Not enough evidence sir

[PRmerger]

Parents can change by time, just like kids.

It’s the same parent, User. He is just adapting his parenting technique to the developmental level of the child.

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".

Well, sometimes it’s appropriate to use analogies to talk about God. Sometimes, perhaps in the way that you’ve used it, it may be wrong.

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.

So what you’re saying is that atheists don’t care about truth. If someone who’s a Christian is a Big Meanie that means they’re not going to believe that God exists. That’s just poor logic. It’s a conclusion based on emotion, not reason.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

**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…

The thousands of Christian sects is an excellent example of why the Bible is a particularly faulty book. The Bible, more so than many other books, lends itself particularly well to misinterpretation. According to the Gospels, Jesus said both “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “Peace I bring you.” Clearly, such a book is in dire need of interpretation and explanation. (It is almost as if it was written by two different people.) However, there are books that are much more clear about their intent and purpose.

But I just want to be clear: You don’t think God is capable of delivering a book to humankind that it easy to interpret?

 

[User124]

So what you’re saying is that atheists don’t care about truth. If someone who’s a Christian is a Big Meanie that means they’re not going to believe that God exists. That’s just poor logic. It’s a conclusion based on emotion, not reason.

That’s not what I said, I was never critical to a religion because of it’s believers, even that many people do wrong because of their religion and many others do good because of their religion, but if I have to judge a religion, it would be by it’s teachings and what people do in a relation with these teachings would be another issue.

What I meant was that one of the many reasons that atheists don’t believe is because that gods are very much similar in their characters, desires and mentalities to humans, just as Voltaire said: "If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. "
We created god(s) on our own images, that’s what I noticed from most religions and how they represent God, it’s not about an “individual christian” as much as it is about whole religious books, religious authorities, entire groups of believers and the basics of a religion itself.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Yep. That is a valid comment.

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.

I still believe this is a very odd position to take. As a writer myself, I find it hard to comprehend anyone attaching their name to a book that is intentionally less clear than it needs to be. At the very least, it seems like there should be some sort of disclaimer attached: “The following book is an accurate, but incomplete, reflection of my thoughts, opinions, and directives. For an authoritative interpretation of my views please refer to the following people…”

 

[TheCuriousCat]

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.

Oh, I like that little disclaimer at the end! If I disagree with you it can only be because I’ll reject anything you say on principle. It couldn’t possibly be because you are wrong or didn’t communicate clearly enough. Oh well, I hate to disappoint.

You are correct in saying that any particular event could not have happened an infinite time ago, but that is a completely different issue. Every event in the past happened a finite amount of time between then and the present. Take any two numbers on a number line. No matter what number you choose, there is a finite distance between them, and yet there are infinite numbers.

If I had said that there was a beginning to the universe that happened an infinite time ago, I would be wrong. I am saying it is theoretically possible for the universe to have not had a beginning. Any event in the past still happened a finite time between then and now.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

There have been heresies throughout the history of Christianity because individuals have claimed to have had privileged insight into the precise significance of every statement in the Bible.

 

[tonyrey]

The thousands of Christian sects is an excellent example of why the Bible is a particularly faulty book.

There have been heresies throughout the history of Christianity because ** individuals **have claimed to have had privileged insight into the precise significance of every statement in the Bible.

The Bible, more so than many other books, lends itself particularly well to misinterpretation.

The fundamental teaching of Jesus admits of no misinterpretation whatsoever.

According to the Gospels, Jesus said both “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “Peace I bring you.” Clearly, such a book is in dire need of interpretation and explanation. (It is almost as if it was written by two different people.)

Statements taken out of their context can be taken to prove anything!

However, there are books that are much more clear about their intent and purpose.

Please give examples of books with moral precepts for everyone about the purpose and meaning of life which are much more clear about their intent and purpose.

But I just want to be clear: You don’t think God is capable of delivering a book to humankind that it easy to interpret?

How precisely would that book be delivered to people throughout history and throughout the world and guaranteed to be incapable of misinterpretation?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

There have been heresies throughout the history of Christianity because ** individuals **have claimed to have had privileged insight into the precise significance of every statement in the Bible.

A more precisely worded book would be less apt to have this happen.

The fundamental teaching of Jesus admits of no misinterpretation whatsoever.

How precisely would that book be delivered to people throughout history and throughout the world and guaranteed to be incapable of misinterpretation?

These two statements are not contradictory; they are contradictory. If the fundamental teaching of Jesus admits of no misinterpretation, then a book that contained only the fundamental teaching of Jesus should be incapable of misinterpretation, shouldn’t it?

Statements taken out of their context can be taken to prove anything!

Thus proving my point.

Please give examples of books with moral precepts for everyone about the purpose and meaning of life which are much more clear about their intent and purpose.

Plato’s Republic is much more clear, as is Aristotle’s Politics and Epicurus’ writings. Pretty much anything written by a single person is more clear on the topic.

 

[tonyrey]

A more precisely worded book would be less apt to have this happen.

These two statements are not contradictory; they are contradictory. If the fundamental teaching of Jesus admits of no misinterpretation, then a book that contained only the fundamental teaching of Jesus should be incapable of misinterpretation, shouldn’t it?

Thus proving my point.

Plato’s Republic is much more clear, as is Aristotle’s Politics and Epicurus’ writings. Pretty much anything written by a single person is more clear on the topic.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that a book by itself is sufficient to communicate the teaching of Jesus to everyone throughout the world regardless of whether they are literate without even specifying what the precise words would be or how they would be communicated. There is no point in attempting to discuss the matter any further.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that a book by itself is sufficient to communicate the teaching of Jesus to everyone throughout the world regardless of whether they are literate without even specifying what the precise words would be or how they would be communicated. There is no point in attempting to discuss the matter any further.

That isn’t my argument. If you look at what I’ve been posting it is pretty clear that I am contending that an all-powerful God should be able to assemble a group of writings that is at least as good as the best human authors.

But even if I were proposing that a book such as you describe should be possible, why would you think it wouldn’t be?

It is clear why I think that such a book is an impossibility, but it is less clear why someone who believes in an all-powerful God would think that. In the Bible itself it speaks of the apostles being able to preach to people in multiple languages at the same time. If it is possible to do such a thing verbally, then it doesn’t make much sense that it couldn’t be done in written form, or even telepathically.

However, if you don’t wish to discuss it anymore, I will desist.

 

[PRmerger]

The thousands of Christian sects is an excellent example of why the Bible is a particularly faulty book.

Well, the Bible without a Church is a particularly faulty book.

The Bible, more so than many other books, lends itself particularly well to misinterpretation.

Indeed.

According to the Gospels, Jesus said both “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “Peace I bring you.” Clearly, such a book is in dire need of interpretation and explanation. (It is almost as if it was written by two different people.) However, there are books that are much more clear about their intent and purpose.

I get the feeling that you are not very familiar with Catholicism and where we proclaim our truth derives.

Again, if you were on a fundamentalist or evangelical forum, your argument would have merit.

But I just want to be clear: You don’t think God is capable of delivering a book to humankind that it easy to interpret?

God is, of course, capable of that.

He just didn’t need to do that because he established a Church to do that. Not a book.

 

[davidv]

Ohmygosh.
I can think of a long list of topics that could have been more clearly and simply written to avoid major, major confusion and argument later on–topics including female priesthood, birth control, same sex marriage, and masturbation…just to name a few minor, minor ones…

History has proven over and over again that even the simplist of writing can, and will be, misinterpreted if said mis-interpretation is to the advantage of the one making it.

 

[tonyrey]

Ohmygosh.
I can think of a long list of topics that could have been more clearly and simply written to avoid major, major confusion and argument later on–topics including female priesthood, birth control, same sex marriage, and masturbation…just to name a few minor, minor ones…

How precisely would that book be **delivered to illiterate people **throughout history and throughout the world and guaranteed to be incapable of misinterpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not what I said, I was never critical to a religion because of it’s believers, even that many people do wrong because of their religion and many others do good because of their religion,

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying about thoughtful atheists. And what you say is in direct contradiction to what Partino says:

This is an example of the greatest evidence against the existence of God, the hypocrisy of those who claim to speak in His name.

For many unbelievers, it is not so much God that they reject, as it is you.

So, it appears, that you (User124) and I are agreed that Partino is incorrect, at least as it applies to you.

 

[PRmerger]

What I meant was that one of the many reasons that atheists don’t believe is because that gods are very much similar in their characters, desires and mentalities to humans, just as Voltaire said: "If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. "
We created god(s) on our own images, that’s what I noticed from most religions and how they represent God, it’s not about an “individual christian” as much as it is about whole religious books, religious authorities, entire groups of believers and the basics of a religion itself.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the non-believers on this forum have forgotten that they’re on a* Catholic* forum, and believe that they are speaking with evangelicals or fundamentalist Christians.

What you have proclaimed above is exactly my indictment against Protestants. They have created a god in their own image, church shopping for a church that conforms to their own views, rather than finding the Church that Christ established and then conforming their views to Christs.

Catholicism is the only religion that does not claim to be able to edit God’s message. She is only the Letter Carrier, not The Editor.

 

[PRmerger]

I still believe this is a very odd position to take. As a writer myself, I find it hard to comprehend anyone attaching their name to a book that is intentionally less clear than it needs to be.

But what if you could deliver your book to each reader with your personal representative there to clear up any misinterpretations?

At the very least, it seems like there should be some sort of disclaimer attached: “The following book is an accurate, but incomplete, reflection of my thoughts, opinions, and directives. For an authoritative interpretation of my views please refer to the following people…”

Heh. You do know that the Bible does indeed say that, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that a book by itself is sufficient to communicate the teaching of Jesus to everyone throughout the world regardless of whether they are literate without even specifying what the precise words would be or how they would be communicated.

Right.

Again, on an evangelical forum, in which the members proclaim that the Bible alone is the source of God’s Truth, TCC’s point might be valid.

But on a Catholic forum, it is easily refuted because God gave us the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth, not the Bible.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I get the feeling that you are not very familiar with Catholicism and where we proclaim our truth derives.

Again, if you were on a fundamentalist or evangelical forum, your argument would have merit.

Both you and tonyre seem to have problems with the quotes I chose. Do you not think that such apparently contradictory messages are in need of interpretation? I would think that a fundamentalist or evangelical would be more inclined than a Catholic to believe that the Bible would not need outside explanation.

God is, of course, capable of that.

He just didn’t need to do that because he established a Church to do that. Not a book.

Again, the fact that I was responding to a particular statement by a particular poster has been overlooked. The poster said that a collection of writings is “worthless” without a Church (Heavily paraphrased, but I think the intent is the same.)

This is a bizarre stance to take since there are many works, by many different authors, that have had worth without much need for outside interpretation. A Christmas Carol, for instance. Shakespeare lends itself to many interpretations, but the moral message behind most of his plays are easy to grasp.

I would have thought that a collections, inspired by God would have been the most worthwhile, and easily understood books ever written.

 

[PRmerger]

That isn’t my argument. If you look at what I’ve been posting it is pretty clear that I am contending that an all-powerful God should be able to assemble a group of writings that is at least as good as the best human authors.

This argument, TCC, is inutile.

God could have done lots of things. He could have chosen to save us through an alien. He could have chosen to come to Teotihuacan to incarnate. He could have sent a legion of angels to smite the Romans before they crucified Christ.

That he didn’t doesn’t say anything at all about him, except that…

he didn’t do that.

 

[PRmerger]

I would have thought that a collections, inspired by God would have been the most worthwhile, and easily understood books ever written.

This would be true, TCC, if he hadn’t established a Church.