Not enough evidence sir

[PRmerger]

Okay, why would God create a Bible that was so unclear if He was planning to have an infallible Church? (Please notice this is a question, not an argument.)

Because he knew that he was giving humanity a Church to safeguard His Word.

 

[PRmerger]

Does that mean that you are saying that an all-knowing being, who is utter perfection*** wouldn’t*** be able to write something that won’t be misinterpreted? :ehh:

Yes. He can’t control what he’s given us: free will.

 

[davidv]

I used “created” in the sense of it being His message for humanity. It wasn’t inspired in the sense that movies are, “inspired by true events”.

You do believe it is the word of God right? As in:

“P: This is the word of the Lord
R: Praise be to God”

Yes I do believe that the Bible is the inerrent written word of God.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Yes. He can’t control what he’s given us: free will.

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.

Your position seems to have changed somewhat.

 

[PRmerger]

Your position seems to have changed somewhat.

I don’t think it has.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Because he knew that he was giving humanity a Church to safeguard His Word.

So… he created a book that is particularly easy to misinterpret, because he was giving humanity a Church that was there to safe guard his word, instead of giving humanity a book that was particularly easy to understand (and a Church as well)?

And He is incapable of writing a book that is impossible to misinterpret (because that would be violating our free will), but it is possible to create a Church that infallibly interprets the easily misinterpreted book *without *violating people’s free will?

 

[davidv]

So… he created a book that is particularly easy to misinterpret, because he was giving humanity a Church that was there to safe guard his word, instead of giving humanity a book that was particularly easy to understand (and a Church as well)?

From the beginning God has asked man to participate in making a home in heaven, for themselves and others. Ours first parents failed to participate properly, closing the gates to heaven. This initiated the plan of salvation, first for the Israelites, then for the whole world. This plan include the establishment of the Church by Jesus. Understanding isn’t the problem. Lack of trust and disobedience are the problem. Those who lack understanding, from a human perspective, can attain heaven without understanding.

And He is incapable of writing a book that is impossible to misinterpret (because that would be violating our free will), but it is possible to create a Church that infallibly interprets the easily misinterpreted book *without *violating people’s free will?

All misinterpretations can be rectified by consultation with the Church. The most significant thing standing in the way of an individual’s proper interpretation is pride.

 

[PRmerger]

So… he created a book that is particularly easy to misinterpret, because he was giving humanity a Church that was there to safe guard his word, instead of giving humanity a book that was particularly easy to understand (and a Church as well)?

He didn’t need to give us a book that’s “particularly easy to understand”. Because the book isn’t intended to be a compendium of the faith.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Our doctrines are not extracted from the pages of a book, no matter how holy. Rather, the book reflects the teachings of the Faith. But not the entirety of the Faith.

And He is incapable of writing a book that is impossible to misinterpret (because that would be violating our free will),

Right.

but it is possible to create a Church that infallibly interprets the easily misinterpreted book *without *violating people’s free will?

Ah. I was wondering when you were going to ask that. :yup:

It is the office of the Church that is granted the charism of infallibility. Not the person.

 

[samiam1611]

God could have saved everyone a lot of confusion if He had “inspired” the early Christians to write the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of the bible. It wouldn’t have that title but the content I mean.

 

[tarboy]

So… he created a book that is particularly easy to misinterpret, because he was giving humanity a Church that was there to safe guard his word, instead of giving humanity a book that was particularly easy to understand (and a Church as well)?

And He is incapable of writing a book that is impossible to misinterpret (because that would be violating our free will), but it is possible to create a Church that infallibly interprets the easily misinterpreted book *without *violating people’s free will?

CC are you feeling smart?

Obviously our ability to understand any text, even the bible requires a solid foundation in the language and a deep well of context to apply what we read.

Understanding scripture can come at many levels. As people grow in spiritual depth, they will get new insights from re-reading the same old boring text.

The belief that the bible is inerrant is related to the original writing in Greek and Hebrew. It has been copied and translated numerous times in the intervening years.

 

[User124]

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

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

I still agree with Partino, but it’s one of the reasons, you may think of his post to be applied on individual Christians only, while I saw his post to be applied on everyone who claim to know what a god wants, his characters, rules, desires, especially and mainly highest religious authorities, which sadly they are being without any small criticism from their followers, and they have much more influence on individuals, than what individuals have on themselves.

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.

I meant all faiths, all claim to be Letter Carries and not editors, all talk in the name of what God (they) want, don’t they?
Of course, they would use verses from Holy books to make their goals more divinely inspired.

Based on the way I’ve seen “choice” used here in the forums that may (or may not) be a tautology. In many threads it appears that “choice” comes down to the capability to assume a mental position, regardless of whether that position was conscious, subconscious, voluntary, or involuntary. Under the usages that I’ve seen here one could be said to “choose” to find a heavy weight being dropped on their foot uncomfortable.

-You “choose” to “reject” God and His love, don’t you? " I heard this a lot here.

In fact, it’s not that much of a choice: atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsChoose.htm

 

[User124]

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

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

I still agree with Partino, but it’s one of the reasons, you may think of his post to be applied on individual Christians only, while I saw his post to be applied on everyone who claim to know what a god wants, his characters, rules, desires, especially and mainly highest religious authorities, which sadly they are being without any small criticism from their followers, and they have much more influence on individuals, than what individuals have on themselves.

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.

I meant all faiths, all claim to be Letter Carries and not editors, all talk in the name of what God (they) want, don’t they?
Of course, they would use verses from Holy books to make their goals more divinely inspired.

Based on the way I’ve seen “choice” used here in the forums that may (or may not) be a tautology. In many threads it appears that “choice” comes down to the capability to assume a mental position, regardless of whether that position was conscious, subconscious, voluntary, or involuntary. Under the usages that I’ve seen here one could be said to “choose” to find a heavy weight being dropped on their foot uncomfortable.

-You “choose” to “reject” God and His love, don’t you? " I heard this a lot here.

In fact, it’s not that much of a choice: atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsChoose.htm

 

[PRmerger]

God could have saved everyone a lot of confusion if He had “inspired” the early Christians to write the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of the bible. It wouldn’t have that title but the content I mean.

The early Christians didn’t need a written Catechism because they hadn’t been exposed to all the questions/heresies/inaccuracies/misinterpretations. Those developed over time. And as the Church grew, she addressed these errors as they developed.

Take this analogy:

It has been the constant teaching in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to put all their school supplies away.

Sometimes questions arise that did not need defining earlier, but because of the development of our family requires further refinement.

Example: for the first 4 years of my children’s schooling they did not use a backpack.

Thus, when they started in the upper grades coming home and throwing their backpacks on the floor we had to have a “council” to announce: ALL BACKPACKS NEED TO BE HUNG ON THEIR RESPECTIVE HOOKS.

Now, this is not a new command. The ever-present command was: ALL SCHOOL SUPPLIES NEED TO BE PUT AWAY WHEN YOU COME HOME.

However, as there were no backpacks for the first 4 years, there was no need to say, “And that includes backpacks, of course!”

That’s the purpose of Sacred Tradition. That’s the purpose of a Catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

I still agree with Partino, but it’s one of the reasons, you may think of his post to be applied on individual Christians only, while I saw his post to be applied on everyone who claim to know what a god wants, his characters, rules, desires, especially and mainly highest religious authorities, which sadly they are being without any small criticism from their followers, and they have much more influence on individuals, than what individuals have on themselves.

With all due respect, User, I believe what you are saying is a non-sequitur.

Partino is saying that people are atheists because they see the hypocrisy among Believers.

How does your argument follow from that?

I meant all faiths, all claim to be Letter Carries and not editors, all talk in the name of what God (they) want, don’t they?

Fair enough.

I guess I’m talking about church shoppers–those who go from church to church listening to the preacher, then deciding to join a church based on whether the preacher is proclaiming things that the Christian believes herself.

For example, let’s say a woman has divorced and re-married. She leaves the Catholic Church because she doesn’t like that the Church says, “You can’t marry that guy. You’re already married to someone else.”

She goes to another church that says, “Welcome!”

That’s creating a god in one’s own image, no?

 

[PRmerger]

-You “choose” to “reject” God and His love, don’t you? " I heard this a lot here.

In fact, it’s not that much of a choice: atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsChoose.htm

I categorically reject the response made on the link you provided.

Faith is, among other things, an act of the will. It is, indeed, a choice. An act of volition.

 

[PRmerger]

So…just to see if I’m getting what you are saying correctly…

You are saying that the CC has been around “always”, yes?

No. The CC was started by Jesus. There was no Catholic Church in the days of ancient Israel.

Jesus made Peter the first pope so that the apostle group would now have the “authority” to set up a structure of people–men, I mean (no women allowed!)–to decide–or understand/interpret/remind people–of the doctrines of this church that was about to be built (but always existed).

The Church has not always existed. And Jesus was the one who “excluded” women from the priesthood.

These men, who set up more men into a structure and gave them names like “priests” and “bishops” and “popes” and “cardinals” etc, got together in groups over the first few centuries after Jesus died…and they decided upon (or were inspired to know?) the rules/doctrines.

No, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Things like “only men can be priests…no divorce…no birth control…the trinity…etc, etc”.

Those were true and proclaimed even before a single word of the NT was ever written.

 

[User124]

I categorically reject the response made on the link you provided.

Faith is, among other things, an act of the will. It is, indeed, a choice. An act of volition.

Faith is a conviction more than a choice, supposing tomorrow you choose to believe in Krishna, as much as you try, it would be hard because you are not convinced that Krishna is real, you didn’t reject Krishna and what Krishna offers, you are simply not convinced that Krishna is real and for many reasons, once you believe and recognize Krishna is real, you will make that choice of rejecting or accepting Krishna, a choice of following or ignoring Krishna, it’s very much like devout believers, and “hating god” believers.

However, If any of the Catholic, Muslim, or Jew God turned out to be real, I would makena choice of rejecting them because I don’t like any of them.

 

[PRmerger]

They either based these doctrines on words Jesus said to the first 12 apostles…words that the apostles did not write down? (words that were not included in the bible later on)…so we, ourselves, are not privy to these words…but we are to believe they are correct because the apostles remembered them

Yes, guided, of course, by the Holy Spirit.

(but why would they not write down these very important words, when they wrote down other important words?) and we are to trust their memory…

Because they understood that there are 2 channels of God’s Word: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Or…

…they didn’t base these rules/doctrines on words Jesus said (or didn’t say) to them directly at all (which is why the bible is not a proper “guide” for this religion?)…

No, they based it on what Jesus said.

.but because these men were now “divinely inspired”…they knew that when they got together themselves in their groups for the meetings/councils to figure out the set-up of this new/old religion, that whatever and any decision or interpretation they came up with during those meetings (after many decades debating certain topics, mind you) would be the *correct *ones?

Yes, given certain parameters.

I assume all these Bishops making decisions understood they were “divinely inspired” because Jesus told the apostles they were? So, the Bishops and popes even centuries later interpreted that to mean that they, too, were all divinely inspired? (or was it just some of them who were? Which ones? And how did they know?)

Those who were ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops who were ordained [snip “x” number of years] by the Apostles, who were ordained by Christ knew that they were part of the Magisterium of the Church, or the teaching authority of the Church.

But…how did people live according to the safeguarded rules of the Church before the doctrines were…hammered out by these divinely inspired, appointed people? The catechism didn’t come around until recently.

Please see my analogy about my family and school supplies.

Gotta go! More later!

 

[User124]

I categorically reject the response made on the link you provided.

Faith is, among other things, an act of the will. It is, indeed, a choice. An act of volition.

Faith is a conviction more than a choice, supposing tomorrow you choose to believe in Krishna, as much as you try, it would be hard because you are not convinced that Krishna is real, you didn’t reject Krishna and what Krishna offers, you are simply not convinced that Krishna is real and for many reasons, once you believe and recognize Krishna is real, you will make that choice of rejecting or accepting Krishna, a choice of following or ignoring Krishna, it’s very much like devout believers, and “hating god” believers.

However, If any of the Catholic, Muslim, or Jew God turned out to be real, I would make a choice of rejecting them because I don’t like any of their personalities, not that much inspiring characters to be influenced by, many Jesus teachings could be ok however.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]it’s very much like devout believers, and “hating god” believers.

That would be a “misotheist” . While still a theistic disposition of types I’ve noticed that people will confuse a misotheist (or dystheist) for an atheist even though their position on the existence of god(s) can be polar opposites.