A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
No, I haven’t read it, which is why I don’t think it’s fair for me to say whether or not it is accurate. I was just commenting based on reviews of it that I had read. I’m sorry for coming off too accusatory.
- Status
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Well I can know at least one truth: that I exist. Other than that, most of the things we claim to know could, at least theoretically, be wrong. For example, I know that I have been alive for more than one year, but it’s possible that the universe could have been created ten minutes ago with memories implanted in our heads. Now the chances of this are so absurdly low that it’s not even really worth worrying about. But aside from this technicality, I do indeed believe we can know things.
I agree completely. My personal view is that I would rather believe an unpleasant truth than a pleasant lie. It makes me think of the movie “The Truman Show” and how I’d want to get out and experience life for what it really is, no matter how happy it was inside that dome. So I certainly don’t want to tell anyone that they are better off not knowing the truth (which I believe to be atheism). However, I would also not try to disprove the faith of a 90-year-old woman whose faith was all she had left, no matter how misguided I might think it is. So while my personal opinion is that people should believe the truth (and should critically analyze all of their beliefs), I understand that some people might care more about whether their beliefs bring happiness than whether they’re true and I do not think I should cast judgment on this perspective.
Thank you. Now all I need is a reason to believe. I’ve been looking, but nothing so far.
D
Detales
Guest
No problem. I don’t know which reviews you have read. The book is an application of the ideas of Korzybski’s General Semantics as a thought discipline to the dynamics surrounding the acquisition of religion. It also deals in some useful depth, including exercises, of the other areas such as translation, meaning, witnessing ans collections, that are ideas that may folks don’'t even include in their examination of their faith.
Like I said, I don’t have a stake in what faith one has. prefers, or doesn’t have. I just think that in any case one ought to have a good set of critical tools and a modicum of personal and historic honesty when they look at what they believe. That holds for political, economic, emotional, and other beliefs. As I have often said, “Gnothi Seauton.”~ Know thySelf,~ is not a frivolous dictum, but the door to a gold mine. But you have to use the tools. Would you rather use your fingers or a jackhammer and dynamite? What is your assessment of what many people on here are using?
We are a country that despite its great gifts has gone from first to 29th place in education in the last twenty years. I believe that much of that is due to the inability of the public to do more than accept sound and video bites as distinct from critically over-viewing many situations. The ideas, such s the structural differential, that are presented in her book are very good tools for grasping aspects of our formation of ideas in any field, not just religious studies. I still recommend it after four readings and many look-ups.
Like I said, I don’t have a stake in what faith one has. prefers, or doesn’t have. I just think that in any case one ought to have a good set of critical tools and a modicum of personal and historic honesty when they look at what they believe. That holds for political, economic, emotional, and other beliefs. As I have often said, “Gnothi Seauton.”~ Know thySelf,~ is not a frivolous dictum, but the door to a gold mine. But you have to use the tools. Would you rather use your fingers or a jackhammer and dynamite? What is your assessment of what many people on here are using?
We are a country that despite its great gifts has gone from first to 29th place in education in the last twenty years. I believe that much of that is due to the inability of the public to do more than accept sound and video bites as distinct from critically over-viewing many situations. The ideas, such s the structural differential, that are presented in her book are very good tools for grasping aspects of our formation of ideas in any field, not just religious studies. I still recommend it after four readings and many look-ups.
L
latin_rite
Guest
Where does the bible say the earth is only 6,000 yrs old? I hear this thrown around a lot. but i haven’t found where the bible says this. I have heard how a Bishop or a Cardinal, added up the ages of the people of the bible and worked his way back from there. (from the birth of jesus i assume.) I don’t recall it being a teaching of the Church either.Well I am a Christian but it depends entirely on how you interpret several things. For instance, do you believe the Ark, the story of Adam & Eve, etc literally? Do you believe the earth is really only 6,000 years old?
Good luck
S
santodomingo
Guest
Hey Evil Atheist,
I´m sure you´re not as evil as you claim to be! So, you want reasons to believe? All I can say is that the main reason I am a christian is Christ. That may sound a bit obvious, but it´s true. So many people get caught up in what surrounds christianity; the moral teaching, traditions, worship, the liturgy, etc. All these things are important of course, but take Christ out and they are meaningless. If you want a reason to be a christian look no further than Christ.
How do you explain Christ from a sceptical point of view? There is no way you can reconcile the attraction of His words and character with His extraordinary claims that He is the Messiah and the Son of God, without effectively becoming a christian. You can´t have your cake and eat it: either He is a big fake or He is God incarnate.
Read the Gospels. Start at the beginning. Christ is at the beginning of everything (and at the end too). Don´t get lost on complicated historical and theological debates before you have examined the evidence for and against Christ. “Is He who He claims to be?” should be your first question. Everything hinges on the answer you give to this.
God bless you, and enjoy your reading!
I´m sure you´re not as evil as you claim to be! So, you want reasons to believe? All I can say is that the main reason I am a christian is Christ. That may sound a bit obvious, but it´s true. So many people get caught up in what surrounds christianity; the moral teaching, traditions, worship, the liturgy, etc. All these things are important of course, but take Christ out and they are meaningless. If you want a reason to be a christian look no further than Christ.
How do you explain Christ from a sceptical point of view? There is no way you can reconcile the attraction of His words and character with His extraordinary claims that He is the Messiah and the Son of God, without effectively becoming a christian. You can´t have your cake and eat it: either He is a big fake or He is God incarnate.
Read the Gospels. Start at the beginning. Christ is at the beginning of everything (and at the end too). Don´t get lost on complicated historical and theological debates before you have examined the evidence for and against Christ. “Is He who He claims to be?” should be your first question. Everything hinges on the answer you give to this.
God bless you, and enjoy your reading!
D
Detales
Guest
Dear Santo,
There you go with the “either/or” again. That tells me that you have no conceptual options that you are capable of taking as “real” other than that particualr dichotomy. Trust me, “it ain’t so.” As I said, you are living in a christianist culture. In the same way that your brain has become incapable of hearing or producing certain sounds of speach, (which is why people have accents, btw,) you have as well, along with most everyone else, come to accept a certain way of thinking about God, Jesus, the Christ (something rather different in fact,) heaven, creation, etc. It has for you and yours come down to a simple dichotomy. You will come up with every available real and imagined reson to support this dichotomy as being the only dynamic in play. It is not. Emphatically, it is not.
It is the function of what might, for lack of better terms at the moment, be called the “assembleage point” to assemble and maintian our world view. It takes every item of experience and logically relates it to the perspective of one’s immediate conditions, especially through youth. This is very well and good. People who live in the plains need to be very good at that in order to survive. People who live in the mountains need those skills and perspectives. People who live on the shore, likewise need those skills appropriate to that. Desert, jungle, you name it. You have to have that skill set or likely die.
But: does the shore skill set allow for survival in the jungle? Or that of the desert for in the mountains? Of course there is overlap. But you can see what I am getting at: The same holds for how we have aquired religion. But we have generalized our particular skill set as necessarily “right” for everyone. We have distributed a parochial variant over a universal standard pattern, ie, our localized theisms and their historic developments, over the actual generic or universal pattern of Man and his Soul propensity.
This is why every religion is loath to look at its origins and see it as the growth of an organization with a “mission statement” and a policy. If you were from outer space and saw all of the religions, so many of them claiming within and without christianism to be “the one, true, etc, but really, even if you say that, ours is,” church, you woild see that they are ultimatly local patterns, embodying some degree of truth, that fill what in fact is a universal dynamic. But that dynamic is not a particular tradition. It is the awareness structure of Man in Consciousness or as Soul.
Religion ought properly be the Way that any individual can find their right relationship with their Divine Source without falling into parochialisms except as embelishments consciously known to be local custom or ritual, as that can be a very useful part of developing and understanding such a relationship.
But as it is now, very few systems are aimed at this activity of transforming awareness to be reflexive and to experientially understand its nature and dependence on Divinity. Actual Divinity, not anthropomorphic divinity. As in Catholicism, most of the elements necessary for this transformation to actual living and experiential adoration are included in the canon of dogma. But the living soul dynamic as pointed to by the Founder is largely missing. So it is only certain individuals, like, say Aquinas at the end of his life, who are able to make the transiton. That transition it is in fact the birthright of all the adherents, not just the ones who are so devoted as they tire out the contradictions an incompleteness of their way, and break through to an actual, living Understanding.
This transition idea is not even a vialble concept to anyone past, say, the age of seven who has lived in a household praciticing a particular faith. It takes a monumental event, a great shock to the awareness, to yank one’s perspective into a more neutral place where this phenomenon of parochialism can be seen for what it is, and then transcended. Even then, the thought patterns might be so ingrained as to miss the opportunity of engaging a more Universal empirical understanding of living Spirit.
This is why many traditions have employed shock, fasting, hardship, etc, etc. It is to tire out the rational mind so that it can see itself as it is in relation to Conscious awareness and God. And this is why argumentatons, proofs, emotionalisms, dogmas, and all the sencerity given to devotional pracitce are only to some degree effective in convincing even adherents of the rightness of a particular religion.
It can’t be done that way. There has to be material for transformation and the work done. Belief is only a first step in getting one’s attention. That is why the Charismatic attracton of a Jesus is powerful to many, even as an idea. But unless in the Presence, that attraction can be subvertied by ignorance into a diversion that only mimics an actual Understanding.
This is why I am so adamant about using critical tools to examin one’s way of aquiring religion. That self examination can lead to a radical unfolding of even the most devoted religionist perception of Jesus the Christ, God, and Self. This is why I always agitate for self knowledge. Most of us don’t even put into play all the factors of our belief sytems when we say we are looking at ourselves. We use the very prophylactic that prevents us from undersanding in order to attempt to acheive it. That prophylactic is the thoroughly unexamined religiously habituated mind, convinced of the rightness of its way as “proven” by the system it practices. That system may be exceptionally valid in its own terms, but not necessarily or completely True in universal Fact.
There you go with the “either/or” again. That tells me that you have no conceptual options that you are capable of taking as “real” other than that particualr dichotomy. Trust me, “it ain’t so.” As I said, you are living in a christianist culture. In the same way that your brain has become incapable of hearing or producing certain sounds of speach, (which is why people have accents, btw,) you have as well, along with most everyone else, come to accept a certain way of thinking about God, Jesus, the Christ (something rather different in fact,) heaven, creation, etc. It has for you and yours come down to a simple dichotomy. You will come up with every available real and imagined reson to support this dichotomy as being the only dynamic in play. It is not. Emphatically, it is not.
It is the function of what might, for lack of better terms at the moment, be called the “assembleage point” to assemble and maintian our world view. It takes every item of experience and logically relates it to the perspective of one’s immediate conditions, especially through youth. This is very well and good. People who live in the plains need to be very good at that in order to survive. People who live in the mountains need those skills and perspectives. People who live on the shore, likewise need those skills appropriate to that. Desert, jungle, you name it. You have to have that skill set or likely die.
But: does the shore skill set allow for survival in the jungle? Or that of the desert for in the mountains? Of course there is overlap. But you can see what I am getting at: The same holds for how we have aquired religion. But we have generalized our particular skill set as necessarily “right” for everyone. We have distributed a parochial variant over a universal standard pattern, ie, our localized theisms and their historic developments, over the actual generic or universal pattern of Man and his Soul propensity.
This is why every religion is loath to look at its origins and see it as the growth of an organization with a “mission statement” and a policy. If you were from outer space and saw all of the religions, so many of them claiming within and without christianism to be “the one, true, etc, but really, even if you say that, ours is,” church, you woild see that they are ultimatly local patterns, embodying some degree of truth, that fill what in fact is a universal dynamic. But that dynamic is not a particular tradition. It is the awareness structure of Man in Consciousness or as Soul.
Religion ought properly be the Way that any individual can find their right relationship with their Divine Source without falling into parochialisms except as embelishments consciously known to be local custom or ritual, as that can be a very useful part of developing and understanding such a relationship.
But as it is now, very few systems are aimed at this activity of transforming awareness to be reflexive and to experientially understand its nature and dependence on Divinity. Actual Divinity, not anthropomorphic divinity. As in Catholicism, most of the elements necessary for this transformation to actual living and experiential adoration are included in the canon of dogma. But the living soul dynamic as pointed to by the Founder is largely missing. So it is only certain individuals, like, say Aquinas at the end of his life, who are able to make the transiton. That transition it is in fact the birthright of all the adherents, not just the ones who are so devoted as they tire out the contradictions an incompleteness of their way, and break through to an actual, living Understanding.
This transition idea is not even a vialble concept to anyone past, say, the age of seven who has lived in a household praciticing a particular faith. It takes a monumental event, a great shock to the awareness, to yank one’s perspective into a more neutral place where this phenomenon of parochialism can be seen for what it is, and then transcended. Even then, the thought patterns might be so ingrained as to miss the opportunity of engaging a more Universal empirical understanding of living Spirit.
This is why many traditions have employed shock, fasting, hardship, etc, etc. It is to tire out the rational mind so that it can see itself as it is in relation to Conscious awareness and God. And this is why argumentatons, proofs, emotionalisms, dogmas, and all the sencerity given to devotional pracitce are only to some degree effective in convincing even adherents of the rightness of a particular religion.
It can’t be done that way. There has to be material for transformation and the work done. Belief is only a first step in getting one’s attention. That is why the Charismatic attracton of a Jesus is powerful to many, even as an idea. But unless in the Presence, that attraction can be subvertied by ignorance into a diversion that only mimics an actual Understanding.
This is why I am so adamant about using critical tools to examin one’s way of aquiring religion. That self examination can lead to a radical unfolding of even the most devoted religionist perception of Jesus the Christ, God, and Self. This is why I always agitate for self knowledge. Most of us don’t even put into play all the factors of our belief sytems when we say we are looking at ourselves. We use the very prophylactic that prevents us from undersanding in order to attempt to acheive it. That prophylactic is the thoroughly unexamined religiously habituated mind, convinced of the rightness of its way as “proven” by the system it practices. That system may be exceptionally valid in its own terms, but not necessarily or completely True in universal Fact.
K
Kristopher
Guest
I am unfamiliar with “divine command theory”. I only know to address your comment(s) about what you say, is arbitrary concerning the matter, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the faith of the Catholic Church, as it has been handed down for at least two millenia now–has remained essentially unchanged. The “letter” of it, so-to-speak, has changed in terms of symbols used, but the spirit of it, I believe, has remain unchanged.
This thread, I understand, is to put forward: have you evidence, that “Christianity” is false. In so-far-as Christianity being false is concerned–I am able to put forward testimonies and evidences, that Christianity is false; however, I am unable to put forward, that Catholicism is false.
You, by the sound of it, have no evidence against Christianity, at least at this point.
My evidence against Christianity, as destructive as this might be to relations between Catholics and Christians and therefore, somewhat contrary to the purpose of being Catholic, in many respects is in brief, the following: the Bible(s) used by most Christians falsify Christianity on the basis, for their lack of regard, to the salvation of a person, which in whole, or in part, is the mission of Jesus’ life.
Additionally, the falsification of Christianity, can be recognized in the historical schisms, heresies, perpetuated by Protestants, the divorce of King Henry VIII; homosexual clergy approved by Anglican leaders; abortions, contraceptives, and other fundamental heresies concerning the Biblical teachings on the matter of the papacy, etc. Morality is as arbitrary for many Christians, Catholics, as it is for many atheists. This arbitrary nature of morality, adhered to by many Catholics, Christians, and atheists, does little it would seem to prove either the existence of God, or the truth(s) of the Roman Rite, within the Catholic Church.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Sorry for not explaining the term. Divine command theory is the theory that morality is determined by God. It is one of the two possible responses to the Euthyphro dilemma, which basically asks: are moral things commanded by God because they are moral, or are they moral because they are commanded by God? Divine command theory says that morality is whatever God wills it to be and if he tomorrow decided that murder and incest were moral, it would be so (this also makes the definition of God as omnibenevolent only trivially true). So I don’t think this is a good response to Euthyphro’s dilemma (though it certainly can be defended). But if you instead respond that God commands things because they are moral, then you are recognizing that true morality can exist even without God.
And I would say I have plenty of evidence that makes me think it is exceedingly unlikely that Christianity is true. However, tonsofquestions seemed to want ironclad proof. I have no ironclad proof that Christianity is false (and I don’t think such disproof exists for any major religions). Also, I don’t think the examples you cite disprove Protestant denominations. There is sufficient ambiguity in the Bible that a wide variety of positions on these issues may be defended. I’m sure a Protestant could make a decent argument for why their practices are consistent with the Bible.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
This argument does not help persuade me one bit.
I hear it time and time again, and it never fails to remain unpersuasive. I guess if there is a God, he made me to not want to know him at all.
S
santodomingo
Guest
Detales,
I must admit, I don´t understand half of what you wrote in your post. I was arguing that Christ is a reason to believe in God. If you study the historical context of Jesus and the birth of christianity, you can appreciate that there is NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION for the birth of the Catholic Church, other than the Divinity of Jesus.
Leave the mataphysics for later. Now all you have to do is reply to my claim that the historical figure of Christ is not compatible with an atheist world-vision. And as for your sentence that religions are loathe to examine their origins, that is certainly not true of christianity. In fact, I´ve been examining precisely that for a long, long time!
I must admit, I don´t understand half of what you wrote in your post. I was arguing that Christ is a reason to believe in God. If you study the historical context of Jesus and the birth of christianity, you can appreciate that there is NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION for the birth of the Catholic Church, other than the Divinity of Jesus.
Leave the mataphysics for later. Now all you have to do is reply to my claim that the historical figure of Christ is not compatible with an atheist world-vision. And as for your sentence that religions are loathe to examine their origins, that is certainly not true of christianity. In fact, I´ve been examining precisely that for a long, long time!
K
Kristopher
Guest
I am going to avoid going any further into “Divine Command Theory”.
Protestant arguements tend to be proved, or substantiated, as consistent with the Bible. The Bible having a variety of authors, across a variety of times, may confound many in terms of interpretation: do we interpret scripture for example, according to each author? Some would argue “yes”. The consistency of stories, plots, contained within the gospels, admit to my viewpoint, and the viewpoint of others, an influence, that must be acknowledged for the consistency of these gospels; hence, it may be the reason God, as the Holy Ghost - Spirit, is recognized as the “author”, in somewhat a loose sense of the word, I suppose; therefore, scripture should be interpreted according to the Holy Ghost - Spirit. Therefore, there is considerable inconsistencies among Protestants, because their interpretations are rooted, not in interpretations according to the Holy Ghost, but to scripture itself–some being ridiculously literal, and others being ridiculously figurative. In the end, we have evidences of such interpretations being destructive to Christ and therefore, Christianity, due to loose morals; established on Biblical interpretation, now, I may be arrogant in these statements; however, the existence of abortions, legally provided in this country prior to 1973, remain consistent with Protestant views of morality, as opposed to Roman Rite dogma, teaching.
The Roman Rite is regarded as false by many. Most generally agree, that there is a monotheistic God, creator of heaven and earth. Most generally agree with or without doubts at times, that Jesus is the only son of said God. Most believe, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Not all agree, Mary is a virgin, but most agree she was a virgin in some sense of the word–Saint Joseph’s desire for a divorce, makes her virginity incredulous; though, her age would appear to make it credible in addition, to her family’s protection of her; it would seem. Most agree, Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified; died; buried. Not all agree he ascended, bodily, into heaven, but it is supported to some extent, that he will return to judge the living, and the dead. The Holy Ghost is typically accepted.
It can be argued either Christianity, or Catholicism, or both Christianity and Catholicism are false, according to the denial, of belief in the Catholic Church, denial of belief, in the communion of saints, of course there is agreement about belief in forgiveness of sins, and doubts or denial about the resurrection of the dead, and there are disagreements about life ever after; some might amount to denial.
It may be in general, there is agreement among Catholics of other rites, and Christians in general, and Jews, Muslims–even Hindus and Buddhists in addition, to beliefs in Animism, that there is much to admit as agnostics, and simply being idiots in the face, of The Infinite. There can be a considerable amount of despair, when the practices of religious beliefs are observed: to such an extent, that we find over 3,000 persons dead at the World Trade Center–the dead being attributed with guilt, their influence against Islam and appropriate practices of it, a corruption worthy of despair, such as what would cause a formal declaration and several acts of war, against all Americans.
I might only be able to agree with Pascal’s Wager from his side, of finding the Catholic Church, in the Roman Rite, true enough to practice.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Fair enough, it’s a pretty big topic. It’s just that when the issue of morality comes up I like to point out that it’s not just atheists who have a potential problem regarding the existence of morality. But that’s a topic for a different thread.
Well I don’t personally have enough experience with Protestantism to argue on the finer theological points. But it seems like they also have biblical support for their teachings. I’m not saying they’re right. I just don’t think you can prove that they’re definitely wrong.
And I think this is reasonable. If you think there’s a good chance it’s true and are able to believe, it’s certainly reasonable. But I think that most people always see their childhood faith as very possible, regardless of the evidence for it. So based on this, a Mormon who saw some truth in Mormonism but thought it had a lot of flaws should stay a Mormon. I think that instead people should try to look at things as objectively as possible.
N
Newbie2
Guest
If you really believe that, why do you bother posting in the CAF?This argument does not help persuade me one bit.
W
wasmit
Guest
Another (exceedingly more likely, imo) explanation is that early christians thought Jesus was divine, while he actually was not.
K
Kristopher
Guest
Morality is a problem for many, what is right: it can make it difficult for people–it is not a potential problem, but a problem.
Many use the Bible to support their views; atheists included.
Catholicism is the faith of my adolesence, yes, in part, as is Protestantism, and what I have often heard called, Gnosticism, which seems to have been carried over to India, perhaps, by Saint Thomas, with varied influences, gained along the way: Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc.–I followed a guru in part, from 1996 - 200?, and was raised in part, with the influence both of my mother’s and grandmother’s guru to whom, my guru was a successor.
Objectivity is all well and good: there is always opportunity for denial.
Have you gained much of your views about matters, from a book titled “Common Truth”? It may be this book has done much to prove Christianity false in addition, to something known as natural law; however, defined apart from the Catholic context.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
No, I’ve never heard of the book. By the way, I got involved in a big morality discussion on another thread. If you want to check it out, it starts on this page:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=343300&page=6
D
Detales
Guest
Your lack of understanding my post is a proof of what is deliniated there. And, if you have indeed studied the “birth” of the CC, you can, unless again you are living proof of post #66 above, see that there are completely historic reasons for the foundation and metamorphosis of the Church, as well as its adaptations to and userpations from other systems. A lot of that happened while Catholics were burning libraries that contained material that very likely would have, had they survived, been pertinent to your studies.
As for Jesus, as the Christ, He is a way shower away from belief. That was His whole point according to my best assesment. The only irrational and inexplicable matter here is how the Church got all the teaching sideways. But then, there is the matter of the Fall, and the Devil, two other things the Church has sideways or upside down as far as I can tell. In any case, what you are experiencing, in my opinion, is a Sacred Teaching gone wrong in the minds of followers less capable than the Master.
And that is why metaphysics ought not be left for later. I don’t know, not having met the historical figure of Jesus, how He felt about atheists. I’d guess He, being the Son of God, the Source of all creatures, was as loving of them as anyone else He loved, and that He was appropriately the Teacher to each nuance of every situation He was in, whether in the presence of atheists or not.* So compatability has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell. A genuine Teacher is very careful about broad statements and dogmatizing, as all that comes with the corruption of the Teaching at the hands of the students. The Teacher Himself is a paragon of tailoring conversaton to the specific quality and needs of those present. Remeber, it is not likely that there was a tape recorder or media present at His meetings. As I said, I firmly belive that had Jesus met atheists and they engaged Him in conversation, He would have interacted with each one according to their particular need. Focusing on what is at hand may thereby change what is more distant in time, space, or mind.
My sense is that Jesus’ teaching is not even touched in practice by the teaching of the Church. The Church is wonderful at dictating faith, morals, dogma and rituals. It tells a great, albeit confusing, story. It doesn’t seem to follow through on practical metaphysics, which were, I feel the actual province of the Master. This digression from the original Offering is what constitutes the actual history of the Church, IMHO. So, you can’t have studied it very deeply, I think, or, you have studied it according to the paramaters laid out in post 66. In that case I am completely unsurprised at your stance and interpretation.
Nevertheless, if your faith serves to stablaize your expereince, that’s great. Don’t change a thing. Just remember it is exactly what it purports to be: a belief. When you do understand the rest of post 66 and can repeat it back in your own words, we can talk, and it will be very interesting.
I told a friend of mine who was studying to be a Jesuit that I was taking part in a forum called “Catholic Answers.” He laughed, and said, “Yes, that is an appropriate title. Catholics are convinced that they have all the answers!” Best chuckle I’ve had in some time.
*Did you look up the Biblical reference in my signature?
E
elzoog
Guest
I don’t have proof that Christianity is false. However, consider the following story.
You take your car to a car mechanic because the engine isn’t running well. In fact, it is running very poorly. While getting the car there, you are constantly worried that it will break down totally and you will have to tow it.
Fortunately, the car doesn’t break down and you finally get it to the mechanic. Relieved, you give your car to the mechanic to fix. He tells you that the engine needs an overhaul. Fortunately, there is a rich benefactor who is a fan of your kind of car. This rich benefactor has given the car mechanic money so that anybody who brings the car in can get it fixed for free. All you have to do is send the rich benefactor a thank you letter.
Thinking this is a pretty small price to pay for a good working car, you give the car to the car mechanic and write the rich benefactor a thank you letter. The mechanic then works on the car.
Then as soon as you drive it off the lot, the car breaks down again. You then take it to the mechanic to have it fixed again. You are worried that the rich benefactor would not be kind enough to provide money for fixing it a lot of times. Once you can understand, but many times? But the mechanic reassures you that you can take the car in as often as you want to have it fixed. And it will be free as long as you always write the rich benefactor a thank you letter after each time it’s fixed.
However again, as soon as you drive it off the lot, it breaks down again. This happens quite a lot actually.
You take your car to a car mechanic because the engine isn’t running well. In fact, it is running very poorly. While getting the car there, you are constantly worried that it will break down totally and you will have to tow it.
Fortunately, the car doesn’t break down and you finally get it to the mechanic. Relieved, you give your car to the mechanic to fix. He tells you that the engine needs an overhaul. Fortunately, there is a rich benefactor who is a fan of your kind of car. This rich benefactor has given the car mechanic money so that anybody who brings the car in can get it fixed for free. All you have to do is send the rich benefactor a thank you letter.
Thinking this is a pretty small price to pay for a good working car, you give the car to the car mechanic and write the rich benefactor a thank you letter. The mechanic then works on the car.
Then as soon as you drive it off the lot, the car breaks down again. You then take it to the mechanic to have it fixed again. You are worried that the rich benefactor would not be kind enough to provide money for fixing it a lot of times. Once you can understand, but many times? But the mechanic reassures you that you can take the car in as often as you want to have it fixed. And it will be free as long as you always write the rich benefactor a thank you letter after each time it’s fixed.
However again, as soon as you drive it off the lot, it breaks down again. This happens quite a lot actually.
- So you begin to wonder about the quality of a car that breaks down so often.
- You also begin to wonder whether or not the mechanic is adequately repairing the car. Maybe he is doing a slip shod job just so the car makes it off the lot, but will have to be returned. After all, the repairs are being paid for by the rich guy.
- There are a group of people who conclude that the mechanic is doing a slip shod job, so they form a group called “car protestants” who take the car directly to the rich benefactor instead of the mechanic. However, the rich benefactor seems to not be that much more capable than the mechanic.
- The rich benefactor hears so often about the poor quality of these cars that he promises that one day he will come and fix all the cars so that they will not only be repaired, but that they will never break down again. But given the luck “car protestants” have, this seems doubtful.
- Some people debate whether or not this rich benefactor is the maker of these cars or whether it’s really his father that makes the cars. However, in either case, their inability to make a car that doesn’t break down doesn’t inspire much confidence in their abilities to later on fix these cars. There are stories of them showing up in flying cars, but many of these stories could be someone’s imagination.
- You also find out that the car mechanic’s ability to fix cars doesn’t come from his training, but comes merely from the fact that the head car mechanic puts his hand on the mechanic’s head and mutters “You now have the ability to fix cars.”. Although the car mechanic does have to undergo years of training, none of that training has to do with how to fix cars. The training has to do with who the rich benefactor is and what the rich benefactor says. It also has to do with not having sex and not eating meat on Friday and how to write more elaborate thank you letters to the rich benefactor.
S
santodomingo
Guest
This is a preposterous and entirely gratuitous statement. Show me one shread of evidence that St. Thomas was a gnostic. The facts point the other way. The first christian churches establishes in the first century were soon cut off from the rest. Centuries later, when christians reestablished contact the indian christians were found to be totally orthodox, unlike in Europe, where all sorts of heresies had blown up.
S
santodomingo
Guest
You make too many assumptions about me. You are wrong to say that I was brought up in a christian culture; I was actually brought up in an atheist culture. I never entered a church, except as a tourist, read any of the Bible, or heard anyone preach about Jesus until I was 19. If your theory were true I should have been incapable of appreciating christianity when I came into contact with it at age 19.
- Status