Why is Catholicism the Correct Faith?

[VociMike]

Of course I do not have proof for how the existence of the universe came about, otherwise we wouldn’t even be in this argument today. My alternative is that either life somehow came from non-living matter (look it up on wikipedia to learn more about it), and/or there is something humans are completely unable to perceive/comprehend, the latter being the more likely. Naturally, God would be something that humans cannot comprehend, yet there are still 2 billion people out there who truly “know” he exists. What I’m saying is I’m admitting I do not have proof for my beliefs, yet they are far more plausible, reasonable, and likely than a fantasy thing that conveniently says humans have a purpose (thus being one of the many reasons people prefer Christianity to other religions).

Why are your unprovable beliefs more plausible, reasonable and likely? What evidence do you have? And, BTW, the question was not about life, but about the existence of the entire universe. Where did the non-living matter come from, and the energy, and the laws which it all obeys?

Your biases give you away when you say you have no proof, but your beliefs are more plausible, reasonable and likely. That is, you will have to admit, a nonsensical response.

I am atheist/agnostic (the terms have commonly overlapped, so I simply group them together. once again check wikipedia for more info on em), and I do not believe there is a God, but I am not denying the possibility. It would be hypocritical for me to say definitely there is no God. Anything’s possible.

And yet I suspect that you don’t live as though God is possible. I suspect you live as though there were no qestion that God does not exist. You are living a belief system. But you have no proof for your belief system. A true agnostic might very well live as though God existed, but I’ve never met one who did.

Why do I make that assertion? Because if one does not know if God exists, one has to weigh the possible outcomes. No God means nothing after death, but Yes God means eternal joy or eternal grieving. Now when the stakes are that high (on both the positive and negative sides) then a thinking agnostic would be quite right to behave as if there were a God, and try to conform himself to that God’s will. If the agnostic is right, then there is a great possibility of eternal joy. If the agnostic is wrong, then so what? What’s the big loss? But if the agnostic behaves as if there were no God and is wrong, there is a great possibility of eternal grief. Given those outcomes, every agnostic should behave as though God existed. But none of them do. Why not, if they are truly agnostic?

I feel that if God is reading this right now and understands my beliefs, then it would be illogical for Him to have a reason for sending me to Hell. The whole purpose of creating a religion around the basic morals of all living creatures is so that people have a “driving force” to believe. In other words, threatening people that they will be burned for all eternity is a good way to get them to believe. If God is “person” of morals, and if I continue living my life abiding by many of the morals of the Catholic church, then I shouldn’t be sent to Hell. If God exists, I do not believe He could send me to burn for eternity.

Again, I get the impression you’ve picked up notions of fire and brimstone from the fundamentalist world (America is mostly Protestant, not Catholic), and assumed that they are Catholic notions. In fact, if you truly do strive to live out God’s law written in your heart, then you may indeed have hope of salvation. But you can never have the assurance of the promises that God has made to those who believe.

The fact that proof of God doesn’t exist is reason enough not to believe.

And yet you believe one or more alternatives to God without having any proof for any of them. You seem to be willing to believe in anything without proof, except in God. Can you see how inconsistent this is?

The bottom line is that everybody lives out one belief or another. Regardless of what they may say, every person either lives as though there is a God, or lives as though there is no God. When it comes to actually living one’s life, there are no agnostics, only believers (in practice) that God does exist, and believers (in practice) that He does not. And if the one has not been proven, neither has the other. So atheists are every bit as guilty of believing without proof as they accuse religious believers of being.

 

[evilkingln3]

The punishment of Hell is not fire, it is being separated from God. Again, if you choose to be separated from God all your life, why would you want to be with God in the afterlife?

Heaven has God. Hell does not. When you say you choose heaven (God), but you also choose not to believe in God, that’s a contradiction.

???

What the heck? The Bible says MANY times that Hell is punishment of fire. You compared to most people should know that:

And being in torments in Hades … he cried and said ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’" (Luke 16:23-24)

“And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46)

“And then He will say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” (Matthew 25:41)

AND the absolute most relevant one:::

And anyone not found in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)

And I think that it is an accepted belief that Godlessness creates the evil in Hell, and Satan chooses to do as he will by making Hell be horrid. But nonetheless, a previous poster stated that Hell is not a punishment, and I didnt think I needed evidence but there it is above, and you (the first quoted) specifically stated “The punishment of Hell is not fire.” So do you not understand your Bible? Do you ignore parts of it to fit your needs just like how you ignore the literal stated evil within the Bible?

 

[evilkingln3]

Quote:
The fact that proof of God doesn’t exist is reason enough not to believe.

And yet you believe one or more alternatives to God without having any proof for any of them. You seem to be willing to believe in anything without proof, except in God. Can you see how inconsistent this is?

The bottom line is that everybody lives out one belief or another. Regardless of what they may say, every person either lives as though there is a God, or lives as though there is no God. When it comes to actually living one’s life, there are no agnostics, only believers (in practice) that God does exist, and believers (in practice) that He does not. And if the one has not been proven, neither has the other. So atheists are every bit as guilty of believing without proof as they accuse religious believers of being.

Now we’re getting to the root of things. Science does not yet have an answer, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED theory as to where we came from is The Big Bang, and the only possible thing that we can detect before that is that it is possible the Universe has constantly been expanding and contracting from being a massive universe and then into a point of infinite density. I’m not satisfied with this theory, yet we still have evidence of it. We can calculate what happened something like a millionth of a second after the big bang happened, and we know that there is radiation stuff that exists from the Big Bang that is everywhere (thats part of the static you hear on radios). The mistake your making is assuming that I supposedly “know” the truth behind everything is the Big Bang and I ignore everything else. Christians seem to never state that it is possible there might not be a God, while I state it is possible that neither God exists and that the Big Bang is oversimplified.

I’m not saying mine’s right, I never did, but who are you to say that yours is? You can’t prove it, yet you “know” it? That’s the same argument psychics have made for thousands of years; they argue that only they can understand their powers. It is not proof of existence if you’ve somehow made the circular logic flow perfectly in your head, and also, someone stated before that simple logic dictates God is real::: No. Do I really need to explain why?

 

[VociMike]

Now we’re getting to the root of things. Science does not yet have an answer, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

Actually, science does not claim, and has never claimed, that it can discover why the universe (it’s matter, energy, laws) exists. To expect science to provide such answers is to go beyond science’s own understanding of what it is capable of.

THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED theory as to where we came from is The Big Bang, and the only possible thing that we can detect before that is that it is possible the Universe has constantly been expanding and contracting from being a massive universe and then into a point of infinite density. I’m not satisfied with this theory, yet we still have evidence of it. We can calculate what happened something like a millionth of a second after the big bang happened, and we know that there is radiation stuff that exists from the Big Bang that is everywhere (thats part of the static you hear on radios).

It is true that we believe we understand quite a bit about the Big Bang, as early as 10^-43 seconds after it began. But that is not the same as knowing why there was a Big Bang, where it came from. Your mistake is assuming that describing how certain things act (the realm of science) is the same as explaining why they exist, and why they act as they do (science has nothing to say about this).

You also hinted at the possibility of an infinite sequence of universes above. That is a common approach to eliminate the need for God and to explain the incredible degree to which this universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem with infinite universes is that it is an hypothosis that, in attempting to eliminate God, results in God! For in a truly infinite series of universes, there will be one such universe where a being with exactly the attributes of God appears!

So every choice results in God. If this is the only universe, then explaining the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe requires God. If there have been infinite universes then the Big Bang and fine-tuning may be explained, but infinite universes results in God. Heads God exists, tails God exists.

The mistake your making is assuming that I supposedly “know” the truth behind everything is the Big Bang and I ignore everything else. Christians seem to never state that it is possible there might not be a God, while I state it is possible that neither God exists and that the Big Bang is oversimplified.

But as I said, you (and every person) can only live your life one way or the other. You can only live your life as if God exists, or as if He does not. So even though you say you don’t know, you live as though you do. Your belief in the non-existence of God shows in the way you live your life. Saying “but I can’t be sure” doesn’t change the fact that you live as though you were sure. For if there were even the slightest possibility in your mind that God existed, you would live differently. If there were even the slightest possibility that eternal joy or eternal grief awaited you after death, you would live quite differently than if you were absolutely certain that only oblivion awaited you. So which is it in your case? Which option affects how you live your life?

I’m not saying mine’s right, I never did,

But you are saying this, by the way you live your life. Because any rational person when presented with even the slight possibility of eternal joy or eternal grief would alter their behavior and outlook to accomodate that possibility. Does your behavior and outlook accomodate that possibility?

but who are you to say that yours is? You can’t prove it, yet you “know” it? That’s the same argument psychics have made for thousands of years; they argue that only they can understand their powers. It is not proof of existence if you’ve somehow made the circular logic flow perfectly in your head, and also, someone stated before that simple logic dictates God is real::: No. Do I really need to explain why?

As I asked earlier, present some alternatives that actually eliminate the need for God, and we can discuss the relative merits of the alternatives. But first you must provide alternatives that truly explain everything. Until you can provide such alternatives, we can’t really have a discussion. If God is the only explanation for everything, then logically we all must accept the existence of God! Only when there are other equally explanatory alternatives is it reasonable to reject the existence of God in favor of one of these alternatives.

So, to restate the requirement, you need to provide at least one alternative to God that explains everything that “God exists” explains. Then we can compare and choose.

And I would also be curious to hear from you whether you live your life as though the possibility of eternal joy or eternal grief existed, and if not, why not.

 

[ricmat]

???

What the heck? The Bible says MANY times that Hell is punishment of fire. You compared to most people should know that:

And I think that it is an accepted belief that Godlessness creates the evil in Hell, and Satan chooses to do as he will by making Hell be horrid. But nonetheless, a previous poster stated that Hell is not a punishment, and I didnt think I needed evidence but there it is above, and you (the first quoted) specifically stated “The punishment of Hell is not fire.” So do you not understand your Bible? Do you ignore parts of it to fit your needs just like how you ignore the literal stated evil within the Bible?

From the CCC, paragraph 1035 - “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

The “fires of hell” are a metaphor used to describe the literal anguish of separation from God.

My main point is that Hell is not a punishment like going to prison, imposed by authority, which most people would not voluntarily do. Hell is a place where people go merrily and happily of their own accord, and as another poster mentioned, when they get there they close the door themselves and lock it behind them.

 

[eliasaph99]

The following quote begins in the middle of a paragraph.

Do they go to Hell? Why would God create them in the first place? Why did God purposely create us, and since he created everything, how does he get the right to throw me in Hell? He would have to be the worst thing ever to exist if He throws me to Hell when I die because I live a life of honesty and I respect the morals set by the church, I simply don’t believe in the church! He created my mind, my thoughts, what I’m saying right now, and where I’m destined to go!

This particular argument never fails to mystify me.

Look at what is bolded above. In one sentence, the author has managed to be completely logically inconsistent. This statement alone peels back the veneer over the general arrogance of humanity and shows exactly why God may be displeased with us.

Before I refute this, I want to clarify what I’m arguing exactly. I believe in God and am Catholic, but I am not presenting this argument as proof of God. Nor do I believe that God has the attributes which I am about to suggest. However, the premise of my argument follows naturally from belief in a monotheistic creator God.

If a monotheistic creator God exists and created you, then you have no more right to exist before this God than a chair I built in my garage has to exist before me. If I am unhappy with the chair, I have every right to destroy it. It is mine. I fashioned it from planks. It has no right to exist separate from me. It continues to exist only at my pleasure and I can whimsically decide at any time that I don’t want it any longer. This is how a human is before God. He is His creation, existing only because of Gods continuing sustaining force.

I want to point out again, that the argument above is a bare bones argument. It says nothing about the actual character of God or how he actually behaves towards us. It only clarifies our standing in front of God, once we accept the premise that God exists.

Now lets move on. The author is suggesting in the underlined sentence that he is living a life in accordance with the morals of the Church. So, I want to ask him if this is really true.

Have you ever fornicated?

used birth control?

lied?

stolen?

had or participated in an abortion?

If you have done any of these things, afterwards have you sought to make some kind of restitution for them? Some penance for your wrongdoing?

And that’s just for starters…

Now, I want to make a point about many of the statements which the author has made in this thread in general.

It is apparent to me, and I’m sure to many others, that you know next to nothing about Catholic theology. It is much more complex and deep than the straw men which you are setting up here. It cannot be knocked down by the arguments which you are making. Mainly because the arguments you are making are not against things which it has asserted, but rather things which other Christian groups have asserted.

In another thread, a poster made the excellent point that much of the damage that the myriad of denominations has done to Christianity is that something asserted by some small group is attributed by some people to all of Christianity. Then, frequently, because Catholicism is the largest group, we end up having to explain that we do not believe what has been asserted and that Christians in general do not believe it, before we can even get to what we do believe.

I suggest that you research and learn about Catholic Theology. Perhaps you should actually read Aquinas, or a commentary on Aquinas, to understand some of how the Church at large arrives at its conclusions. I think it would greatly help you to read a Papal Encyclical like Lumen Gentium.

In doing this, I think that you will find that Catholic Theology is much deeper and more well thought out than you could ever have imagined it to be. It is not where the cowering and fearful have run for shelter from that which they do not understand, but instead it is where many gifted minds and deep hearts have arrived after pondering all the alternatives.

P.S. Stay away from evilbible.com. It is the atheistic equivalent of a fundamentalist christian site raving that all the world is damned to hell. There is not a single, actual, rational argument on the entire site. It is all emotion and ridicule and you would be foolish to base any serious conclusions on it.

 

[evilkingln3]

From the CCC, paragraph 1035 - “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

The “fires of hell” are a metaphor used to describe the literal anguish of separation from God.

My main point is that Hell is not a punishment like going to prison, imposed by authority, which most people would not voluntarily do. Hell is a place where people go merrily and happily of their own accord, and as another poster mentioned, when they get there they close the door themselves and lock it behind them.

What evidence/proof do you have to suggest that Hell does not contain fire? Who are you to decide that it is a metaphor? I’m sorry, but you cannot do that, most especially with the Bible. If you say such a thing, then I could just as easily say that God is a metaphor for our conciousness of morals (which would kinda make sense). But, I will say, by your description of Hell, it doesn’t sound all that bad.

 

[VociMike]

What evidence/proof do you have to suggest that Hell does not contain fire? Who are you to decide that it is a metaphor? I’m sorry, but you cannot do that, most especially with the Bible. If you say such a thing, then I could just as easily say that God is a metaphor for our conciousness of morals (which would kinda make sense). But, I will say, by your description of Hell, it doesn’t sound all that bad.

Fire is a material thing. The soul is not.

 

[evilkingln3]

If God is the only explanation for everything, then logically we all must accept the existence of God!

Truly excellent, for the first time ever that has made me question my beliefs. I choose not to believe in God because I find Him impossible, AND I do not feel it would be morally correct to believe in something because it is the “only” choice (I believe the true and full answers are out there, still undiscovered, and they will come in time).

I would like to close this thread now, for I am getting tired of arguing. It is unknown what the future holds for me, perhaps someday I shall revert over to Christianity, though I don’t find that likely (i spent the first 2/3 of my life going to church, a catholic school, and for a brief time I even went to sunday school). I entered this forum for the sake of learning more about Christianity, because the only way for me to argue it is to “understand” it better. What I learned most is that it is the basic beliefs that divide us (such as I finding God impossible, you believing him possible; I feel it is an easy explanation for reality due to the fact that every society, even the cannibalistic tribes on islands, has created God(s) of their own, and you feel it is all part of the goodness of God etc etc.).

To all, I wish that in time both Atheists become more open-minded and as do Christians. I feel that people don’t wish to admit the other side has a good argument in nearly any circumstance, thus being the reason why getting people to convert is difficult. Proof of this is how I complimented certain ideas/explanations of your side even if I had my own explanation for them, and not once did I ever notice you do that.

Live life and enjoy it, because it could be your only one. Thanks for your time,

Ben

 

[evilkingln3]

P.S.:

Have you ever fornicated?

used birth control?

lied?

stolen?

had or participated in an abortion?

If you have done any of these things, afterwards have you sought to make some kind of restitution for them? Some penance for your wrongdoing?

As for the answer to those questions, the only ones I have ever done is lied and stolen, both confessed for when I used to go to church. That is the honest truth.

 

[VociMike]

I would like to close this thread now, for I am getting tired of arguing. It is unknown what the future holds for me, perhaps someday I shall revert over to Christianity, though I don’t find that likely

Come back any time, you’ll be welcome.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Catholicism is the correct faith because it is the oldest of Christian faiths. All the other Christian faiths in the world today broke away from the Catholic faith, and therefore have a greater or lesser element of truth depending on how far they went in rejecting the Church.

The only alternative is to say that a later faith takes precedence of an earlier one. What authority would later faiths have for overturning the original faith? Christ surely never wanted there to be thousands of different versions of Christianity. If the Catholic faith went wrong, it is for Protestants to say exactly when it went wrong. What century and for what reason? But if Protestants want to argue that the earliest Church (Catholic) could go wrong, why shouldn’t later churches also go wrong?

As they surely have since they can’t all be right teaching all those contradictory doctrines…

 

[crmcfl]

Bye, Ben and God bless. You’ll be in my prayers.

One thing to consider - the possibility that God led you here, to us. When you were baptized you were given grace and that grace goes with you, God’s love goes with you. He is calling you to learn more about Him now. Both Catholic Answers and EWTN have tons of radio programs on just about any subject you want to explore.

Please continue to read, to learn, and ask God what He wants you to know about Him. If he doesn’t exist, you won’t get an answer. But if He does, your life could change forever in wonderful ways that you can’t even imagine right now.

 

[Faith1960]

Then why did most of His very first followers allow themselves to be brutally killed rather than deny Him? Who allows themselves to be killed for a made-up story?

If the early, persecuted Christians were all living a lie, what was the point? There were plenty of “safe” religions to practice in the Roman Empire. Why endure the daily risk of persecution, imprisonment and death?

If you believe that Jesus existed but all the “important” stories about Him were made up, the burden falls upon you to explain why He attracted so many followers who went to their (usually gruesome) deaths.

To tie this in with the thread I started last night about cults being featured on The History Channel, one could argue that the people who followed Jesus were cultists who were fooled into believing untruths and those beliefs led to their persecution, imprisonment and deaths.

 

[VociMike]

To tie this in with the thread I started last night about cults being featured on The History Channel, one could argue that the people who followed Jesus were cultists who were fooled into believing untruths and those beliefs led to their persecution, imprisonment and deaths.

But they wrote about Jesus’ miracles. Did they make that up? Sure, one could make up stories about miracles, but those who made up the stories wouldn’t die for the stories. Most of the New Testament writers were killed, and those who were not killed were persecuted.

 

[Faith1960]

They found St. Peter’s bones in a crypt under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome (in the 1930s, I believe). He had all the markings of being crucified upside down just as tradition records it. So we have his bones, we have his writings. Did he make it all up so that he could be crucified?

Have you ever read this? It certainly made me think and do a lot of questioning. I need to read and research further.
sxws.com/charis/relics10.htm

 

[Faith1960]

But they wrote about Jesus’ miracles. Did they make that up? Sure, one could make up stories about miracles, but those who made up the stories wouldn’t die for the stories. Most of the New Testament writers were killed, and those who were not killed were persecuted.

No, I don’t think they made anything up, I do think they believed what they witnessed. The problem for me is that there are cultists who believe so strongly in their leaders that they too, believe in their miracles or what they’ve told their followers. Cultists have also died for their beliefs in what they witnessed and what they were told by their leaders.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Anyone else wonder what the OP’s screen name means?

Evil King In 3 (Trinity) or am I reading something into it that is not there.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

I entered this forum for the sake of learning more about Christianity, because the only way for me to argue it is to “understand” it better.

No. You entered this forum only to spew forth an anti-Catholic hate rant. Now you have done so, you have nothing more to say. You have said nothing to try to “understand” Christianity better.

 

[eliasaph99]

Have you ever read this? It certainly made me think and do a lot of questioning. I need to read and research further.
sxws.com/charis/relics10.htm

I wouldn’t fret to much over that article. The lack of scholarship of the author is more than evident and the “arguments” he presents for his conclusions he presents with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Also, for a former priest, he has an incredibly poor understanding of Catholic theology.

A Pope would never infallibly declare a particular set of bones to belong to so-and-so. It wouldn’t be a proper use of infallibility and simply wouldn’t occur.

As an example, the apparition at Fatima, is believed, so far as I know, by all the Popes since it was authenticated. It is widely held by Catholics to be true. However, no Catholic is required to believe in it. It is not a universal matter of Faith and Morals for the entire Church.

Neither would the matter of which bones are Peters be a universal matter required for the faithful to believe in. The Pope can certainly use his authority to venerate bones he believes are Peters, but he cannot compel, under force of excommunication, others to believe so.

Basically, based on this misrepresentation of infallibility alone, the article has zero credibility.

My :twocents: