Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[redhen]

I agree there is gratutious pain and suffering all over the world every hour of the day, but you are using the term ‘natural evil’ as a given and thus beg the question. If you believe the earthquake in Haiti was a ‘natural evil’ then you must believe there was a deliberate effort to harm the people of Haiti by some force you have not identified. As I’ve said, evil implies a malevolent intention.

I’m using the term *natural evil * as understood in philosophy and theology.

Natural disasters are phenomina of nature. As such they are expected and predictable and, though they are harmful, there is no intention to harm.

Right, although some would disagree, attributing natural disasters to malevolent demons.

An omnibenevolent god, as I understand God, is not bound by our standards. You are suggesting God created the world with disasters programmed into them, who is pushing disaster buttons gratuitously and therefore must be a malevolent god. That’s where I see you headed, anyway.

Not actively engaging in the world, like the malevolent demon example above, rather all of creation is predicated upon pain and suffering.

God’s ways are not our ways. We can’t think like God, who is eternal.

That’s the straight forward answer (or non-answer) from the book of Ecclesiastes. It’s all for some greater good that we can’t fathom, and who are we anyway to second guess God. So, what’s the greater good then?

As I have pointed out elsewhere, our world has rejected God. Many of the ‘evils’ you allude to are the product of man operating in opposition to the will of God.
Mankind has the means to dispense with many of them, but they get worse as man continues to defy God. In that sense, if they are evils, they are man-made evils, which is entirely possible.

No, I’m talking about natural evil, not moral evil.

It’s a very broad subject and I have to make a sandwich now.

You got that right. Enjoy every sandwich.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m using the term *natural evil * as understood in philosophy and theology.

I know. It’s an exhausting subject and too much has been written about it already without a consensus. I’m not a philosopher and cannot add anything new. I believe God gave man free will and allowed Satan, per Job, to reign over the world. He gave man the will to reject Satan with conflicting results. Anything else is a crapshoot.

Right, although some would disagree, attributing natural disasters to malevolent demons.

Which cannot be ruled out.

Not actively engaging in the world, like the malevolent demon example above, rather all of creation is predicated upon pain and suffering.

Who are we to demand that God engage actively in the world? Our Lord said Satan is the prince of this world. Do you dispute Him? Do you want a button-pusher God? It’s tempting. If God is a benevolent God he would have created paradise and left it at that. Is God playing games with us? Is the fact God’s motives are obscure evidence of a malevolent god; a playful god; a malicious, devilish god? I don’t get into that. Those things are irrelevant to me. I am a Catholic.

That’s the straight forward answer (or non-answer) from the book of Ecclesiastes. It’s all for some greater good that we can’t fathom, and who are we anyway to second guess God. So, what’s the greater good then?

Let’s get back to Haiti. Haiti is a country formed by slaves. It is nominally Catholic, but its Catholicity was/is corrupted by voo-doo and witchcraft. The people of Haiti have been subject to oppression by their rulers almost from the beginning. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and has been for a long, long time.

Comes the earthquake. Thousands die. More thousands are homeless. The powers that be come together and decide Haiti must be made anew. Massive amounts of funding will be made available to rebuild Haiti and her people will be given a new life. That’s the plan. Let’s see if the greater good comes to pass. It’s a crapshoot.

 

[redhen]

I know. It’s an exhausting subject and too much has been written about it already without a consensus. I’m not a philosopher and cannot add anything new. I believe God gave man free will and allowed Satan, per Job, to reign over the world. He gave man the will to reject Satan with conflicting results. Anything else is a crapshoot.

Was there not natural evil aka pain and suffering before* the fall*?

Who are we to demand that God engage actively in the world?

I didn’t say that. I said that natural evil is inseparable from nature (creation).

Our Lord said Satan is the prince of this world. Do you dispute Him? Do you want a button-pusher God? It’s tempting.

I am agnostic towards any deities or demi-gods.

If God is a benevolent God he would have created paradise and left it at that.

Like heaven or the new earth after the parousia? Sure, sounds good.

Is God playing games with us? Is the fact God’s motives are obscure evidence of a malevolent god; a playful god; a malicious, devilish god? I don’t get into that.

Or perhaps a non-existent god. After all, when we observe the natural world, it seems to operate just as we would expect it to if there was no omnibenevolent god.

Those things are irrelevant to me. I am a Catholic.

But that’s what theology is all about. There is a rich intellectual tradition in Catholic theology, not to mention all the Jewish commentary.

Let’s get back to Haiti. Haiti is a country formed by slaves. It is nominally Catholic, but its Catholicity was/is corrupted by voo-doo and witchcraft. The people of Haiti have been subject to oppression by their rulers almost from the beginning. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and has been for a long, long time.

Comes the earthquake. Thousands die. More thousands are homeless. The powers that be come together and decide Haiti must be made anew. Massive amounts of funding will be made available to rebuild Haiti and her people will be given a new life. That’s the plan. Let’s see if the greater good comes to pass. It’s a crapshoot.

Material and social improvements in Haiti do not require the sacrifice of 200,000 people. If you really believe this, please explain to me why Haiti could not in any other way be revitalized without this necessary huge loss of life.

 

[jinminn]

You say you don’t know, but you know it’s not God. You may say it’s just you questioning, but I hear sometihng else. I think it does. “We don’t know yet” doesn’t even sound like it’s up to anything. It’s just a cop-out.

Yes. Based on a cumulative case, I believe the creator of the universe is not the god you believe in as there is no convincing evidence for such a being elsewhere.

Typical athiest snobbery. Your writer posits nothing. All he does is try to disprove the propositions of others and he doesn’t do a very good job. His response to Aquinas creates its own oblique presumptions without addressing Aquinas’ thesis.

Why do I have a feeling that no matter what you read that disagrees with Aquinas… you will write something quite similar? You can’t simply solve an infinite regress by merely inventing something that solves it by definition…

I have no conundrum about God. What you refuse to understand is, an uncreated God is the only answer possible.

I prayed to Ra the Egyptian Sun God last night and found THIS. Why don’t you check it out? It’s quite an inspiring talk discussion how scientists go about their business. Towards the end this gentleman seems to give you an alternative answer to needing an unmoved mover. Best of all… that’s based on evidence! Thanks, Ra.

Excuse me for saying so, but I don’t believe a word of that. You have friends who prayed for a countertop?

Wow. Are you kidding me? Quite the charitable one, aren’t you? ‘Pray at all times and without ceasing.’ Mt 6 in which Jesus points out that if he provides for the birds and flowers he shall provide for his children. Both of them traveled doing high school retreats, worked for a campus outreach (one still does), the wife stays home with their three boys. Due to their circumstances they’re extremely poor. Yet he keeps in ministry because he believes that it’s the Lord’s will for him. So, yes, they prayed for a counter top for the foreclosed house they bought and have been fixing up because they didn’t know if they should take the risk in order to make a hospitable place for guests or keep on using the plywood counter top that’ currently there after the initial demolition work. They wanted to know that the Lord would provide for this need.

You resort to an ad hominem attack, anyway. The entire point was that we actually can have the same facts and draw different conclusions. You were set on us not having the same facts. I presented a clear case of the same facts taken to mean two completely different things.

You responded by insulting my friends and telling that I know nothing of prayer. Impressive.

 

[jinminn]

Your forum ID says you’re a Catholic.

Updated just for you

Of course. May I suggest, you’re not going to find the truth hanging around athiest websites. You’re going to find an athiest argument, which seems to interest you more than an argument for God.

What does interest me is reading how the arguments against arguments for god fare out. So far I find them extremely convincing. I do realize, as I have been told, that there will be no proof for me to find. My options are, then, to either go with how the arguments on both sides sit with me or to turn of my reason and try to choose to believe, which is as impossible for me at the moment as it is for you to just choose to believe in Islam.

The difference is Mormons and Muslims have no witnesses to what they allege. Mormons want us to believe Smith just lost what must have been at least 600 pounds of gold.
Ever read the Koran? Impressive, isn’t it?

Silly. The plates went back to heaven. Duh. He didn’t lose them. The angel took them back. The Book of Mormon has six eye witness signatures on every copy sold – far better documentation (and from 1850 years later) than the Bible! Christians want us to believe that the Red Sea parted, that plants were created before light was there to help them grow, that god used to communicate with humans all the time and now doesn’t?

Most importantly of all: Christianity wants us to believe that the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe who knows the hairs on my head, knew me before I was formed in the womb, knew all of my life before it took place, understands my uniqueness, etc… is not to be found in my searching and will not reveal himself for me to find?

I’m not using a ‘numbers game.’ I’m using reason. Knowing the history of the Catholic Church, it is unreasonable to suppose the early believers would have offered their lives for something they weren’t CONVINCED was true…

It’s not a discussion of who is convinced. Many die for their beliefs and their beliefs, according to you, are not true. Hinduism and Buddhism should be long gone, should they not?

They were either lies or they were the truth regardless of whether they believed they were lies or not.

But the difference is that in one case you put an ultimatum to me to either say that it’s the truth or force me to be a ‘bad, bad man’ and say that those poor early disciples were vicious liars. Nonsense. They could very well have believed what they said and thus not been lying. That means it’s possible that 1) it’s not true, but 2) I don’t have to make them conniving, lying con-men.

I don’t know what you mean by “to make averything work.” The Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, developed the truths of the Catholic faith.

Eh… guided by the Holy Spirit or guided by consensus as to what worked logically and could not be refuted. One or the other. My point is that they’ve had a long, long time to firm up the creed to make it untestable and non-falsifiable.

I keep trying to explain to you, God isn’t a puppetmaster. “Knock and it shall be opened to you.” doesn’t mean tap on the door and all your questions will be answered. It means break the door down and you still may have to wait a few hundred of a few thousand years for your answer.

Interesting. I only have one life. Since apparently my eternal damnation is on the line, do you blame me for wanting to figure this one out?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Was there not natural evil aka pain and suffering before* the fall*?

There’s a lot in your question and a lot depends on the answer. It’s conjecture, of course, but the Church teaches that Man was created in Paradise, so the Catholic answer is ‘no, there was no pain and suffering before the Fall.’

I didn’t say that. I said that natural evil is inseparable from nature (creation).

If it’s what you call ‘natural.’ The condition of the world after the Fall was completely unrelated to Man’s condition in Paradise. Ever since, from the day Cain killed Abel, with no exceptions, Man has been opposed to the will of God. We don’t know what the world would be like if Man, that is all of mankind, including you, devoted himself, and submitted himself, to the will of God. It’s never been tried.

I am agnostic towards any deities or demi-gods.

So our conversation must proceed on parallel tracks and you have some explaining to do.

Like heaven or the new earth after the parousia? Sure, sounds good.

Yes, but my point is, there is a presumption God created Man in Paradise and could have left him there in peace and contentment without loosing Satan on us, weak and frail as we are. He could have made it easy for us, but didn’t. That’s abother question that doesn’t concern me. It’s an unanswerable question and it’s a waste if time trying to solve it.

When I dabble in it, it seems to me entirely possible, when God gave Man his free will, He forfeited all control over that will except to give us the power to reject Satan and overpower him ourselves. See the Book of Job. But, as I say, it doesn’t bother me not to know the answer.

Or perhaps a non-existent god. After all, when we observe the natural world, it seems to operate just as we would expect it to if there was no omnibenevolent god.

Not at all. There is much in the world that is completely unnataural and cannot be explained by science; much depends on the existence of that God for an answer.

But that’s what theology is all about. There is a rich intellectual tradition in Catholic theology, not to mention all the Jewish commentary.

Indeed, so long as we don’t take ourselves too seruiously. So long as we don’t say, I have this question before me and I WILL provide an answer.

Material and social improvements in Haiti do not require the sacrifice of 200,000 people. If you really believe this, please explain to me why Haiti could not in any other way be revitalized without this necessary huge loss of life.

I don’t know. From a theist point of view, as I have been saying, Man has defied God from the Fall to this day. From a non-thiest, purely natural point of view, maybe Haiti is overcrowded and the loss of life is mother nature’s way of culling the herd.

 

[redhen]

There’s a lot in your question and a lot depends on the answer. It’s conjecture, of course, but the Church teaches that Man was created in Paradise, so the Catholic answer is ‘no, there was no pain and suffering before the Fall.’

I realize there’s much conjecture (theology) here, and it is counterfactual to the fossil record.

If it’s what you call ‘natural.’ The condition of the world after the Fall was completely unrelated to Man’s condition in Paradise. Ever since, from the day Cain killed Abel, with no exceptions, Man has been opposed to the will of God. We don’t know what the world would be like if Man, that is all of mankind, including you, devoted himself, and submitted himself, to the will of God. It’s never been tried.

You’re positing that if everyone converted to Catholicism, it would usher in the* new earth*?

So our conversation must proceed on parallel tracks and you have some explaining to do.

Not sure what this means. Why I am agnostic?

… But, as I say, it doesn’t bother me not to know the answer.

Ok, that’s an honest answer.

Not at all. There is much in the world that is completely unnataural and cannot be explained by science; much depends on the existence of that God for an answer.

Sure, there is much still unexplained in the world, but I was referring to the evidential argument for the problem of evil. An example Darwin used was the Ichneumon wasp, whose larvae devour their host alive. This is nature, red in tooth and claw.

Indeed, so long as we don’t take ourselves too seruiously. So long as we don’t say, I have this question before me and I WILL provide an answer.

Certitude seems in short supply in theology. Agreed.

I don’t know. From a theist point of view, as I have been saying, Man has defied God from the Fall to this day.

But you can’t show me when this fall occurred. You can’t show me which species it applied to. I submit it is the appropriation of older ancient near east mythological texts, i.e. the Enuma Elish and the epic of Enki and Ninhursag. These two stories give us the herameron (six days of creation), the exclusion from paradise, and the creation of man (not woman) from a rib.

From a non-thiest, purely natural point of view, maybe Haiti is overcrowded and the loss of life is mother nature’s way of culling the herd.

Sure, this is the Malthusian answer, and I’ll accept it. The problem is it addresses survival of a population, not the pain and suffering of the individual.

 

[sannb]

There was a previous comment that questioned why God no longer speaks to us as He did in previous times (I can’t find who said it at this moment) - well He has been speaking to us, as has the Blessed Mother and other saints, through current prophets - but not many are listening. They have been warning us since Fatima in 1917 that we must change our ways and turn to God - praying at all times and trusting Him for what we need, because we have entered a time of change (the 20th Century). HOWEVER, few have listened nor heeded their words: everything that is unfolding (confusion, chaos, disasters, etc.) has been prophesied, and is well on the way to fulfillment, even the proliferation of atheism/agnosticism, with the need for proofs, and God allowing the man-made destruction to unfold, along with natural upheaval due to man’s loss of faith and lack of prayer. No amount of truth will be enough for many - it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt and then some! Lack of faith is truly at issue, which has been well reflected in this thread. And yes, there will be a new earth, sooner than later, in which all who are alive when the smoke clears, will be in God’s Will. There will be a great deal of difficulty to endure - but there will also be many miracles. It is not the end of the world, but a much needed renewal. Pick it apart all you want, this is the truth…Let go and let God. He loves you and knows what is best for each of us!

This is a recent message that I just received in my email. I will not go into any details other than showing the message itself, from a saint ---- it seems to fit into this discussion:

“I have come to give the world a better understanding of the Father’s Omnipotent, Omnipresent Divine Will. As Jesus has instructed you, God does not mark time on the pages of a calendar or with the hands of a clock. God’s Divine Will and the actions of Divine Grace move and act according to and embracing the free-will actions of man. This is not to say that man dictates and controls God’s Divine Will. Rather, I liken the Divine Will to a rubber band, which stretches and bends to accommodate what it must embrace.”

“The world cannot exist outside of the Eternal Will of the Creator. However, every free-will action carries with it consequences which affect the world; for God has His plans which wax and wane according to the decisions of free will. From moment to moment God adjusts His Will to accommodate His Eternal Good which is the salvation of souls.”

“Yes, God’s clock is what the heart of man embraces from moment to moment. God’s clock ticks away, marking eternal salvation, mercy and justice in a world which does not recognize the passage of each present moment.”

“I come to challenge each heart to turn to the Eternal Good of All Hearts - the Eternal Love Who reconciles the heart of man with the Divine Will. Be reconciled in the most important time - the present moment.”

 

[davidv]

I realize there’s much conjecture (theology) here, and it is counterfactual to the fossil record.

You’re positing that if everyone converted to Catholicism, it would usher in the* new earth*?

Not sure what this means. Why I am agnostic?

Ok, that’s an honest answer.

Sure, there is much still unexplained in the world, but I was referring to the evidential argument for the problem of evil. An example Darwin used was the Ichneumon wasp, whose larvae devour their host alive. This is nature, red in tooth and claw.

Certitude seems in short supply in theology. Agreed.

But you can’t show me when this fall occurred. You can’t show me which species it applied to. I submit it is the appropriation of older ancient near east mythological texts, i.e. the Enuma Elish and the epic of Enki and Ninhursag. These two stories give us the herameron (six days of creation), the exclusion from paradise, and the creation of man (not woman) from a rib.

Sure, this is the Malthusian answer, and I’ll accept it. The problem is it addresses survival of a population, not the pain and suffering of the individual.

Re: Bold

This lack exists in all of life, not just theology.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I owe you several responses. I’m in the middle of planting my garden and putting in a new lawn and there are only so many hours in a day. Besides, redhen gives me a lot to think about. I’ll try to catch up.

Could just be me… but I thought we had been going along quite nicely; this last post of yours seemed to turn somewhat more antagonistic. Is this just me?

No, it’s me. I’m genetically argumentative and tend to get a little edgy. I hope you won’t take it personally. It isn’t personal.

The point is that [Islam] has historic origins which some conclude to be reasonable enough to put their faith in.

The Nazis have historic origins. At one point in history almost all of Germany believed they were reasonable enough to put their faith in. What’s your point? Islam relies on murder and intimidation. Without those two convincers it would die out in a generation. The Koran makes about as much sense as a comic book.

Christianity has had its fair share of slaughter and mistreatment in the name of its beliefs as well. Though the death tolls aren’t as high as some claim, it’s not a numbers game after all. Any killed in the name of a loving god is evidence that religious superiority can be used as an excuse. Catholics have done what Muslims have, if not in number, certainly in the types of premises/beliefs used to justify negative actions toward fellow humans. Aquinas, as I believe I stated earlier, logically reasoned it acceptable to kill heretics because they would possibly rob the greatest good from believers and other converts-to-be. Thankfully we don’t practice this today. A doctor of the Church, however, derived the exact same principles used by Muslims on jihad.

False. This is an exhaustive subject not germane to the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say, you cannot prove what you allege. You tout the anti-Catholic line. It’s a lie.

Isaiah is pseudonymous – written by at least three authors. In radically different time periods. Many of the passages Christians love to tout as prophecies are no such thing. They were not specifically predictive, but merely looked back at following Jesus to see what applied.

Nonsense. Isaiah’s prophesies were written over 700 years before the passion of the Lord an predict the events accurately. What do you think a prophesy should do? Your conclusion is absurd.

So what that chapters 40-55 are ascribed to an anonymous writer? Are they automatically suspect?

Again, this is an impasse. You think it’s amazing, I think it’s a simple pick-and-choose method to apply what works and ditch the rest. Why don’t all of Isaiah’s prophecies apply to Jesus or even some occurrence in the world? Surely he was more than a one hit wonder with chapters surrounding and including 53?

Why don’t all history books deal with the Civil War exclusively? You’re not making a heck of a lot of sense here, bud. Try reading what you write before you post it.

As in not obsessing over Jesus as the messiah. They go on with their current religious beliefs. Whether they as a people have been treated well, do well by worldly standards, and all that… sure, that’s debatable. What I mean is I would not say, as a people, they have spent the last 2000 years looking back over their shoulders wondering if they missed something with Jesus. As you said, some do. But some of about everyone seems to convert. Same with deconversion.

The Jews rejected Jesus when He was still living on this earth and they had Him killed. Why would they look back at the event? They are, according to their first leader, an obstinate and stiff-necked people. They’d cut their tongues out before they’d admit a mistake about Jesus.

Everyone else is saying the same about their religion.

Name one that claims to be the True Faith.

Do you debate whether [science] has provided answers, though?

A child who turns in an answer on a test that says 2+2 =7 has provided an answer.

The point is that religion offers unsubstantiated claims to explain origins of the universe and life, why humans seem to have good and bad in them, and so on. Though science may have more and more questions, if it answers how life originated… god will simply end up being synonymous with that mechanism.

A very large IF there. You will never see the day when science tells us how life originated and I repeat, the theory of creation as coming from God is FAR more plausible than rock begets rock.

I agree! Which is why scientists are far more unbelieving today than ever! In previous centuries, the vast majority of scientists were also believers. Today, members of the National Academy of Sciences are overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic (somewhere in the 90’s percent-wise). A recent study of philosophers found them to be atheist/agnostic to the tune of about 72%.

You take great comfort in that, don’t you? The leaders of the Catholic Church over 2000 years; priests, bishops, theologians and saints, as a class of people, dwarf your petty scientists. If you knew anything about them, you wouldn’t post these shallow boasts you lean on.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Yes, more convincing than a person writing their explanation. John is also, by far, the latest and most saturated in theological secondary meanings. Why does Mark make no connection to Jesus as the Word/Creator?

The Gospel writers wrote independently of each other. Mark was not an Apostle. He got his information from Peter. John’s Gospel is unlike the other three. He wrote a long discourse on the Bread of Life, but makes no mention of the Last Supper. I’d think you’d be more suspicious if they all wrote the same thing.

With humanity having been obsessed with making up religions for the last, oh, 25,000 years or so, I’d say that I have every reason to suspect that Christianity is also man made. The natural explanation is quite satisfying to me, given that:

• religions generally seek to explain the unknown
• religions typically explain the unknowns of their day (e.g. natural occurrences in the case of the Greeks/Romans)
• religions are typically abandoned when better explanations come into existence (no one is, any longer, a believer in Greek/Romany mythology)

Your conclusion here is irrational. To conclude Chrstianity is man made because other religions were man made makes no sense. It’s certainly not science, is it?

Christianity has a history. The Gospels are a history of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ written by eye witnesses or their scribes. We have an unbroken commentary on that history from the time it was written to today, much of it written by people who were taught by the Apostles or taught by them. The passages cited in that commentary match, word for word, the Gospel text we read today. You have no trouble believing world history as it appears in textbooks, but you suspect the history of Christianity. That, too, is irrational.

So… we have 20,000 years of religions that are no longer believed in because they were man’s attempt to explain the unkonwn… and 2000 years ago, we struck gold. This is like the boy who cried wolf. The rational position chooses to be skeptical toward such claims since it seems built into our nature to wonder what human-like-but-supernatural agent is at work running the show.

Not the rational position, the athiest position. The rational position is to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence. Your conclusion is based on denial of the evidence.

And I don’t know why god, if he exists, has chosen to leave me an unbeliever.

God has not chosen to make you an unbeliever. You have done that yourself with the help of Satan, the Deceiver, who has lured you away from belief in God. Now you fortify your unbelief with a reliance on opinion you read on athiest websites. That is the operation of your free will, not the action of God.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Why would I conclude otherwise? I wasn’t there, intervention by guardian angels is the most unlikely occurrence of any of the various possible explanations. Was anyone there who saw you in a near-horizontal position on the way down and then saw you defy both gravity and angular momentum to both right yourself to a vertical position and regain the distance fallen such that your feet were able to support your weight again? If not, then what you felt is likely to continue to be overridden by natural laws and cannot be trusted. Verified observance is far more trustworthy than your perception.

I was there and you, as you say, were not, but you seem to know more about what happened to me than I do. I said you’d reply with the rubber-stamp athiest position and you have.:yawn:

Patients feel like they were given amazing treatment when, in fact, they received nothing but a sugar pill and got better nevertheless.

So it naturally follows I was hallucinating. I’m trying to have a rational conversation with you. You don’t seem even to be trying. Just one made-up, unsupported allegation after another.

Hardly, buddy. I have assumptions based on plenty of assumptions:

• when people fall, there is a likely window of opportunity to catch one’s balance
• gravity is a universal fact of existence
• momentum is a universal fact of existence
• people are highly susceptible to personal interpretations of their senses in an unjustified manner (thinking they heard someone speak, seeing faces in the moon or trees, etc.).

Again, given that the most unlikely occurrence was that you were actually completely unsupported and then had a pair of angel hands being you back up… I’m perfectly logical in concluding something else probably happened.

I think I’ve said all I care to say about this subject. You go ahead and believe whatever makes you comfortable.

How about this: I’m a Scientologist. I pay a lot of money to be ‘audited’, a process in which bad memories from my past are purged from me. When I’ve paid enough money, I’m told that the actual issue is an alien soul residing inside of me. After finding this out, I was on my way out of the building, trying to decide if I should pay for the removal of the alien soul. Next thing I know, I fell. My feet were off the ground and I was falling. I literally felt the alien soul lift me back up by my solar plexus and I was safely on my feet.

Would you believe me? Why not? Typical Christian skepticism toward all other religions not their own. I know that the alien soul is real now. You have to have faith in it, that’s all.

That’s just another way of calling me a liar. Why not just call me a liar instead of wasting band-width with this kind of nonsense?

It is. The above is a sufficient analogy. Your skepticism toward miracle claims in other religions is the same as my skepticism toward your own. You may respond that you believe other miracle claims could be true, but that it it your god working in disguise. Perhaps, though everyone else in that religion would disagree and claim that it was, in fact, their god. Given that, your dislike of my interpretation is the result of your personal attachment to your particular religion.

You do the same all the time without batting an eye.

Another made-up allegation. That’s all you have. Your fantastic opinions and no facts.

I dont’ know anything about miracles in other religions, so there’s nothing for me to reject.

 

[jinminn]

No, it’s me. I’m genetically argumentative and tend to get a little edgy. I hope you won’t take it personally. It isn’t personal.

I actually confused this thread anyway. It had never been going peachy. I don’t take it personally

The Nazis have historic origins. At one point in history almost all of Germany believed they were reasonable enough to put their faith in. What’s your point? Islam relies on murder and intimidation. Without those two convincers it would die out in a generation. The Koran makes about as much sense as a comic book.

To you. Though to others it is the word of god. Christianity has, at times, spread through intimidation as well. Perhaps both (Islam and Christianity) have spread through an immaterial death threat: hell for unbelief. Note that originally, Mark ended without Jesus’ statement that believers would be saved and unbelievers would not.

False. This is an exhaustive subject not germane to the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say, you cannot prove what you allege. You tout the anti-Catholic line. It’s a lie.

Not sure if you’re talking about Aquinas or Christian motivated murder… If Aquinas, see his answer in the Summa:

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. (Summa, II-II, Q.11, art.3.)

Nonsense. Isaiah’s prophesies were written over 700 years before the passion of the Lord an predict the events accurately. What do you think a prophesy should do? Your conclusion is absurd.

Not so. Were they specifically predictive in ways that could not have been made up afterward? Matthew is quite concerned with prophecy and has Jesus as silent before Pilate, for example, perhaps to fulfill ‘Like a lamb before the slaughter…’ Yet John has him speak and 1 Tim 6 says that he made a ‘good confession’ before Pilate. Which is it?

 

[jinminn]

So what that chapters 40-55 are ascribed to an anonymous writer? Are they automatically suspect?

Were they written by a prophet? Who was he? I see this as an odd claim to have to defend. What to we typically do with anonymous vague statements about the future? Probably regard them as ‘comic book’ status just like you do with the Koran.

Why don’t all history books deal with the Civil War exclusively? You’re not making a heck of a lot of sense here, bud. Try reading what you write before you post it.

I think you misread the point… if you pick and grab particular prophecies from OT books, assuming that these gentlemen were specifically ordained by god as prophetic… why not ask why their prophecies didn’t come true in far more cases than they did? I’m not asking why all of their prophecies didn’t talk about only Jesus (as in all history books discussion only the civil war) but 1) if they are messianic prophecies, why they didn’t apply to Jesus and 2) if they were general prophecies why they didn’t come true.

Furthermore, things like ‘chaos, hardship, sin, return from sin’ and the like are true of every age and remain unconvincing. This is worse than cold-readers.

The Jews rejected Jesus when He was still living on this earth and they had Him killed. Why would they look back at the event? They are, according to their first leader, an obstinate and stiff-necked people. They’d cut their tongues out before they’d admit a mistake about Jesus.

Perhaps, though they do remain the chosen. Jesus himself said he was sent primarily to the ‘lost of the house of Israel.’ I recognize the state of reality, but it’s quite odd given that god specifically wanted to save his chosen.

Name one that claims to be the True Faith.

I would say Islam, but the main point is that no other faith thinks another is more true such that he subscribes to it over his/her own.

A child who turns in an answer on a test that says 2+2 =7 has provided an answer.

Refute the answer rather than simply posting a superfluous analogy.

A very large IF there. You will never see the day when science tells us how life originated and I repeat, the theory of creation as coming from God is FAR more plausible than rock begets rock.

It is a large if. God is just like your childhood arithmetic answer – it is a non-answer. How did he create? Evolution is near certain, so all that remains is to answer the initial propagation. Current cosmologists believe that we have something vs. nothing because nothing is unstable. In quantum physics you will always get something from nothing.

You take great comfort in that, don’t you? The leaders of the Catholic Church over 2000 years; priests, bishops, theologians and saints, as a class of people, dwarf your petty scientists. If you knew anything about them, you wouldn’t post these shallow boasts you lean on.

I don’t really know what this is supposed to get it. The point is not about mere quantity but about the quality of knowledge in a particular field and the belief subscribed to. The claims of 2000 years of such and suches rest on history, philosophy, science and related fields of claims. If ancient historians, philosophers and scientists are unconvinced by arguments resting on their very areas of specialty… I think that says something.

 

[jinminn]

The Gospel writers wrote independently of each other. Mark was not an Apostle. He got his information from Peter. John’s Gospel is unlike the other three. He wrote a long discourse on the Bread of Life, but makes no mention of the Last Supper. I’d think you’d be more suspicious if they all wrote the same thing.

You can’t be serious. Matthew and Luke are based at least partially if not entirely on Mark. They use whole phrases exactly from his writing. They were not independent. You should get up to speed on Biblical history. If anything, all three synoptics were potentially based on Q, but Mt. and Lk. were certainly based on Mark. Thus there is heavy grounds for believing that they elaborated on his initial plain gospel.

Regarding the last supper… it may not have a form of ‘take and eat’, but are you really denying it’s absence? Read John 13:18-30 and Matthew 26:20-25. Both concern Jesus’ announcement of Judas’ coming betrayal. Matthew is in the context of the last supper. John’s is in the context of the meal ‘just before the passover feast’ (Jn 13:1-2).

How can you deny the existence of some form of last supper?

Your conclusion here is irrational. To conclude Chrstianity is man made because other religions were man made makes no sense. It’s certainly not science, is it?

It makes great sense. If for 25,000 years I continued to formulate new ways to describe a supernatural realm and was blatantly wrong for 23,000 years, you would have every right to be skeptical when I came to you with my new revelation/hypothesis.

Christianity has a history. The Gospels are a history of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ written by eye witnesses or their scribes.

The gospels were written by neither eye witnesses nor their scribes but by someone distantly removed via oral tradition somewhere between 30-750 years after Jesus’ death.

We have an unbroken commentary on that history from the time it was written to today, much of it written by people who were taught by the Apostles or taught by them.

We have a break in non-gospel commentary from somewhere around 58AD - 95AD. What is your reference for thinking that these people were directly taught by the apostles?

The passages cited in that commentary match, word for word, the Gospel text we read today. You have no trouble believing world history as it appears in textbooks, but you suspect the history of Christianity. That, too, is irrational.

Incorrect. We have many mistranslations of the gospels and much ‘fudging.’ Mark ended at 16:8 (empty tomb, young man at tomb, women tell no one) and it is clearly recognized that the ending following in today’s bibles was not written until the late 2nd century. That’s a heck of a long time later! What do we get in this ending coming some 150 or so years later? Hmmm. A risen appearing Jesus! A command to believe to be saved or not believe and be damned! Incredible! There are also several versions of this ending which have been put together.

Also, when we have historians we get things like:

• their method: how to establish who to trust/distrust, what facts accepted/rejected
• who their interviewed
• conflicting accounts and corroborating accounts
• who they were (many historians even wrote autobiographies)

With the gospels we get nothing. We don’t know who they are, where they got their material, they do not even reference the sources we know they used (it would have been cake for Mt. and Lk. to mention that they borrowed almost everything from Mk.), what their method was, why they trust the stories they heard, etc.

The gospels are nothing like what we have in history books.

Not the rational position, the athiest position. The rational position is to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence. Your conclusion is based on denial of the evidence.

Me: I have $1MM in my bank account
You: Prove it.
Me: I just told you that I do.
You: I don’t believe you.
Me: I provided evidence (my testimony) and you didn’t believe it. Your conclusion is based on denial of the evidence. You are wrong.

God has not chosen to make you an unbeliever. You have done that yourself with the help of Satan, the Deceiver, who has lured you away from belief in God. Now you fortify your unbelief with a reliance on opinion you read on athiest websites. That is the operation of your free will, not the action of God.

Wow. Let me know when you’re done with the condemnation and we can talk rationally again. Oh way, that’s me who you’re always accusing of irrationality. Why don’t you pray for satan to be banished by covering him in the blood of the lamb and to be shackled by the prince of peace. Take some authority over that spirit with prayer and fasting so I can be freed!

 

[jinminn]

I was there and you, as you say, were not, but you seem to know more about what happened to me than I do. I said you’d reply with the rubber-stamp athiest position and you have.

Can you blame me? Ra saved me this morning at work while trying to get things done. You weren’t there. You can’t deny me. I prayed to him and got 40min of work done in 20.

So it naturally follows I was hallucinating. I’m trying to have a rational conversation with you. You don’t seem even to be trying. Just one made-up, unsupported allegation after another.

Placebo effect != hallucination. You’re the irrational one. It’s one of the most documented but ill understood aspects of modern medicine. More provable and verifiable than miracles!

I think I’ve said all I care to say about this subject. You go ahead and believe whatever makes you comfortable.

What makes me ‘comfortable’ is being consistent in my beliefs. Do I wish you not to be convinced about what happened to you? Not necessarily. Do I expect that your single handed testimony which defies several repeatable events to be convincing to me? No. Would I accept testimonies of others along these lines (their own personal stories)? No. So, don’t feel bad, I’m a skeptic with everyone, not just you.

That’s just another way of calling me a liar. Why not just call me a liar instead of wasting band-width with this kind of nonsense?

No. It’s a way of pointing out that if I had said the same claims under the premise of a different deity, you would be skeptical. I’m helping you come to an understanding of my position.

Another made-up allegation. That’s all you have. Your fantastic opinions and no facts.

I don’t know precisely what you’re disagreeing with. All you need to disprove me is evidence of your belief in other faith’s miracle claims.

I dont’ know anything about miracles in other religions, so there’s nothing for me to reject.

• An angel appeared to Joseph Smith, delivering gold plates and the Urim and Thummin for translation. That miracle founded the Mormons.
• A revelation of god came to Mohammad in a cave, giving him word for word the scriptures contained in an exact golden replica of the Koran in heaven. That miracle founded the Muslim faith.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Can you blame me? Ra saved me this morning at work while trying to get things done. You weren’t there. You can’t deny me. I prayed to him and got 40min of work done in 20.

The difference is you’re lying to try to make a point. I understand your point. I think it’s not tenable. Your arguments do not compare with the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church and “92% of scientists are athiests” doesn’t do the job for you.

Placebo effect != hallucination. You’re the irrational one. It’s one of the most documented but ill understood aspects of modern medicine. More provable and verifiable than miracles!

Maybe I misplaced the argument. I referred to your ‘explanation’ of my supernatural experience. Placebo effects are well documented.

What makes me ‘comfortable’ is being consistent in my beliefs. Do I wish you not to be convinced about what happened to you? Not necessarily. Do I expect that your single handed testimony which defies several repeatable events to be convincing to me? No. Would I accept testimonies of others along these lines (their own personal stories)? No. So, don’t feel bad, I’m a skeptic with everyone, not just you.

I don’t ‘feel bad’ at all. I feel great, in fact. Your skepticism is your burden, not mine.

No. It’s a way of pointing out that if I had said the same claims under the premise of a different deity, you would be skeptical. I’m helping you come to an understanding of my position.

As I said, I understand your position. I’ve been trying to move on past that.

I don’t know precisely what you’re disagreeing with. All you need to disprove me is evidence of your belief in other faith’s miracle claims.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I don’t remember the remark you’re responding to so it’s not clear.

• An angel appeared to Joseph Smith, delivering gold plates and the Urim and Thummin for translation. That miracle founded the Mormons.

And his witnesses were…?

• A revelation of god came to Mohammad in a cave, giving him word for word the scriptures contained in an exact golden replica of the Koran in heaven. That miracle founded the Muslim faith.

And his witnesses were…?

This conversation is going around in circles and I must correct my mistake. I thought I was dealing with a Catholic and his crisis of faith. Now it’s clear I’m dealing with a bona fide athiest whose interest is in mocking the Catholic faith. That conversation doesn’t interest me. Perhaps we can talk about something else in the future.

 

[aperture]

ferde rombola:

Now it’s clear I’m dealing with a bona fide athiest whose interest is in mocking the Catholic faith. That conversation doesn’t interest me. Perhaps we can talk about something else in the future.

I doubt someone who’s interested in “mocking the Catholic faith” would come to an incredibly Catholic website to do so. There are many atheist-dominated sites where one can do that. I think jinminn is mostly looking for truth, and if he sees Catholicism as standing in the way, then he has to address that.

Believe it or not, there are many atheists who wish Christianity was real, but cannot believe in it out of reason. They are skeptics, not bullies.

 

[jinminn]

The difference is you’re lying to try to make a point.

The point had nothing to do with the tradition of the Church. It has to do with your faith being supported by a somewhat miraculous claim made by you. I’m making the point that I’m well within my rights as a normal human being to doubt your report based on the fact that it 1) defies my experience of natural laws (gravity and momentum) and 2) you have no one but yourself to verify what happened.

Though I made my story up, there are people who have similar ones and you would disbelieve them if you heard them should they fall into radical departures from your experience and have no other witnesses.

Case-in-point: I read this on a forum similar to this one or a blog. A gentleman reported going to his cabin or newly purchased house and finding that the water would not work. He tried every faucet in the house. He stated that he prayed and at the moment he finished (or shortly after), every single faucet turned on at once. I won’t even tell you which god he prayed to for this. Would you be skeptical that it was a supernatural intervention or not?

Maybe I misplaced the argument. I referred to your ‘explanation’ of my supernatural experience. Placebo effects are well documented.

No worries. The main point was patients absolutely do feel many things but others in the know realize they were given nothing despite the patient’s reports that they experienced results. Though that is a medical situation and yours is far more physical, my only point is to illustrate that it seems very possible to me that you actually did feel what you feel… but that the conclusion you drew might not necessarily follow.

I don’t ‘feel bad’ at all. I feel great, in fact. Your skepticism is your burden, not mine.

Groovy. It’s not a burden for me in the least. Moreso, you do seem to be getting quite upset at my disbelief or suggestion that you could be wrong…

As I said, I understand your position. I’ve been trying to move on past that.

‘Moving past’ and saying ‘yes I agree that I would be skeptical of a claim of another deity with only one witness and a seeming violation of natural laws’ are different things.

And his witnesses were…?

Whoever he told his testimony to. He described Jerusalem which he had never been to previously following his flight via flying donkey there. His description was verified by Abu Bakr.

And his witnesses were…?

Eight saw the plates, we know all of their names, and their signatures come with every Book of Mormon.
— en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses

Three testify that the angel showed them the golden plate as well.
— en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses

We can say nothing remotely close about the gospels:

• we have no idea who wrote them
• they were not eye witnesses or apostles themselves
• they told nothing of their sources or how they came to the information
• two copied from another and did not mention this
• the get progressively more elaborate, illustrating embellishment, not mere ‘eyewitness differences in details’

Anyway…

This conversation is going around in circles and I must correct my mistake. I thought I was dealing with a Catholic and his crisis of faith. Now it’s clear I’m dealing with a bona fide athiest whose interest is in mocking the Catholic faith. That conversation doesn’t interest me. Perhaps we can talk about something else in the future.

• I’ve stated my disposition as one of disbelief. Does it fall within your definition of ‘crisis of faith’ to be disbelieving but married in the Church, attending Mass with my wife, trying to figure out how to baptize my child-to-be per the request of my wife but not really knowing if i believe or want to raise the child as a believer, being a lifelong committed member to a lay association of Catholic families and continuing to participate, being in a group of couple’s who meet as men’s/women’s group for sharing about life and general accountability and so on… I don’t have to do any of that. I haven’t walked away. You know very little of my life.
• You’ve essentially provided faulty statements about Biblical scholarship (who wrote gospels, them being independent or eyewitnesses, and such) that have long been disproved and a story about falling and beyond recovery and having angelic hands right you again. Then you accuse me of being interested in mocking the faith? If your beliefs are grounded on things of that nature which I believe are either 1) just plain false or 2) perhaps misunderstandings of what happened… then am I wrong to not be convinced?

As aperature stated, I’m just skeptical.

We all have a threshold of belief. I don’t know what mine is. A personal miracle, the healing of an amputee in my sight, Jesus’ name written in the stars… God created me, knew me in my mother’s womb, knows my genetics and my personal threshold. I pray most nights ‘Jesus, how can I know you’, or ‘Jesus, help me to know you’ or some such prayer. What am I to do if faith is a gift and I just don’t have it?

Other than accusations of not really wanting it or the devil infesting my brain… I’ve not heard good answers to this.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I realize there’s much conjecture (theology) here, and it is counterfactual to the fossil record.

Isn’t there much conjecture in the fossil record? And which fossil record are we dealing with? There is no written record of world history prior to the Old Testament and the creations stories have no chronology. The creation of Man could have occurred milions of years ago. That’s conjecture. too.

You’re positing that if everyone converted to Catholicism, it would usher in the* new earth*?

LOL. That’s cutting to the chase. The biblical ‘new earth’ will appear after the final judgment, so, no. However, if everyone on earth were faithful Catholics, I have no doubt we’d be living in a much more loving, caring peaceful and just world than the one we inhabit now.

Not sure what this means. Why I am agnostic?

No, that’s personal. You have a lot to answer for as an agnostic for the things you and science cannot explain, things agnostics, athiests and scientists sweep under the rug. If science says something an athiest agrees with, he will accept it; if science says something he disagrees with, he will reject it. Example:

The Shroud of Turin was closely and scientifically examined by a team of NASA scientists in 1978. They concluded the image on the Shroud was not painted or drawn; that it’s a photographic negative and if it was forged, someone in the 16th Century knew more about photography than was known in 1978. To this day, no one, scientist or otherwise, is able to say how the image came to be imposed on the cloth. The characteristics of the body conform to the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Our Lord, including the scourging, the spear thrust in the side and the crown of thorns. There is no evidence a crown of thorns was common in First Century crucifixions. On the Shroud, the nails were placed in the wrists. Nowhere in medieval art, without exception, are the nails placed anywhere but the hands. The cloth itself was woven in a herringbone pattern common in First Century Palestine. Mid-east pollen was found embedded in the cloth and dirt removed by tape was found to be consistent with that found in caves around Jerusalem. (I’m not sure whether the pollen was identified as coming from the First Century.) In summary, the physical characteristics of the Shroud support the claim that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The imprint of the image on the Shroud was judged by these NASA scientists to be miraculous. Three of them were athiests when they went to Milan. All three converted to Catholicism when they returned. I got this information from a 1979article in Rolling Stone magazine. I still have it around here somewhere.
Athiests will say carbon dating places the Shroud in the16th Century. They know the Shroud was involved in a fire at that time and new cloth was used to repair it and that’s where tha sample came from. The don’t care. They’re sticking to their story. Example:

There is a shrine in South America called Our Lady of Las Lajas. An image was found on a wall in a cave of a woman with her infant Son. She is dressed in brightly colored, richly adorned garments. There’s a large jeweled crown on her head and on that of her Son. There is no paint or other artificial substance on the wall. Scientists bored holes in the wall and found the coloring is in the rock – over an inch deep. Your basic athiest will tell you, with complete assurance, someone went there, poked needles into the rock and injected it with stone dye. You will probably say (I don’t want to put words in your mouth) because you have not seen it, you cannot believe it. But you can look it up on line.

Sure, there is much still unexplained in the world, but I was referring to the evidential argument for the problem of evil. An example Darwin used was the Ichneumon wasp, whose larvae devour their host alive. This is nature, red in tooth and claw.

It’s the nature of nature. All living things depend on living things for sustenence whether it’s wildebeasts eating grass or leopards eating wildebeasts. You and Darwin call it evil. I call it the state of the world.

Certitude seems in short supply in theology. Agreed.

As it is in science to a certain degree. I say there are more answers in theology than your average athiest is willing to admit.

But you can’t show me when this fall occurred. You can’t show me which species it applied to.

Nor can you, nor can you show me it never occurred.

I submit it is the appropriation of older ancient near east mythological texts, i.e. the Enuma Elish and the epic of Enki and Ninhursag. These two stories give us the herameron (six days of creation), the exclusion from paradise, and the creation of man (not woman) from a rib.

By ‘older’ I assume you mean older than the Old Testament. I have no information about them or their authenticy. I’ll do some research.

Sure, this is the Malthusian answer, and I’ll accept it. The problem is it addresses survival of a population, not the pain and suffering of the individual.

It isn’t possible to cull the herd without breaking a few eggs.