Why be relegious?

[NonServiam]

Firstly, I don’t know anyone who’s spent hours fasting, praying, meditating and the like before they found faith.

Well, that’s true: cases of “visions” being induced through practices like that are usually experienced by members of Orders who devote their lives to such practices.

I was speaking above in the context of a hypothetical situation in which a person was praying to a different god every day, hoping to eventually get a response from one of them: I was musing that such a person – constantly engaging in prayer and other activities – might very well induce such experiences, but that such experiences wouldn’t confirm that it was really a god…they might simply suggest that the person needs to see a doctor.

As for visions and whatnot, that is the exception, and not the rule. We didn’t all become Christian after we saw some bright light, or heard angels sing or whatever. Some people have experiences like that, but it’s unusual. Most people’s experiences are much more prosaic. lol

Well, ok, but that just means that these “prosaic experiences” are even more doubtful. While I haven’t personally spoken to anyone who claims to have seen lights and heard voices – although, now that I think about it, I have seen online posts where people have claimed such things – I do know people who have reported experiencing some kind of “inner conviction” that their beliefs are true.

I consider these experiences of “inner conviction” to be much, much, much more minor versions of the “white lights and angels singing” visions: that is to say, totally and completely untrustworthy in terms of revealing reality to the individuals experiencing such conviction.

And certainly, I have no doubt that a person who thinks about “God,” who prays and meditates and otherwise fills their head with religious imagery, will be able to generate feelings of “inner conviction” in themselves. It’s the same with people of other religions: Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and others similarly report feelings of “internal conviction” in their religions.

I would hazard a guess that it’s downright easy to induce these feelings in oneself – and probably downright easy to induce more “miraculous” visions, if a person is willing to put in the time and effort.

I know, from my experience with Zen meditation, that generating states of consciousness is downright simple, and inevitable for anyone who sticks with it long enough. It doesn’t mean anything about reality, though: it just means the human brain can play all kinds of neat tricks on us.

 

[Newsy]

Most Biblical scholars have long determined that at least two of the Gospel authors (Matthew and Luke) were likely working from an earlier source, the so-called Q source, and it is widely thought that Matthew and Luke were also working from Mark.

EDIT: I should add that scholars come to these conclusions by comparing the texts and seeing very similar language present in them – similar enough that they can conclude that they were likely borrowing from a common source.

Ok, so that’s 2 or 3 of the 27 books. And we are still yet to produce a copy of the theoretical “Q source”. Not saying it doesn’t exist, but Q is just a theory. The commonality of the 27 New Testament books far outweighs the “differences” you were alluding to.

Well, in the first place, no one is asserting that they “made up” anything: they may have very well sincerely believed that Christ was resurrected and were simply mistaken, or they may have sincerely believed in the teachings of Christ and embellished on the stories (and thus they were willing to die for Christ’s teachings or for the memory of their friend), or they may have realized that simple recantation probably wouldn’t have saved their lives – since they were likely going to be executed as political radicals no matter what – so that they decided that the most honorable death would be to go down affirming the convictions they lived for, or the stories of the Apostles’ martyrdom – which exists mainly in Church tradition and not really in any independent sources – may also have been exaggerated, embellished, or otherwise made into a legend.
Or any combination of the above, or other possibilities.
It’s a mistake to present the scenario as a simple dichotomy: either the stories are completely true or the Apostles are completely lying! There are many more options.

Secular histories from the first and second centuries agree that there was persecution of the Early Church. There is much historical agreement, outside the Church, concerning first century martyrdom. I am saying that with widespread persecution, if there was embellishments or “stories” they would have come to light. The idea that any died in “memory of their friend” certainly doesn’t describe human nature when faced with death. This still doesn’t explain why there were so many conversions to a faith that was persecuted.
OK, I’m done derailing this thread. Sorry

 

[Robert_in_SD]

…I can think of some good reasons that individuals might want to be religious…

I can add one other; Reasoning to a conclusion that is consistent with faith in God, and a Church founded by that God.

NonServiam:

But true? There’s really not a good reason for thinking that.

Well,… you may want to consider the classical theistic proofs listed below, and discussed in great detail here:

•Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
•For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
•The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
•The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
•The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
To these many Theists add other arguments:
•the common consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument),
•from the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument, or
•from the existence and perception of beauty in the universe (the aesthetical argument).

NonServiam:

As other posters said, you can try asking God to reveal himself to you…

Certainly, a sincere request to the God of the universe to reveal to one where the truth can be found is a petition that has been answered more than once. But you should couple that prayer with reason.

NonServiam:

Honestly, if I ever started hearing voices or seeing white lights, my first thought would… be, “I need to get to a doctor!”

Certianly, one should test all things, and try to determine the source.

NonServiam:

Obviously, those are good things, but you don’t need religion to keep a perspective on life and to be glad that you have the things you have.

I suggest that one consider religion as a source for much more. Christianity, and in particular the Catholic faith, provides a framework for living a life close to a personal and loving God. That relationship goes well beyond the sophomoric understanding of religious life that is displayed by skeptics.

[N]
o matter how many contradictions one can find in a religion’s doctrines or holy book – and the Bible is chock-full of contradictions, both internal and external…

You’re the second person on this thread to make such a claim; and the second person to offer no specifics in support.

NonServiam:

– the true believers always have an answer to explain away the contradiction and make the whole thing internally consistent.

If the answer is that there is no real contradiction, and it is logically correct and well-reasoned, why should that bother a person who is sincerely seeking truth? Why should a sincere seeker seem so bothered about the fact that apparent (and as yet undisclosed) contradictions are reconcilable?

[C]
onsistency isn’t sufficient to determine that an idea is true.

That’s not an argument that Catholics will make in support of Scripture’s divine inspiration. Rather, consistency arguments respond to challenges that contradictions exist in scripture.

NonServiam:

For example, I could, if I wanted to, write a long book with a complicated story…

To make your analogy consistent, you would first need to establish a history in which you acted as such, and were accepted as such by a large following who suffered incredible persecutions because of their acceptance of your claim of divinity. Early Christians did not believe Christ’s claims because of the Scriptures. The Scriptures were written and compiled by a community that already believed. This is a poor analogy.

NonServiam:

That right there ought to tell you that even if someone can argue that the Bible is internally consistent… it still wouldn’t… demonstrat[e] its claims are true.

You are attacking a circular argument. The Catholic argument in support of the inspired authenticity of Scripture is not circular. It is a spiral argument that is restated in the attached article linked here.

NonServiam:

That’s why it’s a waste of time to try to ask the true believers about contradictions because there’s always an answer that (attempts to) resolve the contradiction.

If the argument attempts - but fails - it seems that would be worth a skeptic’s time to debunk. If the argument attempts - and succeeds - that also seems like it would be something to be conceded by the skeptic, to narrow the issues of contention.

NonServiam:

Anyway, I sense from your tone… …good luck to you.

I sense from your tone a deep-seated skepticism and thinly veiled contempt for anyone who would accept the claim that God exists, and that He founded a Church. But there are great thinkers in history that reasoned their way to the opposite conclusion - some of them were even Catholics. You may want to consider them. Or, if you already are aware of them, give their reasons a second look.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Trebor135]

I have – I don’t find any of it even remotely close to sufficient to accept a claim of that magnitude.

How so? What kind of evidence are you looking for?

I guess if your only concern were to avoid punishment, you could do that – though I think the list of potential gods and potential punishments is still pretty vast – but I thought the point here was to discover the truth.

If Buddhism is true, but one won’t face any negative afterlife consequences from believing a different (false) religion, one would still be believing in a false religion.

The point, I thought, would be to discover truth, not just to avoid punishment and look out for number one. If the point is to discover truth, then one has to give equal consideration to every religion and ever god concept. Choosing only one – or only a handful – of god concepts to test indicates that the person doing the testing has already come to the determination of which one is true or likely true, and that’s not a neutral way to approach the search for truth.

Yes. But if one can safely rule out Christianity, Islam, and any other faiths according to which knowing denial thereof will land an individual in hell, one can move on to investigate the other religions out there–or simply remain agnostic.

As I said, since all of them can be explained away by the faithful, I consider discussing them to be a waste of time. The issue isn’t whether it’s internally consistent but whether it’s true.

Then making a big fuss over this is pointless, since you haven’t provided, and refuse to offer, concrete examples.

You’re forgetting also that many people who wrote the Bible knew the parts that came before: it’s not really that hard to stay consistent with a story when you know the previous parts of a story.

True.

And any contradictions that arise are just explained away. Presto-changeo!

See above.

Off the top of my head, I’m not completely sure since I’ve never encountered anything that’s convinced me of any of those claims. But if there is a God – and if this God is all-knowing, as many people claim – then this God already knows exactly what would convince me, even if I don’t.

If all of that is the case, then for some reason or another, this God hasn’t provided me with the evidence that he knows would convince me.

I must say, despite your unwelcome generally-condescending tone, I understand your frustration.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Off the top of my head, I’m not completely sure since I’ve never encountered anything that’s convinced me of any of those claims. But if there is a God – and if this God is all-knowing, as many people claim – then this God already knows exactly what would convince me, even if I don’t.

If all of that is the case, then for some reason or another, this God hasn’t provided me with the evidence that he knows would convince me.

If the true God is the God of Scripture, then we know that he saves by grace through faith (though not faith alone), which is itself a gift from Him. That being the case, we know God would not manifest proof of His existence in a “convincing” way, because such a disclosure would negate any need for faith at all. I hear your frustration. I understand where you are. I was there for several years myself. I consider it some small proof of God’s grace in your life that you are still asking the hard questions. The reality is that all religions - as well as the denial of all religions - requires stepping out in faith.

Peace,
Robert

 

[jmoneyideas]

I was raised a catholic and haven’t gone to church regularily in a long time. I went to a catholic school until 5th grade and it was pretty awful. Anyways, I can’t really think of any compelling reasons to be religious other than it is a healthy thing to help keep things in perspective in life, and be thankful for what I have in life. I’m a freshman in college right now and that would also be a road block. I don’t think I could ever take the catholic religion seriously because I don’t think it’s possible that someone knew all of the answers so many thousands of years ago and science can put so many things in question in the bible blah blah blah. Just some random thoughts.

Here is what one must come to grips with, The act of obeying the word of God is sometimes described as a “Genuflection of the Will”;“I may not fully comprehend the mystery of what you are saying,God,but in humility & recognizing my own limitation, I will accept your word”.

Genuflection means to bend the knee or touch one knee to the floor in reverence or worship… Some times we must bend our thought process and understand that there is more out there. The Bible may seem Blah blah to you but if you read it and move back the barriers in your mind you may find that most of the answers are there… The great thing about the Catholic Church is that it embraces science so there are answers to be found for you if you can bend your will a little bit and be open minded to the Word of GOD.

 

[NonServiam]

Ok, so that’s 2 or 3 of the 27 books.

I was specifically addressing the claim that the Gospels were all produced independently and yet are consistent: I was pointing out that we have reason to think that the Gospels may have drawn on common sources or that some Gospel writers had access to Gospels that were written earlier.

Secular histories from the first and second centuries agree that there was persecution of the Early Church.

Certainly, but since the argument was “No one would die for a lie,” we’re only talking about the small handful of people who could have possibly known Christ.

I’m saying that there are many more possible reasons that these people might have given their lives, other than outright committing a fraud, including the possibility that they and their deaths were embellished, legend-ized, and otherwise mythologized by church history.

 

[NonServiam]

I hear your frustration.

But not frustration out of wanting to believe in “God” – believe me, unlike some atheists who wish that they could believe in God, I’m quite happy that there’s not enough evidence for the claim – no, what you’re picking up on is frustration at some of these arguments, which come up in these conversations time and time again.

The reality is that all religions - as well as the denial of all religions - requires stepping out in faith.

Well, you’re wrong on this point. Not accepting religions requires no faith at all.

The default position is not to accept claims unless and until there’s some compelling evidence for them. I don’t consider any of the evidence I’ve heard for the existence of “God” to be anywhere near sufficient to convince me of such a claim, certainly not those laughable “logical” proofs – which “prove” nothing more than a person’s ability to play word games.

I’m not trying to be “condescending” or anything like that – I’m just honestly responding to points raised by others.

 

[TarkanAttila]

NonServiam, there is a distinct difference between Christianity and (almost?) all other religions. While all religions are based on events believed to have happened, only one of these is based on a supernatural act which was, at the times of writing, a current event.

Islam and Mormonism are based on the perceived visions of one man - Mohammed and Joseph Smith respectively - and the theology and Scripture of another extant religion, Christianity.

Hinduism and other forms of classical paganism are based on myths that, true or not, occurred thousands of years BEFORE they were written down.

The Torah, and even the early Historical writings suffer from this, too. The Wisdom writings, of course is universal. However, the (Four) Books of Kings and Paralipomenon and almost every deuterocanonical book and prophetic book can be traced back to about the time the events written in those books occurred.

Considering when each book (or section of a book) was written, the consistency with history - for example, the prophets predicting things which did happen soon after both historically and scripturally - is remarkable. Isaias’s prediction of the crushing of Israel under the bootheel of the Assyrians; Daniel’s predicition that Babylon would be superseded by Persia; the predictions which can be traced to Christ…

Speaking of Christ, He is the crux of the matter. The New Testament was, according to most scholars, about 3/4 written by about 70 AD. Only perhaps 2nd Peter, James, the epistles, Gospel, and Apocalypse of John had not yet been written, and perhaps a few other letters. But all of Paul’s letters were, and 3 of 4 Gospels, only 40 years after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ to Heaven.

Here is why that is important: the Gospels and the Epistles attest to a then-current, and public, event. Christ was publicly crucified during Passover, one of the busiest times of the year, in the biggest city in Palestine, Jerusalem. Three days later He rose from the dead, in the same large city, and there were probably still many people in Jerusalem (Passover is a week-long festival). Many people saw Him dragged up to Calvary and killed. Many would also have seen Him, alive and well, only days after His body had been turned to a battered, bloody pulp - and not just the Apostles.

How could the Apostles make up the Resurrection and not be made laughingstocks in Jerusalem and all of Israel? If they wouldn’t have been killed, surely the Jews who saw Jesus crucified would have said “They are deluded with grief; they have gone mad”.

It would be one thing if Christianity had been coined 100 or 200 years after Christ supposedly rose from the dead. But the writings came much earlier than that. Much too early. Their story - based on a public, recent event, would not have survived 40 years if it was a lie.

 

[NonServiam]

How could the Apostles make up the Resurrection and not be made laughingstocks in Jerusalem and all of Israel?

Who says that they weren’t?

If they wouldn’t have been killed, surely the Jews who saw Jesus crucified would have said “They are deluded with grief; they have gone mad”.

Again, you don’t think that contemporaries of the early Christians – and especially the people who persecuted the early Christians – didn’t think that they were nuts and just another kooky Messiah cult, of which there were many at the time?

Their story - based on a public, recent event, would not have survived 40 years if it was a lie.

I’m not so sure about this. There are still people out there who fervently believe that they have seen Elvis after his death, and it’s only been about 40 or 50 years. There are still plenty more who believe all kinds of weird myths about Elvis’ life, including the myth that he didn’t do drugs.

If such twisted and convoluted beliefs about a pop start can spring up after only a few decades, imagine the kinds of stories that could spring up about a charismatic cult leader who had fanatical followers.

Again, I’m not asserting that “The Apostles were all liars!” but I am asserting that the situation is not quite as simple as you’re trying to make it out to be: it’s very far from a necessary conclusion that the unlikely myth of Christ’s resurrection actually happened as written.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I’m not so sure about this. There are still people out there who fervently believe that they have seen Elvis after his death, and it’s only been about 40 or 50 years. There are still plenty more who believe all kinds of weird myths about Elvis’ life, including the myth that he didn’t do drugs.

Joseph Smith and his buddies said they saw the Book of Mormon, Mormon Jesus and Nephi, etc. Mohammed claimed he saw the Angel Gabriel IIRC. I would place Elvis sightings, sasquatch and yeti sightings and UFO sightings into this category with Mohammed and Smith: dubious, at best, because only a few people in isolated incidents saw these things happen.

I also question the relevance of any of these things - especially, good Heavens, ELVIS sightings - because even if they should be true, they serve a far different purpose from the Resurrection of Christ. Christ’s serves to show what the Pharisees always believed, but never had confirmed: the existence of angels, and the resurrection of the body. And of course, it served to demonstrate that, as He claimed, He was God. I don’t recall Elvis ever claiming such a thing, except perhaps of Rock and Roll.

But back to the issue of Jesus’s apparitions. The apostles (all 11 of them) DID see the Risen Jesus all at the same time on several occasions. And Matthew records that guards were set up to guard the tomb and make sure no one stole the body and then proclaimed he’d been resurrected. These guards were later paid to say that the Body was stolen from the tomb by the Apostles according to Matt 28:11-15. (More on that in this article.

Ruminating a bit on this, how could they proclaim Christ resurrected if the tomb still had its tombstone? The rolled-away stone with the empty tomb is good evidence of one of two things: either the miracle Christ had predicted came to pass, or somehow the Apostles rolled away an incredibly heavy and difficult to move tombstone and disposed of the body.

But why would the disciples steal Jesus’s body and discard it, only to proclaim He had risen from the dead? What would they have to gain? Further, how would they get rid of the body without someone stumbling upon it eventually? I believe stealing the body and disposing of it would have been an act of insanity on their parts. As if moving the tombstone wouldn’t have been a Herculean effort, disposing of the body in a foolproof manner would have been impossible.

 

[Angela77]

I also didn’t go to church regularly for a long time. I’ve just started going regularly about a year ago. I never went to a Catholic school, but I went through all the typical religious education classes, 1st grade to 10th grade.

Why be religious? Well, I’ve just always felt happier and more positive since attending Mass regularly. I like knowing that God is always there for me, no matter how alone I feel. My life just feels fuller this way. It isn’t really something I can put into words. I also like the friends that you make going to a parish. It’s like a home away from home.

I think that a lot of scientific findings actually work out alright with Church teachings. Instead of believing that scientific principles guide the universe, you can think of it that God created the scientific principles that guide the universe. Naturally, not everything in the Bible works out with science, but that isn’t any reason to give up on the Catholic Church. Honestly, there are things I question too, like where does evolution put Adam and Eve? And how could we possibly know what it was like that long ago. There was no way to record anything at that time because written languages probably didn’t exist. But, the way I see it, I agree with far more things than I question, so I like Catholicism. Plus, perhaps some day my viewpoint will change and I will decide I actually agree with certain things I used to disagree with.

Good luck!!!

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thanks to all for participating
Thread closed