See the Smithsonian Letter on the Book of Mormon.

[Ismael]

Why do you accept and believe in Catholicism, when theologians, scholars and scientists have railed against it?

Some scholars yes, but not all.

besides one must look also at the VALIDITY of the arguments. Many scholars might have made arguments aganst the Catholic Church… but most of them have been easily refuted.

I ask this, not to be impertinent…but in all seriousness. Over the centuries Catholicism has claimed many things that science has proven false; in fact, Catholic authorities have tried…and executed for heresy…people who claimed things that have later been proven true; yet you still believe.

Sorry but that is not exaclty what happened.

ALSO: the Catholic Church never pretended to teach science. Heretics were not so because they taught science but because they were against the THEOLOGICAL and MORAL teachings of the Church.

For Example Galilei was not tried because he said the earth went around the sun (Copernicus stated that before Galilei anyway and the Inquisition did not persecute him), Galilei was tried because he claimed that the scriptures ‘were wrong’. Which is a different statement altogether

The Reformation came along and a WHOLE bunch of people railed against Catholicism, and still do. Yet you still believe.

So what? The Confederacy railed against the Union in the US civil war… does that make slavery any less imoral?

Here again: it does not count that people ‘rail against something’ or ‘protest something’… what matters are the arguments they make, if they are valid or not.

Catholics (and indeed all Christians…and theists, for that matter) have long been used to dealing with seeming contradictions, conundrums and paradoxes, and yet have been able to say 'well, I know that to some this MIGHT look contradictory, but I have faith that it is not and that eventually the answers will come. When they do, everything will fit."

That is not true, especially for the Catholic Church. Ever read Aquinas’ works? St. Augustine’s?

They show beautiful examples of logic.

For instance: in all honesty—would you believe that the Book of Mormon was true if someone came to you with a properly carbon dated freeway offramp sign saying 'Zarahemla, 12 uinics."

Think about it…the vast majority of anti-Mormons would not; they would find SOME way to dismiss it/ignore it/ something. In fact, I had one guy stand in front of me and tell me, quite seriously, that he would accept a time traveler going back to plant it sooner than he would the idea that Zarahemla actually existed, and thus the Book of Mormon is true.

If you could actually present proofs I would believe that there is at least SOME truth in the Book of Mormon.

Even atheists cannot deny that the bible at at least partially true in accounting for Jewish history because much of what is told in the bible has been backed up by archelogical evidence.
Sure an atheist will deny God and all the miracles etc… but certain he cannot say ‘it’s pure fantasy’ because scientific evidence proves otherwise.

On the other hand there is NO proof what-so-ever that shows that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a work of ficrion by Joseph Smith…

 

[Javl]

Which of these sources provides first hand (as in, eye witness) statements about the miracles and the nature of them?

In fact, though I don’t have all those documents and references in front of me, I seem to remember that they are all third and fourth hand accounts…“It is said that…” sort of thing.

I don’t have everything at hand, but, If I remember correctly, the Roman Chronicles contain some mention, and they were contemporary. The only other direct mention would be in the writings of some of the early CF that did witness these miracles. These writings are not considered scripture.

Regardless, though, as you accept the BoM, I accept the Gospel as sufficient proof since there is no need to lie, nor to exagerate, and the Gospel IS inspired of God and is His Word. The variations between the gospels are really not that disconcerting, since they tell the same story.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[lax16]

…and that, my friend, is what is known as a Freudian slip.

No Diana. No slip. As Catholics we are not prohibited from studying other faiths. I am constantly studying different religions and their beliefs.

Like I said, I would look into it. Or any other religion that could lay claim to a miracle.

So far the Catholics are excelling in the area of miracles!!!

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

That goes back to argumentum ad numerum, lax. A great many people believed in the miraculous nature of what mohamad did, in miracles provided by roman, grecian, egyptian and norse deities, as well. Obviously, since we believe in a very contraditory system of beliefs, we cannot believe that mohammad, roman, grecian, egyptian and norse deities actually provided those miracles, can we?

That would be true if the very first Christians were the majority or great in number, however they were not. I don’t know if it is accurate to say a great many people believed in Jesus in the beginning.
Also, there is argument against Mohammed from St. Thomas Aquinas. (cross reference)

I’m sorry, lax, but you were the one who specifically stated:
lax:

Evidence of his miracles? Seems to me that the number of people who became believers following his miracles are proof of miracles.

This statement is ABSOLUTELY argumentum ad numerum; a classic and perfect example of it. The number of people who believe is NOT proof of anything. It doesn’t matter how many, or how few, people believe. If something is true, it is true whether millions of people believe—or none do. If it is not true, it remains untrue no matter if millions of people swear by it…or none do.

…modern theories of physics aside, of course.

 

[lax16]

I’m sorry, lax, but you were the one who specifically stated:

This statement is ABSOLUTELY argumentum ad numerum; a classic and perfect example of it. The **number **of people who believe is NOT proof of anything. It doesn’t matter how many, or how few, people believe. If something is true, it is true whether millions of people believe—or none do. If it is not true, it remains untrue no matter if millions of people swear by it…or none do.

…modern theories of physics aside, of course.

Doesn’t that imply a great number of people who believe?

**argumentum ad numerum **(from dictionary.com)

“that **the more people **who accept or believe an assertion the more likely that assertion is true.”

I would say that people chose to follow Jesus because of His miracles (not his words) but they were not great in number.

 

[dianaiad]

Doesn’t that imply a great number of people who believe?

Not necessarily, but in the case of your quote, your implication was certainly that it was the number of people…that is, the large number…that was the proof. This fallacy has an obverse, as well…truth isn’t proven by the exclusivity of it, either–that is, the fact that only a few believe isn’t proof of its truth, either.

Argumentum ad numerum, translated, means simply ‘argument of numbers.’ That is, the number of people who believe something is utterly irrelevent to it’s truth.

**argumentum ad numerum **(from dictionary.com)

“that **the more people **who accept or believe an assertion the more likely that assertion is true.”

I would say that people chose to follow Jesus because of His miracles (not his words) but they were not great in number.

Doesn’t matter, lax. Their number, great or small, is absolutely unrelated to whether those miracles happened. Now, they DID happen…but that remains true no matter whether five people saw them and believed, or five billion did.

…and your claim was, again, that the number of people who believed prove that they were true.

It really doesn’t hurt much to admit that you learned something and made a goof, lax. I do it all the time.

 

[lax16]

Not necessarily, but in the case of your quote, your implication was certainly that it was the number of people…that is, the large number…that was the proof. This fallacy has an obverse, as well…truth isn’t proven by the exclusivity of it, either–that is, the fact that only a few believe isn’t proof of its truth, either.

My post does read that way. It was not what I meant. I have never believed that there was great number of followers of Jesus in the beginning. Just the opposite. My comment was to say that there were followers, and it certainly could not have been because of His words, but His miracles.

Argumentum ad numerum, translated, means simply ‘argument of numbers.’ That is, the number of people who believe something is utterly irrelevent to it’s truth.

Yes, I know. But that is not what I meant.

Doesn’t matter, lax. Their number, great or small, is absolutely unrelated to whether those miracles happened. Now, they DID happen…but that remains true no matter whether five people saw them and believed, or five billion did.

…and your claim was, again, that the number of people who believed prove that they were true.

It really doesn’t hurt much to admit that you learned something and made a goof, lax. I do it all the time.

I’ve done it myself as well. I am not an expert in these things. However, sometimes one word can cause a great deal of confusion.

 

[dianaiad]

Some scholars yes, but not all.

besides one must look also at the VALIDITY of the arguments. Many scholars might have made arguments aganst the Catholic Church… but most of them have been easily refuted.

you GOT it! You don’t believe because of the number of people who argue for or against. You believe because of the arguments they make. Some convinced you. Some did not…but it had nothing to do with the number of people who preach against, or for, your faith, did it?

Sorry but that is not exaclty what happened.

Well, yeah, it was…you can attempt to pretty it up by using different words, but that’s pretty much what happened. When the Catholics teach that the ‘scriptures say…’ this thing or that thing, and a scientist comes along and shows that at least the interpretation of those scriptures is incorrect, the church reacted…badly.

ALSO: the Catholic Church never pretended to teach science.

Well, yeah, it did, when it went after people for heresy when they were looking at science. When the church decides that some activity/opinion/belief that had to do with what WE call science today, was heresy, then it was indeed ‘teaching science.’

Heretics were not so because they taught science but because they were against the THEOLOGICAL and MORAL teachings of the Church.

How was it against the theological and moral teachings of the church to point out that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa? If the church did not ‘teach science,’ then there would be no theological aspect to the movement of the solar system…but there was, and so…the church taught, and dictated, science.

For Example Galilei was not tried because he said the earth went around the sun (Copernicus stated that before Galilei anyway and the Inquisition did not persecute him), Galilei was tried because he claimed that the scriptures ‘were wrong’. Which is a different statement altogether

Actually, he said that the PRIESTS were wrong in their interpretation of the scriptures…which of course proves my point. In fact, Galeleo didn’t mention scripture AT ALL until after he was attacked by Father Loreni, claiming that Galeleo’s work was 'against scripture." Galeleo wrote back and said, in effect, that the scriptures WERE TRUE in themselves, must be 'understood sometimes in a figurative sense." that is, he wasn’t calling the scriptures false. He was saying that the church had a faulty understanding of them if they continued to insist that the sun went around the earth.

Galleleo was forced to write his abjuration…to stop teaching his theories regarding the movement of the solar system, because it was those theories that the church considered to be heretical.

So what? The Confederacy railed against the Union in the US civil war… does that make slavery any less imoral?

Precisely. I see that you got the point yet again. What the Confederacy thought of slavery did not make it moral, and what some of the early Catholic popes did about it didn’t make it moral, either. It is never the number of people who agree or disagree on somthing that indicates its truth. So, when I am asked how I can believe this thing, or that thing, when so many ‘rail against it,’ I believe that you have the answer. The number of people who ‘rail’ against a thing means nothing in terms of the truth.

Here again: it does not count that people ‘rail against something’ or ‘protest something’… what matters are the arguments they make, if they are valid or not.

Thank you…we agree perfectly.

…and that’s the entire point.

That is not true, especially for the Catholic Church. Ever read Aquinas’ works? St. Augustine’s?

They show beautiful examples of logic.

If you could actually present proofs I would believe that there is at least SOME truth in the Book of Mormon.

Even atheists cannot deny that the bible at at least partially true in accounting for Jewish history because much of what is told in the bible has been backed up by archelogical evidence.
Sure an atheist will deny God and all the miracles etc… but certain he cannot say ‘it’s pure fantasy’ because scientific evidence proves otherwise.

On the other hand there is NO proof what-so-ever that shows that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a work of ficrion by Joseph Smith…

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t have everything at hand, but, If I remember correctly, the Roman Chronicles contain some mention, and they were contemporary. The only other direct mention would be in the writings of some of the early CF that did witness these miracles. These writings are not considered scripture.

Regardless, though, as you accept the BoM, I accept the Gospel as sufficient proof since there is no need to lie, nor to exagerate, and the Gospel IS inspired of God and is His Word. The variations between the gospels are really not that disconcerting, since they tell the same story.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

There are quite a few reasons TO believe in Christ and the miracles He was responsible for. My only point is this: the number of people who believe in them isn’t one of those reasons.

 

[dianaiad]

No Diana. No slip. As Catholics we are not prohibited from studying other faiths. I am constantly studying different religions and their beliefs.

Like I said, I would look into it. Or any other religion that could lay claim to a miracle.

So far the Catholics are excelling in the area of miracles!!!

And that is known as a 'Freudian lack of looking!" (grin) You wrote:
lax:

I wouldn’t definitely look into it

I think you meant to write either “I WOULD definitely look into it,” or “I woudn’t, definitely, NOT look into it…” but you wrote “I wouldn’t definitely look into it.”

Think about it. (grin)

 

[lax16]

There are quite a few reasons TO believe in Christ and the miracles He was responsible for. My only point is this: the number of people who believe in them isn’t one of those reasons.

Exactly. But there had to be some or we wouldn’t have a Church today.

People would have never believed Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God if He couldn’t prove that He was Master of all.

 

[dianaiad]

I’ve done it myself as well. I am not an expert in these things. However, sometimes one word can cause a great deal of confusion.

It surely can!!!

Just wait, it’ll be my turn next.

 

[lax16]

And that is known as a 'Freudian lack of looking!" (grin) You wrote:

I think you meant to write either “I WOULD definitely look into it,” or “I woudn’t, definitely, NOT look into it…” but you wrote “I wouldn’t definitely look into it.”

Think about it. (grin)

ahhah! I missed it!
That’s funny - maybe it was a Freudian slip after all!

You don’t miss a thing!

 

[dianaiad]

Exactly. But there had to be some or we wouldn’t have a Church today.

People would have never believed Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God if He couldn’t prove that He was Master of all.

Of course not. However, proving something to a number of people isn’t the same thing as having a number of people be proof of that something. I’m not arguing against the miracles; I believe in them every inch as much as any Catholic here!

 

[dianaiad]

ahhah! I missed it!
That’s funny - maybe it was a Freudian slip after all!

You don’t miss a thing!

(grin) Well, that one was a delight.

A sense of humor is a good thing to share…and yes, I knew what you really meant to say. :ehh:

 

[lax16]

(grin) Well, that one was a delight.

A sense of humor is a good thing to share…and yes, I knew what you really meant to say. :ehh:

I’m glad it gave you a chuckle - I still can’t believe you caught that (or that I wrote that!)

Although didn’t you once say you were an English teacher correcting papers for an online college course…??

 

[Ismael]

you GOT it! You don’t believe because of the number of people who argue for or against. You believe because of the arguments they make. Some convinced you. Some did not…but it had nothing to do with the number of people who preach against, or for, your faith, did it?

Agreed.

Well, yeah, it was…you can attempt to pretty it up by using different words, but that’s pretty much what happened. When the Catholics teach that the ‘scriptures say…’ this thing or that thing, and a scientist comes along and shows that at least the interpretation of those scriptures is incorrect, the church reacted…badly.

No it was not. You must look at the issue carefully. The Church itself had no beef with Copernicus ideas (some bishops did, but not the Church as a whole) but was quite SKEPTICAL of it (and with reason! There was no proof. Now we have proof that the earth rotates around the sun, but at the time it was not the case).

Well, yeah, it did, when it went after people for heresy when they were looking at science. When the church decides that some activity/opinion/belief that had to do with what WE call science today, was heresy, then it was indeed ‘teaching science.’

No that is purely ignorance. Heresy had to do with theological matters only. I am sorry.

You should look up what heresy means, perhaps.

How was it against the theological and moral teachings of the church to point out that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa? If the church did not ‘teach science,’ then there would be no theological aspect to the movement of the solar system…but there was, and so…the church taught, and dictated, science.

No the Church point was not that the earth is the center of the universe but that Galileo spoke against the scriptures.

see : catholic.com//library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101prof.asp

 

[Ismael]

and
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

More vital at the present day is the question with which we commenced: “Does not the condemnation of Galileo prove the implacable opposition of the Church to scientific progress and enlightenment?” It may be replied with Cardinal Newman that this instance serves to prove the opposite, namely that the Church has not interfered with physical science, for Galileo’s case “is the one stock argument” (Apologia 5). So too Professor De Morgan acknowledges (“Motion of the Earth” in English Cyclopaedia):

The Papal power must upon the whole have been moderately used in matters of philosophy, if we may judge by the great stress laid on this one case of Galileo. It is the standing proof that an authority which has lasted a thousand years was all the time occupied in checking the progress of thought.

So Dr. Whewell speaking of this same case says (History of the Inductive Sciences):–

I would not be understood to assert the condemnation of new doctrines to be a general or characteristic practice of the Romish Church. Certainly the intelligent and cultivated minds of Italy, and many of the most eminent of her ecclesiastics among them, have been the foremost in promoting and welcoming the progress of science, and there were found among the Italian ecclesiastics of Galileo’s time many of the earliest and most enlightened adherents of the Copernican system.

Actually, he said that the PRIESTS were wrong in their interpretation of the scriptures…which of course proves my point. In fact, Galeleo didn’t mention scripture AT ALL until after he was attacked by Father Loreni, claiming that Galeleo’s work was 'against scripture." Galeleo wrote back and said, in effect, that the scriptures WERE TRUE in themselves, must be 'understood sometimes in a figurative sense." that is, he wasn’t calling the scriptures false. He was saying that the church had a faulty understanding of them if they continued to insist that the sun went around the earth.

You prove MY POINT!

Galileo attacked the divine authority of the Church and was tired for THAT matter. NOT because of science.

The main point also was that science at that time belived in the geocentric system and Galileo and Copernicus ha NO PROOF for their theories.

The proofs for heliocentrism came later, with the perfectionment of the telescope, and the Church easily accepted them!

From the C.E.

It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, as against the geocentric of Ptolemy and the ancients, were far from conclusive, and failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahé (who, however, did not live to see the telescope) and Lord Bacon, who to the end remained an unbeliever. Milton also, who visited Galileo in his old age (1638), appears to have suspended his judgment, for there are passages in his great poem which seem to favour both systems. The proof from the phenomenon of the tides, to which Galileo appealed to establish the rotation of the earth on its axis,** is now universally recognized as a grave error, **and he treated with scorn Kepler’s suggestion, foreshadowing Newton’s establishment of the true doctrine, that a certain occult influence of the moon was in some way responsible. In regard to comets, again, he maintained no less erroneously that they were atmospheric phenomena, like meteors, though Tycho had demonstrated the falsity of such a view, which was recommended only as the solution of an anti-Copernican difficulty.

Galleleo was forced to write his abjuration…to stop teaching his theories regarding the movement of the solar system, because it was those theories that the church considered to be heretical.

Yes… but not because of heliocentrism itself

The Church never condemned Heliocentrism officially, bbut was very cautios when Galileo made his allegations.

The whole thing, hence, was NOT about science, bu was more about the authoriy of the Church to teach the scriptures… and there is a fundamental difference here (if you fail to see it I am sorry)

 

[dianaiad]

I’m glad it gave you a chuckle - I still can’t believe you caught that (or that I wrote that!)

Although didn’t you once say you were an English teacher correcting papers for an online college course…??

—an online high school, actually. But yes, I do that!

High schoolers provide more fun, actually. They haven’t stopped trusting the spellchecker yet.

 

[lax16]

—an online high school, actually. But yes, I do that!

High schoolers provide more fun, actually. They haven’t stopped trusting the spellchecker yet.

I can see that you are a very good English teacher. And a great proofreader!

I am glad you find High schoolers fun - I am not finding mine so fun at the moment!