Why is disbelief a sin?

[Redbandito]

"So why should God punish atheists for something they have no control over, of which they are literally innocent?"

You misunderstand Catholic theology here, Bro. God does not punish us for ignorance. God punishes us for willful rejections of Him. We have no way of saying for sure what would happen to the sincere atheist (or any of us for that matter). The sincere atheist that have never been presented with the Gospel in it’s proper form has a different degree of culpability due to His ignorance. God is not arbitrary. We can see this in our own society. Do we not say that people that are mentally retarded may not be given the death penalty? Why? Because they cannot fully, and willfully consent to their action knowingly. In the same way, we believe that God has mercy on those who are ignorant of Him. At the same time, we know that we all are capable of knowing the Natural Law through reason. Thus, the honest atheist, who has lived according to the Natural Law, but never heard the Gospel preached, and thus never rejected it, may indeed be shone mercy by God. It is false to accuse God of arbitrarily condemning people for their ignorance.

Secondly, your question just begs the question: “Are any of us really innocent?”

 

[Marquette]

patg:

This is the kind of discussion that makes life interesting - why commit one’s life to a basic belief if one can’t support it and explain it adequately to someone else? It’s great to have a mature discussion about the basics of religious belief.

It would be one thing to be discussing this with someone who is really searching, but this person is not searching. They are merely trying to “show off” by showing how smart they are and how dumb we are. Eight million posts later, nothing will have changed. I’ve “discussed” with athiests before, and they all have the same arguments.

 

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

The usefulness of the concept of “necessary” existence always eluded me. There is existence, plain and simple. The hairsplitting differentiation of “necessary” and “contingent” existence is just a ploy to muddle the waters. Philosophy is not an esoteric field, though some philosophers try to use long, convoluted sentences with all sorts of artificially created words to hide that fact that they have nothing to say.

I follow Hemingway’s footsteps, and enjoy short, conscise sentences and arguments.

No need to be condescending. I certainly am familiar with philosophy, but I am not a “professional” philosopher and never held it in too high a regard.

Not arbitrary at all. The requirements I demand are on the highest level of certainty. If something can be empirically demonstrated, its existence is beyond questioning. If such a direct demonstration is not possible, one can use the indirect method, and show that the denial of a proposition leads to a logical contradiction - therefore one must accept the proposition on pain of contradiction. This is simply self-evident.

Not all propositions need to be substantiated on this level. In the criminal justice system we employ a much lower standard of “reasonable doubt”. In the civil justice system we employ an even lower standard: “preponderance of evidence”.

All our evaluating processes are subject to some level of certainty we demand in order to accept or reject a proposition. That level of certainty is only subject to our predispositions, already existing beliefs and level of skepticism.

And this is just word game all over again. The methods of “proving” something do not come from a formalized system, they evolved through ages of experimentation, and considered to be axioms.

Though every formalized system has one enormous drawback: there are propositions which are true or false, but this fact cannot be decided within the system. These undecidable propositions cannot be escaped. And of course there are real pains in the back: sentences like “this statement is false”, and these kinds of sentences cannot be assigned a true or false value. Formal systems (like mathematics) are very useful, but we have to be aware of their built-in limitations.

And all that you said here are a bunch of assertions from assumptions with you as the determiner of what is “good enough evidence” or not. How convenient for you.

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

Some references in the Bible indeed have historical correctness, but that is a far cry from saying that everything written in the Bible is historically correct. Can you prove with outside references that God really created the universe in six days? Or that the flood really happened? Or that Jesus was really resurrected? Of course not. These are simply parts of an ancient tale.

No from this it follows that the story is just a myth. According to your argument, the Bible must be taken at face value even without asserting that it is God’s word, so you successfully removed every support from this house of cards.

That does not follow either. Without a mind to percieve it, such laws simply do not exist. Facts yes, gravity yes, sounds yes; justice, beauty, love, music or logic - no.

A myth? All the historical collaboration is to be disregarded? That’s a polite way of saying that it’s all a lie. But who lied? When? With all the witnesses, all the disciples of Jesus, with all the secular historians, it’s not reasonable to assume that the writers got away with making up lies in the full sight of everyone at that time who lived through the events. If they made up a hoax, they were all OK with dying for it…

Kreeft blows apart this “hoax conspiracy” theory in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. I do hope you get a chance to read it.

 

[patg]

Marquette:

Eight million posts later, nothing will have changed.

Seems like that is the same on both sides.

I’ve “discussed” with athiests before, and they all have the same arguments.

And how is that different than discussing with Catholics?

Just as an aside, I’ve read a *lot *of threads on these forms and I can’t remember ever seeing one in which the participants changed their stance (I’m talking about threads in which there is a true difference of opinion, not counting those which just are asking for some piece of data). Look at the multitude of threads on the historical nature of the bible, biblical inerrancy, church music, female servers, evolution, and on and on - in most every one we see nearly endless position-response-rebuttal sequences with no resolution or agreement on the original question. If a new member started a thread on one of these topics today, all the usual participants would respond with all the same arguments and in the end the originator would probably be just as questioning as when they started. That’s all I’m saying - this topic isn’t really any different except that the originator is pretty much standing alone.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

In other words: as concepts?

no - as abstract objects. of course, abstract objects might be divine thoughts (as some argue), but they’re certainly not our thoghts.

though the fact that we do have concepts of abstract objects is good evidence that our mind cannot be solely physical.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

This has been a very interesting thread, and I have to admit that Hitetlen has scored the most points.

First of all because he has kept a very even-keel on his position without resorting to personal attacks or insults; some of which have been hurled at him in frustration. (A very interesting enigma; the atheist has been more “Christian” in his behavior than the Christians.)

I wonder if I can properly express how grateful I am to see your post. Thank you very much for your kind evaluation.

I would like to answer a few points.

First, I do not discard the possibility of God’s existence as unacceptable, I do not believe in him because I have not seen compelling evidence for his existence. So, if sufficient evidence would be provided, I would change my disbelief - not to belief, but to knowledge. I can state that with complete sincerity. So in this respect I disagree with your analysis.

As for your argument that mathematics and science are without love, compassion, caring and all the wonderful attributes you enumerated, I agree with you. Indeed science is amoral, “nature” (if you will) does not care about us (humans) or anything else for that matter. No question about that.

The results of science can be used and abused. There is no such thing as a hammer, which can only be used on nails but not on human heads.

We, as humans can care, and in that sense we complement the “cold” side of nature. Now, we can ask, where did this caring come from? Was it imposed on us by someone from the “outside” (God), or did we evolve in a such a manner because it has helped us in our struggle for survival? Without actual proof for “outside” intervention, Occam’s razor pretty much compels me to say that the evolutionary advantage of “humanistic” behavior is sufficient explanation for these traits. It is true that self-sacrifice, altruism do not seem to have a value for the individual, but some theories actually substantiate that even such “unnatural” traits can and do have survival value, if not for the individual, but for the species.

Thal59:

Hitetlen: you ask if disbelief is a sin? If there is no God, the answer is no. If there is a God, the answer is yes; for nothing can be a sin unless there is a divine authority to sin against.

I would say that if there is a God, then the answer is: “possibly”, depending on what God says about it. Even though I do not believe in God AS this concept is presented in general, I could believe in one with some different characteristics.

To wit: I can believe that a vastly superior being (or beings) with incredible powers and intelligence had played a part in making the universe as it is. (I don’t see a need, but I do not consider it impossible.) Such a being would not be “omnimax”, because those traits are nonsensical. But it (I would not venture to assign a sexual characteristics to it) would not have the traits the God of Christianity is alleged to have: jealousy, petty strong-arm tactics, punishing people eternally (!) some some minor transgressions, giving us certain pleasures (sex) and then demanding those be used in a certain fashion. It would not be concerned if we “worship” it or not. It may even like us, but certainly would not “love” us. Love is an emotion, due to our chemical composition of our brain. We cannot “love” a microbe or an amoeba (for example), the difference is simply too much for such an emotion.

Maybe it would be an experimenter, who gave us certain traits, and is curious to see how we work out. Maybe it created millions of such experiments and wanders around in the universe, periodically checking the results.

All these I can imagine. You may say that it is just a primitive extrapolation of what I feel are the most valuable traits of humanity. Quite possible, I would not deny. But at least these are the extrapolations of some good traits of humanity, not some of the most “uncomplimentary” ones the God of Christianity is supposed to have.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

But it is odd for me to hear someone, from what I perceive to be an intellectual stance, reject the notion of God. If there is no God, then there is no eternal life. One dies and is never heard from again. If there is a God, then there is an eternal life. There is, therefore, intellectually speaking, no reason to accept disbelief and full reason to accept belief. Disbelief offers nothing, belief at least offers the “possibility” of everything. It is not an intelligent decision to accept a stance that offers perpetual non-existence over a stance that offers at least a chance of the continuation of life.

I am not tempted by eternal existence, though I admit I do not wish to die. I would be delighted to have a very long existence, maybe thousands of years, observing and participating in the formation of the future. Of course I would. But the alleged eternal life as portrayed in the Bible is not palatable to me, it sounds much too boring.

Thal59:

Hitetlen, your position, “out of intelligence,” is to accept the stance that leads to the end of the intellect, since the intellect cannot continue without life, over the stance that leads to the continuance of the intellect through the continuance of life.

Well, I accept this end, albeit reluctantly.

Thal59:

Now consider the “Divine Peach.” It is a fruit, that is more than just a source of sustenance. Its color is pleasing to the eye, its aroma is pleasing to the smell, its fuzzy skin is pleasing to the touch, its flavor is pleasing to the taste. If it could hum, it would be perfect!

I did contemplate it. I see no impossibility in your proposal - on the logical scale, but I cannot accept it on prectical grounds. All the beauties you described are unfortunately overbalanced by the negative side of the equation: if God wants us to enjoy the fruits of life, why have a “thorn” next to these fruits (sorry, if I became too poetic )? Why did he allow us to have cancer, leprosy; why did he not regulate the earthquakes and the tornadoes? These are simply incompatible with a being who is as powerful as God is alleged to be, and as loving as God is supposed to be.

Rabbi Kuschner wrote a great book: “When bad things happen to good people”. He contemplated these very questions and correctly arrived at the conclusion that God’s omniscience, omnipotence and love cannot be reconciled with the existing imperfections of the world. He concluded that God must not have at least one of these attributes, and decided that God is not omnipotent. He is loving and knows about the misery of the world, would like to wipe it out, but not powerful enough to do so. I found his analysis refreshingly honest, even though I cannot see a reason to believe in such a God. But, each his own.

Once more, thank you very much for your post.

 

[doomhammer]

Doreen:

I’ll pray for you as you continue your quest for truth.

Please, take your time, and a beer meanwhile, read the whole thread and you are going to realize that there is no “quest for truth” here. The only thing you are going to find here is a persistent denial of reality, reason and common sense.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

The usefulness of the concept of “necessary” existence always eluded me. There is existence, plain and simple. The hairsplitting differentiation of “necessary” and “contingent” existence is just a ploy to muddle the waters. Philosophy is not an esoteric field, though some philosophers try to use long, convoluted sentences with all sorts of artificially created words to hide that fact that they have nothing to say.

well, i don’t understand integral calculus very well, either, but there are still integrals…

making a distinction between necessity and possibility is not just a “ploy” - even quine, arguably the most famous detractor of modal logic, came up with ingenious arguments to make his case, and didn’t simply rely on the claim that the whole enterprise is just misdirection.

you use the concepts of necessity and possibility all the time: they are not artificial.

but i suspect that this is as far as we are going to go on this issue - you don’t have a good argument to refute the legitimacy of modal logic and the concepts it utilizes, so there’s nothing left for me to say.

you know, if you (as you in fact have) presented quantum physics to someone as a reason not to believe in causation, and thus as a reason to reject cosmological arguments and (belief in) the existence of god; and if that person simply said to you “QM is a ploy that muddies the waters”, i can only imagine how you (and every other atheist on this board) would respond…

Hitetlen:

No need to be condescending. I certainly am familiar with philosophy, but I am not a “professional” philosopher and never held it in too high a regard.

no condescension intended - i was simply accounting for my use of words in a way that it became obvious was unfamiliar to you. i apologize if it seemed that way to you.

and you may not hold it in too high a regard, but it’s what you’re almost exclusively doing in these threads - philosophizing.

Hitetlen:

Not arbitrary at all. The requirements I demand are on the highest level of certainty.

what level is that? impossible of being rejected on pain of irrationality? then there’s about three beliefs you’re going to have, and the existence of an extra-mental world isn’t going to be one of them.

Hitetlen:

If something can be empirically demonstrated, its existence is beyond questioning.

wow. can you prove it with “the highest level of certainty”?

Hitetlen:

If such a direct demonstration is not possible, one can use the indirect method, and show that the denial of a proposition leads to a logical contradiction - therefore one must accept the proposition on pain of contradiction. This is simply self-evident.

i would agree that it is self-evident that one should not accept what is obviously self-contradictory, but it is definitely not self-evident that the only legitimate propositions (or “proposals”) must be capable of empirical verification or the self-contradiction of their denials demonstrable.

but whatever. your principle is self-contradictory: if it is true, then it is false (since it is neither empirically verifiable, and its denial is not self-contradictory).

Hitetlen:

Not all propositions need to be substantiated on this level.

right - presumably not your “self-evident” epistemological principle (since it’s self-refuting).

if there is no principled way of determining which propositions need to be supported on what you’re calling “this level”, then any determination you make in that regard is, in fact, arbitrary.

 

[doomhammer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by doomhammer
It is logical to conclude that the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages was stupid enough to believe the absurdity of an existent God.

Hitetlen:

We already went through this a few times, and I asked if Santa Claus’s existence is logical to accept, because millions of children will attest to it, and even offer empirical evidence for his existence. Contemplate it, and give me your answer, if you are so inclined. Your argument still suffers from the fallacy of “agrumentum ad numeram”.

No, my argument is quite different. You are applying here the Santa Claus’ “argumentum ad numeran” to “children”, only a specific group of persons. I’m talking about “the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages”. Here lies a quality difference, it’s not a matter of “number”: it is a matter of what you lack: common sense, reason, wisdom, humility.
“Why is disbelief a sin?” Because of this:
Romans 1, 18-25: “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

 

[adamlsp]

OK Hitetlen, how about this one? Plantinga’s Ontological Argument. It is proving a philosophical concept, which I will refer to as God is we discuss further. It does not prove that this being is the God of the Abrahamic religions, though I believe it to be so.

1. By definition, a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. (Premise)
2. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, it is possible that it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being exists. (By 4 and the necessity of a truth demands its truth.)

S5 is referring to an axiom in the S5 system of modal logic which states that if something is possibly necessarily true then it is necessarilly true. You may have already dealt with this and understand it well. If that is not the case you could easily look it up. The only problem I’ve encountered with this argument is the possibility of a maximally great being. But if a being is not logically contradictory it is at least possible however improbably it may be. Another way of stating possibility is if something can be conceived it is also then possible. Like the concept of a square circle may be impossible because we cannot conceive of it. That is not to say that it cannot be conceived by someone or something of much greater intellectual capacity but that’s beside the point. Conceivable ideas are possible ones despite probability of occurrence. You may say “We cannot conceive of this being,” but mystics do and have conceived of it. It is possibly a limitation of our own intellect if we have not conceived of it. Or it may be the case you have no trouble conceiving this being. OK, so what can you pick out from what I’ve given so far?

I hope you find what you’re looking for,
Adam

P.S. Are you more atheistic or agnostic? And do you not think the arguments for multiverse theory hold? And you also might want to consider Pascal’s wager if this argument does not suffice.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

either an infinite amount has time has elapsed prior to this point, or a finite amount. which one is it?

Since the flow of time depends on the space-time-matter there is no such thing as “time” as an independent variable. The time elapsed between two events is not invariant, it depends on the space-time encompassing them.

The twin-paradox (which is not really a “paradox” just referred to as such) shows that if one of the twins stays on Earth, while the other one travels at a high speed, on return the traveling twin is younger than the one who stayed at home. The value of x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2 * t^2 (where x, y, z are spatial coordinates and t is the time, and c is the speed of light in vacuum) is an invariant for the two twins. Therefore it is not possible to say that a certain invariant “t” time has elapsed between two events: the departure of the spaceship and the arrival of it. It depends on which twin’s subjective time we are going to use.

In a singularity the concept of time is undefined.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

OK Hitetlen, how about this one? Plantinga’s Ontological Argument. It is proving a philosophical concept, which I will refer to as God is we discuss further. It does not prove that this being is the God of the Abrahamic religions, though I believe it to be so.

1. By definition, a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. (Premise)
2. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, it is possible that it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being exists. (By 4 and the necessity of a truth demands its truth.)

S5 is referring to an axiom in the S5 system of modal logic which states that if something is possibly necessarily true then it is necessarilly true. You may have already dealt with this and understand it well. If that is not the case you could easily look it up. The only problem I’ve encountered with this argument is the possibility of a maximally great being. But if a being is not logically contradictory it is at least possible however improbably it may be. Another way of stating possibility is if something can be conceived it is also then possible. Like the concept of a square circle may be impossible because we cannot conceive of it. That is not to say that it cannot be conceived by someone or something of much greater intellectual capacity but that’s beside the point. Conceivable ideas are possible ones despite probability of occurrence. You may say “We cannot conceive of this being,” but mystics do and have conceived of it. It is possibly a limitation of our own intellect if we have not conceived of it. Or it may be the case you have no trouble conceiving this being. OK, so what can you pick out from what I’ve given so far?

I hope you find what you’re looking for,
Adam

P.S. Are you more atheistic or agnostic? And do you not think the arguments for multiverse theory hold? And you also might want to consider Pascal’s wager if this argument does not suffice.

Premise number one is not acceptable, even if one would contemplate the idea of “necessary” existence. The “omnimax” categories are already nonsensical. Besides, why should a maximally great being be benevolent? It could just as easily be malicious or indifferent.

Pascal’s wager just does not cut it. It is merely the expression of wishful thinking. But thank you for your post anyhow. Since I am inundated by posts, I cannot spend as much time on yours as I would like to.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Premise number one is not acceptable, even if one would contemplate the idea of “necessary” existence. The “omnimax” categories are already nonsensical. Besides, why should a maximally great being be benevolent? It could just as easily be malicious or indifferent.

Pascal’s wager just does not cut it. It is merely the expression of wishful thinking. But thank you for your post anyhow. Since I am inundated by posts, I cannot spend as much time on yours as I would like to.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand why you would view these “omnimax” categories as nonsense. Could you explain it to me? And to understand why the being is omnibenevolent and not omnimalevolent you would have to understand evil the way I am considering it. I view evil as emptiness. Evil does not exist of its own right but is ultimately a lacking of what is good. Good is like a full glass of water. Evil is the space between the top of the glass and the water level when the glass is not completely filled. No, I do not mean evil is air. It is just an analogy with limtitations but I hope it helps you understand what I view evil as. This is an old argument from ancient philosophers which you can readily look up if you have not encountered it before. I view all of these omni categories as completeness. We can have power but then we don’t have it all. Like wise with knowledge, presence and goodness. We have but a small fraction of the whole. The definition simply states that this being has the whole.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Oh, and philosophers don’t have a problem with premise one. It’s usually fairly simple to understand, maybe I am poorly defining it for you. This is yet another thing you could look up if I am not an adequate teacher.

Apologies for any misleading words,
Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I’m sorry, I don’t understand why you would view these “omnimax” categories as nonsense. Could you explain it to me? And to understand why the being is omnibenevolent and not omnimalevolent you would have to understand evil the way I am considering it. I view evil as emptiness. Evil does not exist of its own right but is ultimately a lacking of what is good. Good is like a full glass of water. Evil is the space between the top of the glass and the water level when the glass is not completely filled. No, I do not mean evil is air. It is just an analogy with limtitations but I hope it helps you understand what I view evil as. This is an old argument from ancient philosophers which you can readily look up if you have not encountered it before. I view all of these omni categories as completeness. We can have power but then we don’t have it all. Like wise with knowledge, presence and goodness. We have but a small fraction of the whole. The definition simply states that this being has the whole.

Adam

For a being to be the “greatest” it is not necessary to be “omniscient” only more knowledgable than anyone else. Likewise he/she/it does not have to be “omnipotent” only more powerful than anyone else.

For example the tallest human does not have to be of “infinite” height, only taller than the rest. The fattest human does not have to have infinite weight, only more than the others.

However there is no such thing as the “smartest” human being, since there are so many facets of “smartness” that no one can be the at the top for all of them. This is a typical problem of multivariant programming.

I understand your definition of evil, though I don’t share it. Evil is not the lack of good, just like good is not the absence of evil. Inbetween is the concept of indifference. Either way it is not necessary for a “greatest” being to have any of these traits.

I will not even contemplate the idea of “omnipresent” because that is sheer nonsense.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Since the flow of time depends on the space-time-matter there is no such thing as “time” as an independent variable. The time elapsed between two events is not invariant, it depends on the space-time encompassing them.

well, i bet all of the cosmologists (quantum, inflationary, or otherwise) will be astonished to hear that their claims about the age of the universe and the “inital” singularity are meaningless because they involve an illegitimate objectification of the temporal variable…

you’re talking about einstein’s theeory of special relativity; cosmology involves general relativity, according to which it makes perfect sense to talk about the initial singularity.

in fact, it is our current inability to see into the planck era at what the cosmologists call (apparently erroneously) the beginning of the universe that has motivated physicists to come up with a quanization of general relativity (or a relativization of quantum mechanics).

Hitetlen:

In a singularity the concept of time is undefined.

not quite - within the event horizon of a black hole, spacetime is distorted to the point where the temporal and spatial coordinates switch: time becomes space-like and space become time-like (i.e. you can’t help moving toward d=0 ion the same way that you can’t stop passing into the future).

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

For a being to be the “greatest” it is not necessary to be “omniscient” only more knowledgable than anyone else. Likewise he/she/it does not have to be “omnipotent” only more powerful than anyone else.

how do you figure? “maximal” means “not possible that there be more”.

Hitetlen:

For example the tallest human does not have to be of “infinite” height, only taller than the rest. The fattest human does not have to have infinite weight, only more than the others.

the tallest human isn’t maximally tall.

again, “maximal” doesn’t mean “more than anything else”, it means “more than which is impossible”.

Hitetlen:

However there is no such thing as the “smartest” human being, since there are so many facets of “smartness” that no one can be the at the top for all of them. This is a typical problem of multivariant programming.

omniscience has got nothing to do with intelligence: it means possessing maximal knowledge, which in turn means “knowing every true proposition and no false ones”.

Hitetlen:

I will not even contemplate the idea of “omnipresent” because that is sheer nonsense.

in what way?

 

[patg]

DeFide:

A myth? All the historical collaboration is to be disregarded? That’s a polite way of saying that it’s all a lie. But who lied? When? With all the witnesses, all the disciples of Jesus, with all the secular historians, it’s not reasonable to assume that the writers got away with making up lies in the full sight of everyone at that time who lived through the events. If they made up a hoax, they were all OK with dying for it…

The concept that someone writing fictional accounts to teach a truth is “lying” is not supported by the church’s statements on scriptural interpretation…but then most of us are probably tired of arguing this myth.