Not enough evidence sir

[davidv]

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.

Your definition of faith is incorrect in the context of this discussion. Using it in the way you did is illogical and unreasonable, thus making the conclusions reached invalid.

 

[User124]

Your definition of faith is incorrect in the context of this discussion. Using it in the way you did is illogical and unreasonable, thus making the conclusions reached invalid.

Can you explain?

If I say now: “Your answer is incorrect in the context of this discussion. Using it in the way you did is illogical and unreasonable, thus making the conclusions reached invalid.”, without explaining it, that would be like throwing words without any basics.

 

[samiam1611]

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.

Those heresies etc could have been prevented by explaining stuff more clearly to being with. As the Catechism does .

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 an apt analogy, however you COULD have said “school supplies including backpacks” right off the bat, then [in theory] there never would have needed to be another council to update/clarify the rules.

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

It’s not like they’re mutually exclusive. You could still have a very clear book AND Sacred Tradition. Like, the Catechism addresses contraception and the way marriage is supposed to be, but Humanae Vitae is a good adjunct to understanding those teaching.
So instead of the story of Onan, which can be interpreted a couple of ways, the early Christians/Jesus (or whoever wrote the Jewish scriptures) could have just written “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.”
But Humanae Vitae helps explain it more, if people want more explanation than the Catechism gives. Thus, Sacred Tradition would still have its place.
A catechism-type book AND Sacred Tradition would be better than a jumbled collection of mythological, historical, allegorical, and literal stories and Sacred Tradition. IMHO.

 

[interestedman]

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 to some extent a choice, but do you think you could choose to believe in Islam? If for whatever reason you REALLY wanted to believe Islam, do you think you could will yourself to do it? I doubt that you could.

 

[kkollwitz]

“You didn’t provide enough evidence sir!”

“No- your pride blinded you to my abundant evidence.”

 

[PRmerger]

Faith is to some extent a choice, but do you think you could choose to believe in Islam? If for whatever reason you REALLY wanted to believe Islam, do you think you could will yourself to do it? I doubt that you could.

'zactly. Because I have no WILL or VOLITION to do so. That’s exactly why faith is, among other things, an act of VOLITION.

 

[PRmerger]

Those heresies etc could have been prevented by explaining stuff more clearly to being with.

Sure.

As the Catechism does .

Not sure what you mean here, sam. Heresies are being propelled daily by people who have the Catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s an apt analogy, however you COULD have said “school supplies including backpacks” right off the bat, then [in theory] there never would have needed to be another council to update/clarify the rules.

It wasn’t necessary at the time, sam.

We as parents proclaimed that which our children needed to know at the time. While the fullness of our message existed from the very beginning, our paradigm developed as the need arose.

 

[PRmerger]

You could still have a very clear book AND Sacred Tradition.

We just don’t see the Book like the say fundamentalists do, so we don’t need “a very clear book.”

The Scriptures are a love letter to us from God and reflect the teachings of the Faith, but they are not the fullness of the Faith. Thus, they are not required to be “a very clear book.”

I simply don’t understand non-believer’s insistence, on a Catholic forum, that the Bible be clear.

That argument is exactly what you should be presenting on an evangelical forum. You could say, “Why didn’t God give you guys a very clear book since you don’t have a church to interpret it for you?”

That would be a stumper for them!

 

[davidv]

Can you explain?

If I say now: “Your answer is incorrect in the context of this discussion. Using it in the way you did is illogical and unreasonable, thus making the conclusions reached invalid.”, without explaining it, that would be like throwing words without any basics.

The explanation was supplied in post #121 by PRmerger, which you countered with your equivocation.
Here is a partial listing of the meanings of faith in the Catholic context.

Faith

central mysteries of the, 234, 647, 2558
the Church as guardian of the, 171, 181, 507
deposit of the, 84-95, 173-75
dogmas of the, 88-90
education in the, 1656, 2225-26
education in the faith and catechesis, 4-6
of the faithful as the faith of the Church, received from the apostles, 949
perseverance in the faith and its defense, 162, 2088
proclamation, institution, and propagation of the, 3-10, 24, 91, 171, 425, 927, 935, 939
professing the faith as a duty and task, 2145, 2471-72
witness to the, 1816, 2220, 2473-74
See also Believing

as an act of belief
“Analogy of faith,” 114
Baptism and, 1236, 1253-55
Baptism, Confirmation, and the power to profess, 1270, 1305, 1319
birth of, 683-84, 875
Catechism of the Catholic Church and the doctrine of, 13-18, 23
death for the sake of, 1281, 2473-74
diversity of faith between spouses, 1633-37
Eucharist as sum and summary of, 1327
evil and the answer of, 309
family as a community of, 2204
as a gift of God, 153
God and the things ordained by God as the object of, 150-52, 170, 178, 182, 206
grounds of, 156, 651 as a human act by no means contrary to freedom and human reason, 154-55
idolatry as a temptation to, 2113
motives of, 156
Muslims and faith in the one God, 841
prayer of, 2570, 2610-11, 2613, 2616
science and, 159
significance of, 26, 142-43, 150
sins against, 2088-89
supernatural sense of, 91-93, 889, 904
temptations and difficulties on the path of, 164
test of doubt, 644, 1381, 2088-89
as a theological virtue, 1813-16
ultimate trial of, 675
See also Believing

aids to teaching the faith
awareness of God’s almighty power, 274
bishops as teachers of the, 12, 888, 2034
catechumenate and initiation into the, 1247-48
the Catholic Church as educator in the, 168-69, 197, 868, 1124
defending and spreading the, 1285
example of Abraham, 144-45
example of Mary, 148-49
example of our ancestors, 147
Holy Spirit, 1098, 1520
Law, 1963
liturgy, 1083, 1204, 1206
Magisterium, 890, 892
sacraments, 1123, 1305
sacred images, 1192
witness of Christian life, 2044
Word of God, 131, 1102, 1122, 1154

creeds and formulas of belief
Apostles’ Creed, 194
baptismal profession, 189
language of faith, 170-71, 185
Nicene Creed, 195
parts and articles of the Creed, 190-91
significance of the Creed, 186-88, 197

 

[PRmerger]

A catechism-type book AND Sacred Tradition would be better than a jumbled collection of mythological, historical, allegorical, and literal stories and Sacred Tradition. IMHO.

Ah, I see where your error is.

You, like a lot of atheists, see the Bible as our source of morality and doctrine. As if it’s the sure norm for the faith. We don’t view the Bible that way.

That’s the purpose of a catechism.

The Bible’s purpose is not to be a catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

Faith is a conviction more than a choice,

No, User. Faith is, among other things, "a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself” --CCC 166

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.

Then that would be creating a god in your own image, rather than conforming yourself to what’s True.

Most atheists are concerned with believing what’s True, not what appeals to them.

 

[PRmerger]

But since some of these doctrines were not…“decided” upon officially for hundreds of years, there were many different Christian groups (the Ebonites, the Marcionites) following leaders and scripture (books that were not included in the bible) with different beliefs and doctrines that were, indeed, vastly different from the beliefs of the CC today.

Indeed.

These were also thought to be handed down by the apostles and inspired by God…until the 4th Century, when the Bishops decided they were not. (Even though for hundreds of years, many Christians followed them and believed they were.)

So these people were being taught wrongly?

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever written down, DG.

So when someone went around proclaiming "There is only one person in the Eternal Godhead, and he wears 3 ‘different hats’ " the Church quickly spoke up and declared this to be a heresy.

Those that continued to proclaim the above heresy divorced themselves from the One True Faith.

Those that conformed their views to the Faith of the Apostles were then united with the Church.

And even today…we’ve had people on this site say their priest told them birth control is okay to use…and I cited a priest last week who gives speeches about how women should be ordained…

And this is wrong teaching.

So…if God’s real words and wishes have been inspired divinely, interpreted correctly, and are being safeguarded by the appointed church and it’s leaders…how does it work?

Just the way you see it working today, DG.

The Church teaches. People either conform or leave.

We don’t know all that Jesus said because it was not written down, so we can’t see for ourselves.

Right. That’s why we have the Church.

We, supposedly, are not divinely inspired to know how to interpret anything correctly on our own.

That is not a correct exposition on the Catholic paradigm.

But we have priests teaching words that are outside of doctrine and outside “correct” interpretation of Jesus or God’s wishes.

Sadly, yes.

So…I still don’t understand…how does the safeguarding work?

There is the Catholic faith, DG, and then there are those who divorce themselves from the faith, either formally or informally.

But one doesn’t have to wonder what it is that the Catholic Church teaches. It’s there for anyone, who has a curiosity, to apprehend.

 

[djames99]

I’d be nervous talking to God. I would need to get a sense or picture of the atmosphere of this conversation between us.(Scholastic(teacher/pupil),general interest,etc)

Is constructive criticism welcome? …unwelcome? …at all?

Can questions from God be loaded questions? (ie: is there a specific answer sought by the questioner.?)

Is the dialogue a reprimand?(If yes, then no (name removed by moderator)ut by me is needed.)

Are their any risk factors at all involved?.

What resources am I restricted to?

Can I speak off the record? (ie: do I receive merits or demerits by my contributions?)

Are there areas of restriction for this conversation.?

…

Timing:

Is this conversation occurring immediately after I came into existence?

What was it I was supposed to have attained in knowledge and inspiration up to this point of time.?

Are my faculties and intellect fully developed?

OK, As a starter, I am taking the position of general interest, and God just wants to know
what I’ll say… that OK for you?.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d be nervous talking to God. I would need to get a sense or picture of the atmosphere of this conversation between us.(Scholastic(teacher/pupil),general interest,etc)

Is constructive criticism welcome? …unwelcome? …at all?

Can questions from God be loaded questions? (ie: is there a specific answer sought by the questioner.?)

Is the dialogue a reprimand?(If yes, then no (name removed by moderator)ut by me is needed.)

Are their any risk factors at all involved?.

What resources am I restricted to?

Can I speak off the record? (ie: do I receive merits or demerits by my contributions?)

Are there areas of restriction for this conversation.?

…

Timing:

Is this conversation occurring immediately after I came into existence?

What was it I was supposed to have attained in knowledge and inspiration up to this point of time.?

Are my faculties and intellect fully developed?

OK, As a starter, I am taking the position of general interest, and God just wants to know
what I’ll say… that OK for you?.

I think following the examples of the saints is a great way to answer your question.

One story I love about how saints speak to God is that of St. Teresa of Avila.

Perhaps you know this story?

Once after falling and injuring her leg, she looked up to Heaven and asked, “Lord, you couldn’t have picked a worse time for this to happen…haven’t I had enough problems?”

She said that the Lord replied, “Don’t you realize that this is how I treat my friends?” St. Teresa of Avila retorted, “If this is how you treat your friends, it’s no wonder you don’t have very many.”

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I swore to myself I wasn’t going to post anymore. That’s the last time I’m ever going to trust me. I never did answer the initial question though, and that is why I started reading this thread in the first place.

The first hypothetical follow up question is: Who told you that empirical evidence was the only way I could be found?
To which you say?

Well just how did you expect me to find you God? The only deductive arguments you sent my way were riddled with logical fallacies or based on bad science. You didn’t exactly go out of your way to reach me on an emotional or experiential level either.

Did you forget all that praying I did? Remember how I capital-K KNEW you would answer them? Remember how I used to fall asleep on my knees and walk around the school yard by myself so that I could pray while the other kids were playing? Boy, that was fun. And how about when I used to sneak off to the bathroom if I was at a sleep-over so that I wouldn’t break my promise to you to pray the rosary every day? You remember that, right? Mass every day, confession every week, going to the church on my own just to pray, …?

And do you remember what I prayed for? That’s right. I knew that selfish prayers would be answered with a “no”, so I prayed for others. Except for those many, many years when I prayed for faith. Do you remember how I used to tell you that I was afraid that I would loose my faith the way that my sisters and brother did? And how I begged you to help me keep my faith?

“Please God. Please! I beg you. Help me, somehow. It doesn’t need to be a miracle, just a feeling even. A conviction, or even a strong argument perhaps.” Ah… good times. Apparently you have infinite power, infinite love, infinite knowledge, and you wanted me to have faith, and what did you deliver? Nada. Exactly what I would expect to be the result if you didn’t exist. Not even a postcard to say, “Sorry TCC, this one’s all on you - G.” Or even a piece of memo paper with “NO!” scribble on it.

What? Violate my freewill you say? I asked you remember? I pleaded!

Do you remember how I took the philosophy of religion to find an argument that was sound? Valid even? How I thought I’d be able to reason my way into keeping my faith? Until I gave up and decided that faith was a decision that couldn’t be reasoned towards. Remember how I nearly gave myself an aneurysm trying deal with the cognitive disonance believing in you caused?

That’s when I started praying only that your will be done. Or to put it another way, “Can you make the stuff that is going to happen anyway, happen?” Then I finally realized that you weren’t testing, trying, or tormenting me: You just didn’t exist.

Once I started exploring the possibility it all made sense. Why did “miraculous” events happen with exactly the same frequency that you’d expect by chance? Because it was by chance! Why did I never receive a sign? Because there was no one or nothing to send it! Why does the world look like it is the product of natural forces? Because it is! Why does every argument for the existence of God rely either on a fallacy or a misunderstanding of the laws of nature? Because you can’t prove something that isn’t true!

So… pray tell me Oh Lord of Lords, what exactly were you expecting if you didn’t expect me to loose my faith in you (or see reason depending on how you look at it).

Despite all of that, I kept the door open, didn’t I? If strong enough evidence came along to make me change my mind, I would change it. I kept reading the tired old arguments that had been re-branded in case I was wrong. Sorry if that’s not good enough for you because I think I made the right call.

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

Seriously God? An appeal to popular opinion? Don’t you know that is is up there with ad hominem for the worst of the logical fallacies? If everyone jumped off a bridge, was I supposed to do it too?

That’s what I’d say… although presumably if God exists, He’s aware of all of this, and we don’t need to do this conversation over again. I wish I had kept my promise to myself, but I’ve written it now, and I may as well post it.

(We live in a very sad world. “Ad hominem” shows up as a spelling mistake on my spell-checker, and it suggested “Eninem” as an alternative. I weep for the English language. Well, Latin language anyway.)

 

[PRmerger]

(We live in a very sad world. “Ad hominem” shows up as a spelling mistake on my spell-checker, and it suggested “Eninem” as an alternative. I weep for the English language. Well, Latin language anyway.)

media.photobucket.com/image/snape/jekkala1/tumblr_ll9091UVGX1qafrh6.gif?o=13&filter=newest

 

[PRmerger]

Despite all of that, I kept the door open, didn’t I? If strong enough evidence came along to make me change my mind, I would change it.

So that’s the exact WRONG paradigm, TCC. It’s not ever going to work.

God is too much of a gentleman to force you to believe against your will. He will not give you so much evidence that you are compelled to believe against your will.

Now, you may say, “I want to believe! I’m begging to believe! It’s NOT against my will to believe!”

but I think that this may be a bit disingenuous. You want to believe, but you want to believe in a god on your own terms.

Sorry for the blunt words. But I think I’m right on the money here.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

So that’s the exact WRONG paradigm, TCC. It’s not ever going to work.

God is too much of a gentleman to force you to believe against your will. He will not give you so much evidence that you are compelled to believe against your will.

Now, you may say, “I want to believe! I’m begging to believe! It’s NOT against my will to believe!”

but I think that this may be a bit disingenuous. You want to believe, but you want to believe in a god on your own terms.

Sorry for the blunt words. But I think I’m right on the money here.

That was cathartic, thank-you. I think I needed to be reminded why I left Catholicism in the first place. It just is not the place for me.

That’s not meant as an insult; it’s just an acknowledgement that there is no common ground. It’s an either/or.

 

[PRmerger]

That was cathartic, thank-you. I think I needed to be reminded why I left Catholicism in the first place. It just is not the place for me.

That’s not meant as an insult; it’s just an acknowledgement that there is no common ground. It’s an either/or.

Why would you need to be reminded? I don’t understand that comment.