Why Should I Become Catholic?

[Call_Me_V]

Is that what I said? Or did I merely quote Jesus Christ? And is that what Jesus Christ said? Let’s try again:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign; no sign will be given it, except the sign of Jonah.”

I do not read there that V is evil because V is unable to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. What I read there is that Jesus Christ will not purchase belief by signs and wonders. What I read there is that the same things that make a generation evil and adulterous make it demand of God signs and wonders. What I read there is that belief must therefore be based on something else, something more.

All right. If not reason and evidence, what do base your beliefs about the world on? Faith, I presume?

Visitor…

I propose Jesus of Nazareth to you.

He who taught along the sea of a Galilee…he who said to his early followers ‘come and see’…who healed the sick, exorcised demons, taught with great wisdom, who multiplied bread and fishes, who raised the dead. He who was bloodied and raised up on wood by Romans who knew how to kill…while most of his followers fled …nailed to a cross …crucified…who died and was pierced in the side and laid in the a tomb.

He did many wonderous things. According to his fanatical followers. The same can be said for Sathya Sai Baba, which was kind of my point. You’re making the case that Jesus did these things based on the testimony of his followers. I’m saying that many movements and cults contain fanatical members that claim that their amazing leader was the most amazing person in the world, that he had all kinds of miraculous powers, that he performed many wondrous deeds. Sai Baba, for example, has also said to teach with great wisdom, multiply objects, turned water into wine, turned water into oil, and raised the dead (we have the direct testimony of the person that he raised from the dead, by the way). If you expect me to believe Jesus was amazing based on the Gospels, why do you not want me to accept that Sai Baba is amazing based on the miraculous stories surrounding him, told by his people?

On the third day…women came to the tomb…and found he was not there…but instead angels …and then one encountered Jesus of Nazareth…alive but different. This same Jesus came among his scared disciples…and ate fish of all things. He indeed was risen…and this bunch of men…who just a few days before had mostly fled for their lives…were changed…and went out to proclaim him and his resurrection …bringing great light …and joy.

You expect me to believe in Jesus’ resurrection based on the testimony of his followers, but not believe in Sai Baba based on the testimony of his followers. This has been my problem all along, I don’t know if you noticed. You assert these marvelous things about Jesus as if they were fact, and yet the evidence we have that Jesus really did these things pales in comparison to the mountain of evidence we have that says Sai Baba did he things attributed to him. In the case of Jesus, we have a dozen or so ancient documents, written a while after his death. In the case of Sathya Sai Baba, we have thousands of living, breathing, eyewitnesses, all of whom are telling their stories within his lifetime. Any attempt to say that there is evidence for the miracles of Jesus will simultaneously make an even stronger case for Sai Baba’s miracles.

So I propose him to you…not so as to argue or try to ‘prove’ something the way one proves a mathematical theorem (does one prove the love of ones parents in this way…or the love of ones friend…in this way either)

Well, actually, I do base my belief that people love me on evidence. I look at the thing they have said to me, done for me, sacrificed for me, etc. and from that conclude that they love me. I certainly wouldn’t look at a stranger and take it on faith that they love me.

The follow him and they know.

As do the followers of Sai Baba. They insist that miracles and amazing powers are not the main reason they believe in him. They believe in him because they feel him in their heart, because they feel him talking to them and guiding their actions every day. How is what you’re saying different?

I never depended too on miracles to strengthen my beliefs in Christ; I’d recommend researching more theology instead. God’s nature and Trinitarianism comes to mind.

The problem with that is that I’ve read a good deal of theology, and I think that I had already accomplished what you were trying to get me to accomplish. I fell in love with Catholic theology. I loved it all. But I don’t pick my beliefs based on who can tell a more wondrous story. I base my beliefs (well, I try to, I don’t do it nearly enough) on reason and evidence, not on what makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Friends and family have asked me why, when they had seen my devotion, had seen how excited I was about Jesus, how passionate I was for his teachings, why I could possibly leave it all, I simply responded, “I don’t think it’s actually true.”. Christian theology, and Catholic theology in particular, is truly amazing. It fills one with such hope, such promise, it makes life more magical, more worth living. Which is great. I just need a reason to believe that it’s actually true. Do you disagree that we should base our beliefs on reason rather than assuming that what sounds good to us and what we want to be true really is true?

Sincerely,
V

 

[JohnCS]

The fulfillment of prophesies. Not just the resurection, and not just Jewish prophesies. The 3 wisemen followed their peoples own prophesies to find themselves at the manger. I just got my hands on a film/documentary called “The Star of Bethlehem”. I haven’t seen it yet, but I was told by the guy who let me borrow it, that it goes into the scientific evidence that at the time we believe Christ was born, certain stars/planets alligned in a certain way that would appear to be a huge star. That huge star, when coming from the direction that the wise men supposedly came from, would sit right above where Bethlehem is. Using a NASA program that charts constelations and planetary movement, it shows that this alignment of stars only happend once, and that was a little under 2000 years ago. So, we have an oriental prophesy, that was hundreds of years old, that told of a “star” that would lead to the greatest king of all time, and when followed actually led to the manger scene. This is a great story, but we have it as at least a 3rd or 4th person account so how beleivable is it?. Obviously the apostles were not at the birth of Christ, so either He told them about it, or the Blessed Mother told them about it. Well now, with NASA technology, we can confirm at at least, the “Star” was there for the wise men to follow. If that is true, why not the rest?

 

[Marlowann]

The problem with that is that I’ve read a good deal of theology, and I think that I had already accomplished what you were trying to get me to accomplish. I fell in love with Catholic theology. I loved it all. But I don’t pick my beliefs based on who can tell a more wondrous story.

That’s not theology.

I base my beliefs (well, I try to, I don’t do it nearly enough) on reason and evidence, not on what makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

That actual theology makes one feel warm and fuzzy is a newsflash to me; you must be talking about someone else.

Christian theology, and Catholic theology in particular, is truly amazing. It fills one with such hope, such promise, it makes life more magical, more worth living. Which is great. I just need a reason to believe that it’s actually true. Do you disagree that we should base our beliefs on reason rather than assuming that what sounds good to us and what we want to be true really is true?

I do indeed accept the notion that belief must be based upon reason. However, you do not seem to realize what I mean by “theology.” A theological treatise is not an emotional plea to believe in Christianity, it is a demonstration of a truth, of a conclusion drawn from premises often gained from Revelation.

I would on the one hand immediately recommend St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, but on the other hand I am not sure whether or not you have already looked at it, and if you have (or if you were planning to), whether or not you’d properly appreciate the nature of the language he uses; and by language, I mean linguistic precision.

I therefore would like to ask how familiar you are with Aristotelian philosophy, and the language behind that first.

 

[Biggie]

All right. If not reason and evidence, what do base your beliefs about the world on? Faith, I presume?

Did I say you should not base your faith on reason and evidence? No. I said that Our Lord God has said he will not perform tricks to win your faith.

You cannot treat “reason” and “evidence”, however, as givens. Reason is subject to the will. To say “evidence” overlooks the level of proof a person demands. For example, in criminal law, an arrest warrant is based on “probable cause” - a level of proof that would be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that a crime occurred and a person committed it. It is different again from “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, the standard for criminal conviction. At a certain point “evidence” becomes the signs God will not supply.

And why will God not supply those signs? Because God is love, and his relationship with us is one of love. Love cannot exist under compulsion (you cannot make someone love you) nor can it exist under reward (you cannot buy someone’s love). Come to God demanding proof, a demand that rules out love, and we are the children Jesus spoke of who complain, “We played the pipe for you but you did not dance.” Jesus doesn’t dance just because we say he should.

The person seeking God must find him in a sincere and needy search for truth, a search the person undertakes because he recognizes he needs the truth and he needs to be loved. In that event, Jesus says, “Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you.”

 

[Call_Me_V]

The fulfillment of prophesies. Not just the resurection, and not just Jewish prophesies. The 3 wisemen followed their peoples own prophesies to find themselves at the manger. I just got my hands on a film/documentary called “The Star of Bethlehem”. I haven’t seen it yet, but I was told by the guy who let me borrow it, that it goes into the scientific evidence that at the time we believe Christ was born, certain stars/planets alligned in a certain way that would appear to be a huge star. That huge star, when coming from the direction that the wise men supposedly came from, would sit right above where Bethlehem is. Using a NASA program that charts constelations and planetary movement, it shows that this alignment of stars only happend once, and that was a little under 2000 years ago. So, we have an oriental prophesy, that was hundreds of years old, that told of a “star” that would lead to the greatest king of all time, and when followed actually led to the manger scene. This is a great story, but we have it as at least a 3rd or 4th person account so how beleivable is it?. Obviously the apostles were not at the birth of Christ, so either He told them about it, or the Blessed Mother told them about it. Well now, with NASA technology, we can confirm at at least, the “Star” was there for the wise men to follow. If that is true, why not the rest?

The biggest problem with this astrological explanation is that it’s just a few years too late for the birth of Jesus. They try to argue for a later date for Jesus’ birth, but I cannot find a link to where they argue for this, they simply assert that there is good scholarship backing it up. Considering that the majority of historians disagree with this position, they’re going to have to present a good case. Do you know what case they make for the later date for Jesus’ birth?

That actual theology makes one feel warm and fuzzy is a newsflash to me; you must be talking about someone else.

Well, parts of it certainly do. Isn’t that the point that Benedict was trying to make in the article linked to near the beginning of the thread, that Christianity gives us hope, conquers death, gives us love, etc.?

I do indeed accept the notion that belief must be based upon reason. However, you do not seem to realize what I mean by “theology.” A theological treatise is not an emotional plea to believe in Christianity, it is a demonstration of a truth, of a conclusion drawn from premises often gained from Revelation.

I would on the one hand immediately recommend St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, but on the other hand I am not sure whether or not you have already looked at it, and if you have (or if you were planning to), whether or not you’d properly appreciate the nature of the language he uses; and by language, I mean linguistic precision.

I therefore would like to ask how familiar you are with Aristotelian philosophy, and the language behind that first.

Well, I’ve read Aquinas’ five proofs, and I didn’t think his logic was particularly sound. However, I’m not versed in Aristotelian philosophy. What particular argument of his do you find persuasive?

Did I say you should not base your faith on reason and evidence? No. I said that Our Lord God has said he will not perform tricks to win your faith.

You cannot treat “reason” and “evidence”, however, as givens. Reason is subject to the will. To say “evidence” overlooks the level of proof a person demands. For example, in criminal law, an arrest warrant is based on “probable cause” - a level of proof that would be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that a crime occurred and a person committed it. It is different again from “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, the standard for criminal conviction. At a certain point “evidence” becomes the signs God will not supply.

And why will God not supply those signs? Because God is love, and his relationship with us is one of love. Love cannot exist under compulsion (you cannot make someone love you) nor can it exist under reward (you cannot buy someone’s love). Come to God demanding proof, a demand that rules out love, and we are the children Jesus spoke of who complain, “We played the pipe for you but you did not dance.” Jesus doesn’t dance just because we say he should.

The person seeking God must find him in a sincere and needy search for truth, a search the person undertakes because he recognizes he needs the truth and he needs to be loved. In that event, Jesus says, “Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you.”

So what particular reason and evidence are you offering? If you believe I should use logic and reason, then for what logical reason should I believe?

V

 

[JohnCS]

V,

As I said, I haven’t seen the documentary yet, so I do not know if they give the same “to late” dates that you are referring to. My wife and I are going to watch it tonight after Mass and I’ll let you know what they say about the dates and what the references are. God bless.

 

[Jon_S]

Dominant scientific theories point to “singularity.” The universe has a starting point. If that starting point is God, then he is not material, in time, or in space, and there is only one. Right off the bat that eliminates any polytheistic religion.

In the case of Sathya Sai Baba specifically, he claims that each person can adhere to their original religion or deity because ultimately those religions are the product of only one God. This doesn’t make sense because many of these religions have beliefs that are incompatible with each other. Sai Baba taught his own version of “human values” which were also incompatible with the belief that you can “adhere to your original religion.” I guess he meant that’s ok as long as you believe the way he does. There are inescapable holes in his logic and teachings, and I have no problem discounting him on that basis.

If you’re really serious about considering Catholicism, then look at what it teaches. get it from the source. Read the Catechism. Look for holes in the logic. Something is either true, or it’s not (another reason to dismiss the theological relativism of Sathya Sai Baba).

 

[Call_Me_V]

V,

As I said, I haven’t seen the documentary yet, so I do not know if they give the same “to late” dates that you are referring to. My wife and I are going to watch it tonight after Mass and I’ll let you know what they say about the dates and what the references are. God bless.

Well, the movie’s website, at least, argues for the later dates. Anyways, once you’ve seen it, tell me what you find.

Thanks,
V

 

[Call_Me_V]

Dominant scientific theories point to “singularity.” The universe has a starting point. If that starting point is God, then he is not material, in time, or in space, and there is only one. Right off the bat that eliminates any polytheistic religion.

Well, yes, if you define God as “the cause of the Universe”. However, I don’t think that most polytheists would use it that way, they usually would use “God” to refer to a powerful being. There’s nothing logically inconsistent with there being several very powerful beings floating around. I don’t know, however, since I’m not a polytheist.

In the case of Sathya Sai Baba specifically, he claims that each person can adhere to their original religion or deity because ultimately those religions are the product of only one God. This doesn’t make sense because many of these religions have beliefs that are incompatible with each other. Sai Baba taught his own version of “human values” which were also incompatible with the belief that you can “adhere to your original religion.” I guess he meant that’s ok as long as you believe the way he does. There are inescapable holes in his logic and teachings, and I have no problem discounting him on that basis.

If you’re really serious about considering Catholicism, then look at what it teaches. get it from the source. Read the Catechism. Look for holes in the logic. Something is either true, or it’s not (another reason to dismiss the theological relativism of Sathya Sai Baba).

I’m sure he could come up with some kind of explanation. All religions are good at theologizing away their contradictions. If all else fails, they usually assert that it is a mystery of God, that our feeble human minds cannot comprehend.

In any case, are you saying that you would have believed in Sai Baba’s miracles if not for these contradictions in his teachings?

V

 

[Jon_S]

Well, yes, if you define God as “the cause of the Universe”. However, I don’t think that most polytheists would use it that way, they usually would use “God” to refer to a powerful being. There’s nothing logically inconsistent with there being several very powerful beings floating around. I don’t know, however, since I’m not a polytheist.

I’m just going by what the scientific community has gathered thus far. The universe has a singular beginning. I’m not saying there are not several “very powerful beings” floating around. For instance, as a Christian I believe Satan is real and powerful. I discount polytheism on the grounds that there is only one God who created the universe and I can use science to demonstrate that this is a reasonable proposition.

I’m sure he could come up with some kind of explanation. All religions are good at theologizing away their contradictions. If all else fails, they usually assert that it is a mystery of God, that our feeble human minds cannot comprehend.

In any case, are you saying that you would have believed in Sai Baba’s miracles if not for these contradictions in his teachings?

V

I believe that others have done things that appear to be miracles, but that alone is not enough to convince me. Sai Babba’s theology has serious inescapable flaws. If we are using reason alone to determine whether or not some theological proposition is true or false, Then Sai Babba loses on the sheer fact that the core of his theology is improbable.

Let me give you an example:

Sai Babba says that I could continue to be a Catholic and still follow his teachings. That is in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching as well as his own. The fact that there is only one true God, the God of Abraham, who made himself known through prophets and ultimately Jesus Christ is also a contradiction to the core of his theology. If I am to be a devout Catholic then I can tolerate Sai Baba’s theology, but I cannot in fact be an adherent to it. And vice versa. Sai Babba did not believe that the one true God revealed himself through his son Jesus Christ alone. He would have a problem with that. So the crux of his theology, that one can still adhere to their own religion is easily and demonstrably false.

 

[WarEagle4130]

Hi V, I’ll hope you’ll permit me to join in here. I have two things to offer.

One is that you say you need to base your faith on reason and evidence. I can’t help with the reason, but as you pointed out, you know your family loves you based on the evidence of their actions, right. You can’t hook them up to a meter and measure how much they love you. But you know they do based on evidence. IMO, the Church has some pretty compelling evidence, starting with the witness of the early Christians. Obviously you question their motives, but I have to wonder what they had to gain by making everything up. Certainly not fame, money, or chicks. Also I was told (though I don’t have the documentation to prove it) that one of the reasons Christianity spread so quickly was due to the selfless actions of the early Christians. When a plague decimated a village, the village witch-doctor would high-tale it out of there, but the Christians would come in and help care for the sick. They walked the talk. I know that’s probably not very convincing, but the Christians that God put in my life provided that same kind of witness for me in my conversion (lifelong heathen, baptized two years ago at the age of 34).

The second is this. In my moments of doubt (and I still have them), I’ll think that I’m only fooling myself and that I just became Catholic because it was convenient, and that how could I possibly know it’s the ONE true religion when I don’t a PhD in world religions and didn’t disprove all of the others first. Then this analogy came to me. I love my wife. I know that to be a fact in the very core of my being. Now, did I go out and date every other woman on the face of the planet before deciding that my wife was the ONE person I wanted to spend my life with? Well, thanks be to God, I did not. So, either I have to have faith that the love I feel for my wife is true, or that I’m just fooling myself and I could love another woman as much or more but thanks to the randomness of the universe I met my wife first. I’m sure that logic isn’t philosophically sound, but it works for me.

Good luck on your journey. I’ll keep you in my prayers as well. Oh, and be patient. God let me wander in the wilderness for 15 years before showing me the way, so these things take time.

Marcus

 

[Biggie]

So what particular reason and evidence are you offering? If you believe I should use logic and reason, then for what logical reason should I believe?

V

The case is before you, as I pointed out much earlier. The problem is not that reasons do not exist but that they are insufficient for your satisfaction. I stated that a person can be invincibly unconvinced, that reason is subject to the will, and that evidence is subject to a level of proof.

As a contemporary example of the way in which the will can manipulate reason and construct an invincible reality of its own, consider that the holocaust is denied by some, an event of less than 75 years ago. Man’s achievement of the moon is denied by some. The Lord is well aware such invincibility is possible for the human mind and that is precisely why he responds as he does - for those disposed to demand proof, no proof is enough.

 

[steve_b]

I grew up Protestant…went to a Reformed college…traveled to Jerusalem…encountered the Orthodox and Catholic Church…explored other religions…joined a non-denominational congregation…converted to the Eastern Orthodox faith…spent the last ten years digging, praying, researching, questioning, asking, etc and will be entering in to full communion with the Catholic Church this Easter Vigil! Am I like Goldilocks or what?

Why should YOU become Catholic? Let me tell you why I am…

Let me first say that if you’re looking for a quick and easy answer to this question you probably won’t find one and if you do you should be very suspect of your motivations and intentions. Truth is a lifelong pursuit and should be viewed on a continuum as opposed to a simple “either/or” or a check list of “pros and cons.” I don’t assume that YOU would take this pursuit lightly…too often people simply go with what “feels best” and frankly this is pure stupidity. People in our culture have learned to exalt their feelings as a god…I say this because people don’t examine things with their minds, hearts, time, energy to find what all of these things (emotions/feelings included) point to as Truth. They go where they “feel at home” which has SOME value of course and shouldn’t be totally ignored but the fact is this feeling will wear off and what then? On to another bed that isn’t too hard, too soft…you get the picture.

The last thing on earth, seriously, that I thought I would ever “land on” would be the Catholic Church. I viewed it as stodgy, outdated, not to be taken seriously…I reasoned that the Pope was just a nice old man with a bunch of religious bureaucrats telling him what to do and say. Simply, I didn’t give it a second look because I had so many false, preconceived ideas and let my “gut reaction” lead. This was until I began studying Theology, Church History, Scripture and the Early Church Fathers more deeply…entering in to a regular growing prayer life…that I began seeing some of my wrongly nurtured ideas fall apart. I thought that I knew what the truth was and that others simply didn’t know…I didn’t realize (until later) that there were early Church foundations, writings and martyrs who died for their beliefs that were, you guessed it, undeniably similar to CATHOLIC beliefs and practices of today. It was as if I uncovered a lost treasure.

I began studying (one by one) beliefs held by all of the various Christian traditions…Protestant, Evangelical (which I saw so many holes scripturally, historically, and practically in their backgrounds that these seemed to not even hold to their own beliefs very strongly! Or if they did they couldn’t clearly back up their own traditions with a solid biblical or historical witness) I looked from every angle I could think of and kept coming up empty on several points. Yet, when I had nearly lost hope I thought, at last I would give the Catholic Church an honest look…I reasoned it to be best to go where the path of Truth was clearly leading…it led me straight into the arms of the Catholic Church.

Why Catholic? I began examining the scriptural and historical background of things like the papacy, the Marian dogmas/doctrines, again, one by one, and found myself seeing such clarity, harmony of faith and reason, Truth and Tradition etc. My friend it was undeniable…undeniable. On top of all of this there was so much more to the Catholic Church (that I had once dismissed as “unnecessarily or extra”) that truly opened my eyes and heart to know and love God and His Church much more fully and completely. I found I had to go in person then…I’ve gone through the RCIA process over the last year and have only grown in my love and appreciation for the Church the more I look.

It can be said that many people follow their gut…or simply stay where they are for a lack of desire to examine and explore and search out Truth. I hope nobody reading this fits this description. I can safely and easily say that the Catholic Church is “home” because it is where the Lord has clearly led me. It wasn’t quick and easy by any means but it is something that I now can say I stake my life on…the lives of my family…my children…everything that I might follow Christ in the embrace of HIS Church…which is the Catholic Church. Our Blessed Mother, The Pope, The Saints, The Sacraments, The Liturgy, Tradition, Magesterium, etc…I would never desire to live without these ever again.

You are in my prayers.

You’re not only a good writer and communicator, but inspirational as anyone I’ve read. Welcome home…almost

 

[Bookcat]

V

I see from the long thread that you have been continuing your discussion…not aware of all that has been discussed thus far…

but just wanted to drop by before I head to bed…and tell you that you were particularly in my prayers at the Mass of the Lords Supper this evening …and will be particularly in my prayers tomorrow at the Good Friday Liturgy

…probably the only “V” out there being prayed for at the moment

 

[Cbailey2]

V,
I don’t know if you are still reading this thread but I wanted to respond to what you had written me. Sorry for the delay. Life gets busy…

It’s a long post, so bear with me.

It’s not really important, but I literally meant, call me “V”. It’s the name of a fictional character I like . And yeah, I’m a nerdy teenager

As in “V” for Vendetta? Sorry for the confusion, but if you wanted me to just call you “V,” why not just have your username be “V”?

I’m a nerdy 20-something so you are in good company.

we can’t really base our spiritual beliefs on the flimsy evidence that most apologists present…I always do my best to look objectively at the facts without them being filtered based on what I want to believe… I just try not to let that influence my interpretation of the facts.

Three things about this:

1. your understanding of facts is always going to be filtered by something and belief is ALWAYS going to play into it. The guise of a scientific, unfiltered view of facts is a fantasy, and also ignores the basics of scientific method. You come up with a hypothesis and test that hypothesis against “fact.” Facts (on their own) do not just come together in patterns on their own: they pass through the most biased and imperfect filter of all - the human brain. Be honest about your interpretive bias (and your education): you have been raised in a secular, humanistic, individualistic, and materialistic society. Those filters most certainly influence your interpretation of facts.
2. Spirituality, by definition, does not lend itself easily to scientific observation (e.g., incorporeal, unseen, etc.). You characterize evidence as “flimsy” because you seek to apply a materialistic, scientific litmus to a thing that lacks an obvious material signature: you are like the man shouting “I’ll only believe in radio waves when I see them!” (Don’t tell me your five sense can experience radio waves…you can only experience their representation emanating from an electronic device. A skeptic disposed to denying the existence of radio waves can just as easily state the radio itself is a closed system making noise and is not, in fact, linked to a larger whole)
3. I realize this argument can be applied to ALL religions. But that is the point: the first question you need to ask is not “Why should I be Catholic?” but “How is faith different than reason?” You seem to have already decided that in order for something to exist it must first offer you reasonable evidence that it does, in fact, exist. Or to put it another way, you seem to subscribe to the secular, materialistic view that all things in existence must be knowable and prove-able by the human intellect. The irony is that there is no reasonable proof for such a view: it is a unprovable belief.

Well, I think there’s clear evidence that some of the stories were invented. In the Matthew example, for example, all thirteen of the stories simply cannot be true, at least some of them had to have been invented. Some of them are possibly true, it’s just very hard to differentiate between the true and the false.

There are facts in the world and there are lies. Some facts look like lies and some lies look like facts. That’s just the way the world works (and if you believe in the devil, there is a reason “lie” looks like “fact”). Deciding in what to place your trust is a very difficult thing.

Preaching that God is love is a nice idea, but unfortunately I can’t just believe something because the idea appeals to me. I need a good reason to believe it. I know that many consider that an evil trait, but I think it’s the best way to go.

What does a “good reason” look like? You say you liked your Catholic faith, and I’m not inclined to doubt you, but, if you have taken the moniker of “V” from “V for Vendetta,” I have no doubt that you also enjoy your role as intelligent, skeptical, doubter as well. The criteria of “good reason” is a subjective criteria. If I somehow showed a skeptic a home video of Christ walking on water, the skeptic would find reasons to doubt it. If I told him Christ appeared to me in a dream, we would find reasons to doubt it. Even if Christ turned water into wine right in front of his face, he would find reasons to doubt it.

I mentioned faith and reason in my first post. They are not the same thing, nor do they in anyway replace or supplement each other. They are complements.

 

[Cbailey2]

What evidence do you have for this? If what I said was incorrect, I’d really like to know, so can you tell me what your source was? I apologize if the information that I presented was inaccurate. I didn’t mean to assert it as a fact, simply that it makes no sense to assume that Nero cared whether or not Peter was a believing Christian (and more specifically, that there was no *evidence *supporting the assertion that he was given the chance to recant his faith) If you have evidence that giving them the chance to recant their faith and live was the norm, I would be interested in seeing it.

I’m not quibbling entirely with your facts, only with your logic.

1. You cite the example of Peter as a proof for why Christians dying for what they believed is not evidence of the truth of what they believed. Even if this is true, you are guilty of the fallacy of composition. Peter was not the only martyr of those who would have witnessed the Acts of Christ and the Apostles. The circumstance you allege - he wasn’t given the chance to recant his faith to spare his life - may not have held true across all the other cases.
2. Your insight into Nero’s logic is based off of two things: a) facts and b) your own thoughts.
   a) facts: Fire in Rome, angry Romans, anti-Christian sentiment in Rome, Christians blamed for fire, crucifixion of Peter.
   b) your own thoughts: “Nero didn’t care whether or not Peter truly believed or not,” “he would not have given Peter the option to reject Christ and live,” “the **only reason **he wanted to kill…,” “He didn’t care what Peter believed.”
   I quibble with the assertion that it made no sense that Nero cared. You have no idea what Nero thought or what he cared about. You are writing a narrative to suit your own disposition. You have no primary source from Nero and neither do I. I don’t need to prove anything to you or offer any evidence to say that he was formally offered the chance to recant his faith because you don’t have any proof that he wasn’t.
   Your argument is that it doesn’t make any sense. I say it makes all the sense in the world (but that doesn’t make either of us objectively correct). What better way to humiliate and destroy a new cult then to have its so called leader come forth and publicly proclaim that it was all a sham.
   Furthermore, you make the assumption that Peter - if he was lying - wouldn’t have begged desperately to recant if he thought it would save his life. If it was a scam, it only makes sense that he would have said anything to weasel his way out of a death sentence (regardless of whether it would have worked). I would think such a scene would have merited historical record, but again, it’s all speculation. None of it is fact.
   I will say, however, after the crucifixion of Peter and the slaughter of Christians in Rome, any remaining witness to the life of Christ and any alleged miracles would have been very reckless to continue preaching this message. The writing was on the wall: being a Christian is an offense punishable by death. That may not be an official statement of “recant or you will die” it is definitely implied.
   Peter himself was very aware of the politics of his affiliation. As I’m sure you know, he denied Christ three times for fear that association with Christ would lead to unpleasant results for him. It certainly seems like he knew preaching the Gospel might lead to death.

 

[CatholicFireman]

Hi V,

I’m sorry I haven’t read all that is on here but I was wondering. Do you think you are in your own “Dark Night of the Soul” like St. John of the Cross was? Either way, I will pray for you and your reversion. Pax†

 

[Marlowann]

Well, I’ve read Aquinas’ five proofs, and I didn’t think his logic was particularly sound. However, I’m not versed in Aristotelian philosophy. What particular argument of his do you find persuasive?

I bring up Aristotelian philosophy in relation to the precision of language I mentioned earlier. If you wish to truly understand Catholic theology, you’re going to have to appreciate how Aristotelian it is.

When it comes to Aquinas’ five proofs, I’d wonder, therefore, what problems you find with the first two; that of motion (and by motion, St. Thomas Aquinas does not mean local motion; he means the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality) and of causation. The last three I care little for in comparison to these.

 

[Call_Me_V]

All right, sorry for the delayed response guys.

Hi V,

I’m sorry I haven’t read all that is on here but I was wondering. Do you think you are in your own “Dark Night of the Soul” like St. John of the Cross was? Either way, I will pray for you and your reversion. Pax†

Well, I’m a teenage boy. We’re not known for our piety. I’m flattered, but I don’t think I merited a dark night of the soul. I was, in all modesty, one of the more devout members of my youth group, but if you’ve seen my generation, you’d know that’s not saying much. I was very devout, more as a result of the positive benefits that I was experiencing as a result of Jesus’ teachings than anything else, but I don’t think that I merited a dark night of the soul. In any case, I’m certainly not close to God anymore, and yet my doubts have only intensified, rather than leaving, so dark night of the soul seems unlikely to me.

Thank you for your prayers

V
As in “V” for Vendetta? Sorry for the confusion, but if you wanted me to just call you “V,” why not just have your username be “V”?

Yes. And I tried, but they wouldn’t let me have a username with less than 3 letters

1. your understanding of facts is always going to be filtered by something and belief is ALWAYS going to play into it. The guise of a scientific, unfiltered view of facts is a fantasy, and also ignores the basics of scientific method. You come up with a hypothesis and test that hypothesis against “fact.” Facts (on their own) do not just come together in patterns on their own: they pass through the most biased and imperfect filter of all - the human brain. Be honest about your interpretive bias (and your education): you have been raised in a secular, humanistic, individualistic, and materialistic society. Those filters most certainly influence your interpretation of facts.

Oh, believe me, I don’t claim to be an unbiased person. I just claim to do the best I can to try to be an unbiased person. Let me give another example. Most Catholics would agree that it is pretty much impossible for someone to go through life without sinning, that Jesus’ teachings are so perfect, we humans simply cannot always live up to it, which is why we have confession. Yet most Catholics would not conclude that living up to Jesus’ teachings is a “fantasy”, and we should go along sinning. They would conclude that even though living up to Jesus’ standards 100% of the time is pretty much impossible, we should still try. Similarly, I’m well aware that being totally unbiased is not even close to possible, but I still try. What’s the alternative, after all?

 

[Call_Me_V]

1. Spirituality, by definition, does not lend itself easily to scientific observation (e.g., incorporeal, unseen, etc.). You characterize evidence as “flimsy” because you seek to apply a materialistic, scientific litmus to a thing that lacks an obvious material signature: you are like the man shouting “I’ll only believe in radio waves when I see them!” (Don’t tell me your five sense can experience radio waves…you can only experience their representation emanating from an electronic device. A skeptic disposed to denying the existence of radio waves can just as easily state the radio itself is a closed system making noise and is not, in fact, linked to a larger whole)

Well, I do believe in radio waves since there is good scientific evidence for them. But I know where you’re coming from here. I think that over the course of my posts, I’ve given the impression that I won’t believe anything unless I see it myself, which is not how I meant to portray myself at all. If it’s not too self indulgent, I think that I’ll go into some detail here and explain my beliefs about belief.

First, I don’t think anything can be proven. I’ll never have 100% proof for anything outside of my own existence. I do, however, assign probabilities to various beliefs. I would put the belief in the existence of Jesus pretty high, around 75%, perhaps. I would put the belief in the existence of aliens at around 1%, because I don’t think that it’s very likely they exist. So my point is, though some skeptics would demand absolute iron clad proof, I’m not one of them.

Secondly, about the impression I gave that I only believe things if I see them myself. That’s not the case. If I were on a jury, I would take the testimony of an eyewitness very seriously, and would be willing to rank it quite high on the evidence scale. But I don’t think eyewitness testimony is good enough to justify belief in extraordinary events. As Christian apologist William Lane Craig mockingly said, (I’m paraphrasing here), “The claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence has become the rallying cry of the new atheism.”. I, for one, think that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Likely, many of you, like Craig, reject this claim. This is central to my arguments, so I’ll defend it here, using an argument I’ve been working on for use against my uncle (who’s a Catholic priest).

If my uncle said to someone, “I was educated at (fill-in-the-blank) seminary in the United States”, most people would take his word for it. It’s not an unusual claim. If necessary, my uncle could produce his degree certificate, or show pictures of himself at the college, but why would he need to? Even without knowing anything about him or his trustworthiness, most people would simply take him at his word.

Imagine, however, if he were to say, “I was educated at (fill-in-the-blank) seminary on Mars” Now how many people would believe him? Virtually no one. Even though in both cases the evidence is the same (his word), most would agree that it is rational to believe his original claim, but this new claim about being educated on Mars should be rejected. In fact, even if he produced more evidence for his claim that he was educated on Mars, we would still not believe him. If he showed us his degree certificate, we would assume it was faked. If he showed us picture of himself with his Martian classmates, we would assume they were photoshopped, or that some of his friends had dressed up in costume. Pretty much the only way we would believe him was if he actually took us to Mars and we saw the seminary with our own eyes.

So we have two scenarios here.
Scenario 1: My uncle claims that he was educated in the United States. We have only his word.
Scenario 2: My uncle claims to have been educated on Mars. We have his word, his degree certificate, and pictures of him with Martians.
I think that most would agree that we should believe him in scenario 1, but we should be skeptical in scenario 2, even though in scenario 2 we have more evidence than we did in scenario 1. Why? Because most people accept that the more unlikely the claim, the more evidence we would require. Does anyone disagree? Does anyone think that we should treat all claims with equal skepticism, or lack thereof, regardless of the nature of the claim? If not, then I think you agree with the “rallying cry” of the new atheism, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Once this is taken into account, I think my position becomes a bit more tenable. Catholicism makes all kinds of extraordinary claims, including but certainly not limited too:

1. The claim that a group of men known as the Magisterium are magically protected from teaching error under certain circumstances.
2. The claim that bread and wine transforms into the body and blood of Jesus, without actually appearing to change.
3. The claim that God became man, something which many would consider a logical contradiction, in fact.
   Any one of these claims is extraordinary enough to require extraordinary evidence. All of them woven together makes for a very high burden of proof.
   (continued)