapable of writing a book that could stand on its own merits?

 

[PRmerger]

God left us a Church, not a book, to reveal His Word.

A collection of writings is worthless unless they are interpreted by the community He has established.

Indeed.

And let me just add some nuance to my comment above. Of course I didn’t mean that God isn’t the author of Scripture when I said God didn’t leave us a book. He did leave us a book. The Book. But the Church, as you say, is the guardian of His Word and the interpreter of it.

 

[tonyrey]

God is incapable of writing a book that could stand on its own merits?

The book did not float down from heaven!

Even if it had they are many who are so blind they will not see - like those who rejected Him when He was in their midst…

 

[PRmerger]

God is incapable of writing a book that could stand on its own merits?

No one is proposing that God is incapable of doing this.

He just didn’t do that. He left us a Church. We do not glean our doctrines from a book, no matter how holy. We glean our doctrines from Christ.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

The book did not float down from heaven!

He said:

A collection of writings is worthless unless they are interpreted by the community He has established.

It seems to me that an omnipotent being should be able to arrange for a collection of writings to be worthwhile without it being interpreted by someone else, regardless of the method.

It seems an odd position to take.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

No one is proposing that God is incapable of doing this.

Well, the person I quoted said a collection of writings was worthless without a community to interpret it. So, he did, essentially, say that.

I guess his comment could be interpreted as saying that the Bible is worthless on its own, but that is an equally strange position to take. Why would God write a book that needed exegesis when it wasn’t necessary? A collection of writings that could stand on it’s own seems much more useful.

 

[Hokomai]

Yes! Kudos to you, PR-M!

Yes, nicely put PR-M!

 

[User124]

Well, yes and no.

It’s the same God, yesterday, today and forever.

But take this analogy: just as we parent differently to a 3 year old than a 13 year old, so, too did God parent us differently in the OT vs the NT.

Parents can change by time, just like kids.
I got what you’re saying, but I find it inappropriate when believers use a human comparison to God in some times, but in other times when an unbeliever makes such a kind of comparison, they say " you can’t compare".

This may sound simplistic and “presumptous,” but I (if I was God, which, of course, I am not) would have said:

“The thing is, there WAS evidence-----you simply chose to ignore it or not consider it.”

There ya go. LOL.

No, if that is true you won’t see atheists, agnostics, skeptics, or unbelievers, even if it is that much clear you won’t see believers arguing with each others over the nature(s), character(s) and desire(s) of god(s).

I have heard many, many arguments by atheists for why they don’t believe in God. Some are more compelling than others. To wit: the problem of evil is, indeed, a very good argument against God’s existence (one, however, that can be refuted, but that is fodder for another thread of course.)

However, the above argument is, frankly, ridiculous. That there are Christian hypocrites = God doesn’t exist.

Not so much. :nope:

He has a good point, it could be one of the reasons, it shows that we created gods on our own images, own mentalities, to serve our own desire, sometimes bloodthirsty, barbaric, sexist, cruel and homophobic, one of his highest sins is people making love before marriages, masturbation etc, a god who cares so much about dogmas and worship, a traditional god, and at the same time he’s loving, kind and forgiving, just like human nature.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, the person I quoted said a collection of writings was worthless without a community to interpret it. So, he did, essentially, say that.

I guess his comment could be interpreted as saying that the Bible is worthless on its own, but that is an equally strange position to take. Why would God write a book that needed exegesis when it wasn’t necessary? A collection of writings that could stand on it’s own seems much more useful.

An impossible demand. Every collection of writings on philosophical, personal, moral and spiritual subjects can be interpreted and misinterpreted in different ways - as the thousands of Christian sects amply demonstrate…

 

[tonyrey]

He said:

It seems to me that an omnipotent being should be able to arrange for a collection of writings to be worthwhile without it being interpreted by someone else, regardless of the method.

It seems an odd position to take.

**Every ** collection of writings on philosophical, personal, moral and spiritual subjects can be interpreted and misinterpreted in different ways - as the thousands of Christian sects amply demonstrate…

 

[tonyrey]

If God has always existed, then seems more like there must be an infinite past?!

Spiritual reality transcends time and space. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are eternal and intangible.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed.

And let me just add some nuance to my comment above. Of course I didn’t mean that God isn’t the author of Scripture when I said God didn’t leave us a book. He did leave us a book. The Book. But the Church, as you say, is the guardian of His Word and the interpreter of it.

Even the Book inspired by God can be misinterpreted deliberately or unwittingly because it is written in** human **languages.

 

[PRmerger]

He said:

It seems to me that an omnipotent being should be able to arrange for a collection of writings to be worthwhile without it being interpreted by someone else, regardless of the method.

It seems an odd position to take.

Why is it odd? God does not control our thoughts.

In order to prevent error in the interpretation of His Word God gave us the Church, so that the book would not be incorrectly read.

 

[tonyrey]

But, if the book can be misinterpreted…then maybe it has been.
Personally, there are many parts I read in the christian canon and when i see how the church has interpreted some seemingly simple words, I shake my head in confusion and bafflement…makes no sense to me, and I wonder how the interpreters leapt from simple words/actions to their conclusions.

Unsubstantiated assertions are unphilosophical…

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
You can’t see why there can not be an infinite past?
In that case you’ll never understand why there had to be a god.

Perhaps you could walk me through why you think there can not be an infinite past.

Let’s take an example.
A gorilla walks into a bar and asks the cocktail waitress for a date. She accepts and they leave.
When did this happen?
“When” implies a specific time, a time that can be related to events prior to it and after it.
Could it have happened an infinite time ago? No, because “infinite” would imply there were no prior events, and also no after events since they would also seem to be an infinite time ago. At some point, you must begin to label events as having happened a specific finite time ago, such as when did Napolean meet his Waterloo, but you can’t do that if there is an event an infinite time ago.

Claiming there could be an infinite past leads to absurdities.

---

I know this won’t change your mind. You’re in the “prove it” camp. No reasoning is good enough.

 

[PRmerger]

But, if the book can be misinterpreted…then maybe it has been.

Oh, absolutely it has been misinterpreted, DG. The fact that there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming their interpretation of the Scriptamees are correct is testament to that sad fact. :sad_yes:

That’s why we need a guardian and interpreter of Scripture: the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess his comment could be interpreted as saying that the Bible is worthless on its own,

Yep. That is a valid comment.

but that is an equally strange position to take. Why would God write a book that needed exegesis when it wasn’t necessary? A collection of writings that could stand on it’s own seems much more useful.

Because the Bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, TCC.

If you were in dialogue on a fundamentalist or evangelical forum, then perhaps your argument would not be able to be refuted.

But you are on a Catholic forum, TCC, and as such, we don’t believe that our doctrines come from Scripture. Rather, they come from Christ.