What makes you think the bible is the word of God?

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Are you saying that it is “not good” that people decided to put their power into use directed (influenced) by their Church?

I’m pretty sure this whole thing about power started from me saying the Church needs people to believe what it says for them to keep the power they have. If you want to replace that “power” with “influences” that’s fine.

My point was that they aren’t trustworthy saying that their beliefs are right, because they need you to believe those things in order to maintain power. I guess you could say that’s “not good”, but I was just showing that the Church claiming itself infallible is meaningless.

Claiming infallibility is a very bold thing to say. The question is what is claimed that is infallibly known?

What do you disagree with that is claimed to be infallibly known by the Church? You seem to simply disagree that it is possible to CLAIM that their IS such a thing as “infallibility”. If that is an a priori axiom, from where did you “infallibly” **get **that axiom?

Can you see how it is that infallibly claiming that infallibility is impossible is a logically “questionable” thing to say?

If you DON’T claim that your claim that infallibility is infallible, then you’ll need to show those who do claim infallibility exists wrong, as your claim MAY be wrong, and is therefore testable.

To test your claim, show us where the Church is incorrect in it’s claim of infallibility!

(( People have an inherent problem with infallibility because it offends “logic”, yet they have no problem with the INFALLIBLE claim that 1+1=2. Why is that? ))

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Back to the subject…this has drifted pretty far.

How can you determine whether a book is inspired by God?

Only by being informed by God, either directly or by an authorized representative.

Next question.

 

[tigers08]

Claiming infallibility is a very bold thing to say. The question is what is claimed that is infallibly known?

What do you disagree with that is claimed to be infallibly known by the Church? You seem to simply disagree that it is possible to CLAIM that their IS such a thing as “infallibility”. If that is an a priori axiom, from where did you “infallibly” **get **that axiom?

Can you see how it is that infallibly claiming that infallibility is impossible is a logically “questionable” thing to say?

If you DON’T claim that your claim that infallibility is infallible, then you’ll need to show those who do claim infallibility exists wrong, as your claim MAY be wrong, and is therefore testable.

To test your claim, show us where the Church is incorrect in it’s claim of infallibility!

(( People have an inherent problem with infallibility because it offends “logic”, yet they have no problem with the INFALLIBLE claim that 1+1=2. Why is that? ))

I don’t think infallibility is impossible, theoretically. If God is conscious and perfect, and revealed himself through a book, then it would logically follow that the book would be infallible. The infallibility of this book could easily test by checking for contradictions and its accuracy when compared to external sources.

If a man walks up to you and tells you that he’s never wrong, are you going to trust him based on this alone? That was my point about the Church’s claim at infallibility (on matters of faith, if that makes you feel better) being meaningless.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I don’t think infallibility is impossible, theoretically. If God is conscious and perfect, and revealed himself through a book, then it would logically follow that the book would be infallible. The infallibility of this book could easily test by checking for contradictions and its accuracy when compared to external sources.

If a man walks up to you and tells you that he’s never wrong, are you going to trust him based on this alone? That was my point about the Church’s claim at infallibility (on matters of faith, if that makes you feel better) being meaningless.

The only way I CAN test him is to see if what he has claimed as being infallibly known by him is actually infallibly known by him. If you can’t prove any of his “infallible claims” as wrong, then you’ve simply not proven him NOT infallible, which leaves him “infallible” in what he does claim as infallibly known by him. In other words, find an infallible claim that is wrong and you’ve proven he’s not infallible in his claims.

How does The Church fare, in that test as you’ve tested it?

I don’t need to test it systematically, personally, because should I “happen across” something that seems to contradict the Church’s claimed infallibility I’ll see what the Church’s explanation is for that “seeming contradiction” and make up my mind at that point. I have yet to hit on a contradiction.

You, on the other hand, seem to want an exhaustive “proof” that the Church is either infallible or not, and that test is up to you to perform, as you’re the one interested in the answer NOW.

So, get to it! And please do report back with your findings, as I’m sure there are plenty of people around here who’d love to hear them!

 

[tigers08]

The only way I CAN test him is to see if what he has claimed as being infallibly known by him is actually infallibly known by him. If you can’t prove any of his “infallible claims” as wrong, then you’ve simply not proven him NOT infallible, which leaves him “infallible” in what he does claim as infallibly known by him. In other words, find an infallible claim that is wrong and you’ve proven he’s not infallible in his claims.

Agreed.

How does The Church fare, in that test as you’ve tested it?

Pretty bad.

I don’t need to test it systematically, personally, because should I “happen across” something that seems to contradict the Church’s claimed infallibility I’ll see what the Church’s explanation is for that “seeming contradiction” and make up my mind at that point. I have yet to hit on a contradiction.

I tested it the same way. Without trying to at first. There’s huge contradictions all over the place, and the Church’s explanations are, in my opinion, far less than satisfactory.

You, on the other hand, seem to want an exhaustive “proof” that the Church is either infallible or not, and that test is up to you to perform, as you’re the one interested in the answer NOW.

So, get to it! And please do report back with your findings, as I’m sure there are plenty of people around here who’d love to hear them!

Here’s a few lists of contradictions. I’m not saying they’re all good, but it just takes one to prove the Church and the bible are not infallible. islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
I don’t need to test it systematically, personally, because should I “happen across” something that seems to contradict the Church’s claimed infallibility I’ll see what the Church’s explanation is for that “seeming contradiction” and make up my mind at that point. I have yet to hit on a contradiction.

I tested it the same way. Without trying to at first. There’s huge contradictions all over the place, and the Church’s explanations are, in my opinion, far less than satisfactory.

Quote:
You, on the other hand, seem to want an exhaustive “proof” that the Church is either infallible or not, and that test is up to you to perform, as you’re the one interested in the answer NOW.

So, get to it! And please do report back with your findings, as I’m sure there are plenty of people around here who’d love to hear them!

Here’s a few lists of contradictions. I’m not saying they’re all good, but it just takes one to prove the Church and the bible are not infallible. islamway.com/english/imag…radictions.htm
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

By “materialistic” measures the bible, as well as veritably ANY “spiritural” ANYTHING, is nonsense. I agree with you that they and you can do that.

Once you figure out what “infallible” means as it is used by the Church, then you’ll see how we can agree that the Church when it makes infallible decisions they are in fact correct in claiming infallibility, while the materialist is ALSO correct in claiming that the Church is not infallible as in fact infallibility is an impossibility.

Is the Church’s use of the word “infallible” a set-up to circular logic to the materialistic mind? Yes it is.

Is this a “razor” to distinguish believers from unbelievers? Yes.

Once again, we **all **can claim “infallibility” in some things. Such as 1+1=2, and that to claim that infallibility doesn’t exist is to claim the infallibility of that claim, which is to state a simple self contradiction.

Only individual items of knowledge can be claimed to be infallible, and the Church claims infallibility ONLY in a **very **narrow domain of knowledge.

To deny infallibility is to make everything “contingent” and that means no decision is really a decision, and holding a belief in faith requires a real decision, therefore denial of infallibility is denial of faith.

To deny faith is to deny God. To deny God due the inability to make a decision is to be a “practical atheist”.

This is the state of most people, regrettably. That is the great tragedy of the protestant revolt, and the various previous heresies. It allowed a vast population an excuse to be practical atheists while salving themselves with the label “Christian”.

They are allowed to deny revelation as they wish, thereby undercutting any of their own arguments regarding “God stuff” utterly.

All “spiritual” stuff which is not Catholic-based (revealed God based) is self contradictory, and the further from BEING Catholic it is, the more self contradictory it is.

To the materialistic mind authority is “mine” and I give it to whom I trust materialistically (even if “materialistically” means “profound feeling of the Holy Spirit”). To the Catholic mind authority is ONLY from God and His revealed authorities, and our choice is to either follow it WHEN IT IS PROVENLY NOT EVIL or be damned.

But, if one is not at present persuadable that only the Church has authority in what it claims authority in then one is “licensed” to be as unfree from God as one wishes!

 

[tigers08]

Once you figure out what “infallible” means as it is used by the Church, then you’ll see how we can agree that the Church when it makes infallible decisions they are in fact correct in claiming infallibility, while the materialist is ALSO correct in claiming that the Church is not infallible as in fact infallibility is an impossibility.

See, that’s the huge problem with the Church’s definition of infallible. They say that any doctrine they make on matters of faith and morality is infallible, but not the actual words of the bible. Then there’s no way to prove it wrong. Anyone can claim to be infallible on opinions and abstract thoughts and never be proved wrong. It’s very convenient for a religion to teach this, but it’s ultimately meaningless. There would be no way of knowing if these men who claim to be giving us God’s doctrines were lying. You can’t claim that a book is sacred and given to us by God, but that only a certain group of people can interpret it. There’s no way to know if that’s true.

To deny infallibility is to make everything “contingent” and that means no decision is really a decision, and holding a belief in faith requires a real decision, therefore denial of infallibility is denial of faith.

That’s exactly what I think. Faith is meaningless because you don’t know if you’re right. Faith is just believing someone else, which is just faith in them, not God. I know it’s a lot easier to have faith than to make a decision on your own, but that doesn’t make it right. Muslims have faith. Hindus have faith. Protestants and Mormons have faith. If all you have is faith, there is no way to know if you’re right.

To deny faith is to deny God. To deny God due to the inability to make a decision is to be a “practical atheist”.

Not necessarily. You can believe in God based on logical reasoning. Many people believe because of the “beauty and order of the universe”. Some believe because the universe has to have a creator. Faith isn’t the only reason people believe in God.

This is the state of most people, regrettably. That is the great tragedy of the protestant revolt, and the various previous heresies. It allowed a vast population an excuse to be practical atheists while salving themselves with the label “Christian”.

Actually I’d wager that most people DO have faith. They have nothing but faith. Hardly anyone has a reason for choosing a religion. Most people DON’T choose a religion, they just have faith that somebody else picked the right one for them.

All “spiritual” stuff which is not Catholic-based (revealed God based) is self contradictory, and the further from BEING Catholic it is, the more self contradictory it is.

Completely disagree with that statement. First off, Catholics contradict themselves all the time. They claim to trust God with their lives, yet pray for help with money, or protection from sickness, etc. And I really don’t see other religions being more contradictory that Catholicism.

 

[Harsalter]

Faith is meaningless because you don’t know if you’re right.

You have missed the whole point and must be very young and seeking answers, or at least I hope.

The whole point about faith is this,

“Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; **blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” **John 20:29

Faith is meaningless? When we meet our maker, us that had faith will be rewarded. You guys with no faith will never know if you were right, but will only know if you were wrong! How dangerous.

 

[tigers08]

You have missed the whole point and must be very young and seeking answers, or at least I hope.

The whole point about faith is this,

“Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; **blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” **John 20:29

Yep, that’s what I don’t agree with. Because then Muslims, Hindus and Mormons would all be just as blessed. Let’s say for a second you were born into an Islamic family. How would you ever know that your religion was wrong unless you DIDN’T have faith. I don’t see how God could reward/punish people based on them believing what they’re parents tell them.

Faith is meaningless? When we meet our maker

(if)

us that had faith will be rewarded.

according to you’re beliefs, which because of faith you have no real reason to believe.

You guys with no faith will never know if you were right, but will only know if you were wrong! How dangerous.

How is that dangerous? Being able to find out if you selected the right religion has no impact on the chances you picked the right one.

 

[marty30]

I don’t think one needs to be a scholar to see how the Bible and the Catholic Churches teachings are the closes thing to the Truth. Can any one find something in the CCC that is contradictory to the Bible? ( And please protestanst don’t just grab a few verses you memorized out of the bible and take them out of context.) For any one who is not Catholic, have you ever read the entire CCC and if so Show me where there is infallibility in it’s teachings. Your right that there are muslims and others who have faith in other conceptions of God and history and Faith but which one makes more since. How many muslim groups and churches do you know do loving charitable acts of kindness localy and or nationaly or more, Globally. I think its safe to say that Christians have got it right, even the protestants are closer to the truth than non-christians. However Catholics are the only Christians who clame to be the One True Church, the protestants, well, they protest a lot but other than that they clame to know Jesus, but none consider thereselves to be the One True Church. I guess it does sound arrogant but hey they thought Jesus was pretty darn arrogant for claiming divinity with God. Jesus established his Church with Peter and the Apostoles and said Hell would never prevail over it. If you would take the time to read history you would see how the Catholic Church has been through many test and haven been shaken but never defeated.

Quote " There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contemt prior to investigation."
- Herbert Spencer

Quote " He" (anyone)“can only be defeated by an attitude of intolerance or belligerent denial.”
-anonymous author

 

[Harsalter]

according to you’re beliefs, which because of faith you have no real reason to believe.

.

That’s why they call it faith.

 

[tigers08]

I don’t think one needs to be a scholar to see how the Bible and the Catholic Churches teachings are the closes thing to the Truth.

I’d say it doesn’t take a scholar to see that they AREN’T the closest thing to the truth.

Can any one find something in the CCC that is contradictory to the Bible? ( And please protestanst don’t just grab a few verses you memorized out of the bible and take them out of context.) For any one who is not Catholic, have you ever read the entire CCC and if so Show me where there is infallibility in it’s teachings.

There are a bunch. Here’s one: The CCC claims Mary was “from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved IMMUNE from all stain of original sin.” This is mentioned no where in the bible. In fact, Paul says that there is no one who is without sin. Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Your right that there are muslims and others who have faith in other conceptions of God and history and Faith but which one makes more since.

What’s more unlikely, somebody being born from a virgin, dying and coming back to life…or a man walking into a cave and seeing an angel? Neither makes any sense, but I wouldn’t say the Christian belief is more plausible than the Islamic belief.

How many muslim groups and churches do you know do loving charitable acts of kindness localy and or nationaly or more, Globally.

There are TONS of Muslim charities. islamic-relief.com/
www.muslimhands.org/
muslimcharity.org.uk/
etc.

I think its safe to say that Christians have got it right, even the protestants are closer to the truth than non-christians.

I wouldn’t.

However Catholics are the only Christians who clame to be the One True Church, the protestants, well, they protest a lot but other than that they clame to know Jesus, but none consider thereselves to be the One True Church.

How does claiming to be the One True Church lend any credibility to that claim? I can claim to be the President but that doesn’t make me any more credible.

I guess it does sound arrogant but hey they thought Jesus was pretty darn arrogant for claiming divinity with God. Jesus established his Church with Peter and the Apostoles and said Hell would never prevail over it. If you would take the time to read history you would see how the Catholic Church has been through many test and haven been shaken but never defeated.

Hindus and Jews have a much longer history with many more tests yet they’re still around, too.

Quote " There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contemt prior to investigation."
- Herbert Spencer

Quote " He" (anyone)“can only be defeated by an attitude of intolerance or belligerent denial.”

                                                   -anonymous uthor

Did you read those quotes? Do you consider the possibility that the Church is wrong?

 

[tigers08]

That’s why they call it faith.

Which is what I think is dumb. What’s better…blindly believe something and have a high chance of being wrong, or to investigate religions/belief systems objectively and determine which one, if any, is most likely to be right?

You have to realize that if you were born into a Muslim family, they would tell you to have faith in that too. And according to your Christian beliefs you would end up frying because of that faith.

 

[marty30]

Which is what I think is dumb. What’s better…blindly believe something and have a high chance of being wrong, or to investigate religions/belief systems objectively and determine which one, if any, is most likely to be right?

You have to realize that if you were born into a Muslim family, they would tell you to have faith in that too. And according to your Christian beliefs you would end up frying because of that faith.

So have you done any investagating objectively? Which religion do you think is right? Forgive me if you’ve mentioned it on another post. If I think back to the time I became Catholic I remember doing my own investagating and I’ve never closed my eyes in my faith in the Church. Every day I spend objectively searching and learning about the Churches teachings and the truth behind it. I’m sorry if you do not know any smart catholics with there eyes open but hang in there, because were every where and were groing in numbers by leaps and bounds because were practically the only Church that is for life today and having lots of baby’s. I love being Catholic and I love knowing the Truth. What do you love?

 

[marty30]

There are a bunch. Here’s one: The CCC claims Mary was “from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved IMMUNE from all stain of original sin.” This is mentioned no where in the bible. In fact, Paul says that there is no one who is without sin. Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[Harsalter]

There are a bunch. Here’s one: The CCC claims Mary was “from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved IMMUNE from all stain of original sin.” This is mentioned no where in the bible.

You do not know the Bible very well.

*Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. *

What do you think “Full of grace” means? Gabriel did not say, “Mary, in grace”, he said “Hail, full of grace”.

 

[Harsalter]

Obviously no one is born thinking a certain book is God’s revelation. Someone had to tell you that the bible is God’s word. So, other than someone telling you, do you have a reason to believe the bible was inspired by God?

Actually history makes me believe this. I believe it was 11 out of the 12 original apostles were martyred for the faith, along with the first 43 or so Popes. You think they died for nothing? You think they actually allowed themselves to be tortured and killed for something they did not believe in? And they were there at the beginning!

For someone that doesn’t believe in religion, life is short than over. Why are you wasting your time on a PC when your entire existence will be over in a blink of an eye? The rest of us believe this is only the beginning so we are in no hurry as we believe there is an afterlife.

 

[marty30]

**

What’s more unlikely, somebody being born from a virgin, dying and coming back to life…or a man walking into a cave and seeing an angel? Neither makes any sense, but I wouldn’t say the Christian belief is more plausible than the Islamic belief.

I guess just as about as unlikely as there being an all powerful God who can make all this happen right. Or just as about as unlikely as the discovery of electricity. Don’t know where it comes from or how it works but it works. Or just as about as unlikely as a world filled with people who can create and build and learn new things right. You telling me that when you see a sunset at the beach you don’t go Wow! how does he do that? Isn’t there at least a little part of you that wants to believe? I know some of my thoughts might be a little child like but Jesus did say in order to enter his kindom we have to be like children. The Church teaches Love, Faith, Hope, and Charity. Whats wrong with that. So God has performed some miracles we have a hard time grasping, the truth is the Church teaches us how to love and live and create. Any member of the Church that has done different or taught different has done so of their own accord, not the Churches teachings. What are you afraid of? If we’re right and your wrong ,wow for us. We get to learn how to love and spend eternity with God. I’m not sure where you stand but if we are wrong and just for the record,I have no doubts about the Churches Teachinngs, but if we are wrong then what?**

 

[marty30]

I’d say it doesn’t take a scholar to see that they AREN’T the closest thing to the truth.

There are a bunch. Here’s one: The CCC claims Mary was “from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved IMMUNE from all stain of original sin.” This is mentioned no where in the bible. In fact, Paul says that there is no one who is without sin. Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

What’s more unlikely, somebody being born from a virgin, dying and coming back to life…or a man walking into a cave and seeing an angel? Neither makes any sense, but I wouldn’t say the Christian belief is more plausible than the Islamic belief.

There are TONS of Muslim charities. islamic-relief.com/
www.muslimhands.org/
muslimcharity.org.uk/
etc.

I wouldn’t.

How does claiming to be the One True Church lend any credibility to that claim? I can claim to be the President but that doesn’t make me any more credible.

Hindus and Jews have a much longer history with many more tests yet they’re still around, too.

Did you read those quotes? Do you consider the possibility that the Church is wrong?

I’d say Catholics today are the most tolerant people I know. What are we denying?

 

[tigers08]

So have you done any investagating objectively? Which religion do you think is right?

Yes I have, and I have no idea what the truth is. I guess I’m agnostic because I don’t think you can know the truth. But I think I can figure out logical fallacies in certain beliefs so I can rule out some religions.

Every day I spend objectively searching and learning about the Churches teachings and the truth behind it. I’m sorry if you do not know any smart catholics with there eyes open but hang in there, because were every where and were growing in numbers by leaps and bounds because were practically the only Church that is for life today and having lots of baby’s.

That’s good that you research it. I know a few smart catholics but they definitely don’t have their eyes open.

I love being Catholic and I love knowing the Truth. What do you love?

I love guitar hero. lol, jk. I do like thinking about religion/God/etc and I like discussing it with others. From that statement though, it doesn’t seem like you are very objective in your search.