Why Should I Become Catholic?

[jmcrae]

I used to be a very devout Catholic. I prayed quite a lot, though I don’t anymore, no. Believe it or not, I do enjoy the Gospels. Jesus’ teachings improved my life drastically when I truly began to follow them, and live them out in my life.

To me, this seems like the clearest evidence that the teachings are true - the fact that applying them brings good results.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Jesus’ teachings, and a renewed devotion to him, helped me to conquer a bout with depression and a porn addiction.

That’s pretty major stuff. The medical profession is still trying to find drugs and therapies that achieve similar results - so far, there is no kind of drug or therapy that can cure both depression and addiction, at the same time - certainly not in the space of less than a year. In fact, you could really say that you yourself have experienced a miracle.

 

[Call_Me_V]

If you wish…PM me your address and I will send you a copy in time. (do not put it here…not good idea and not permitted)

That’s all right. I’m in the process of moving, actually, so I wouldn’t even know what address to give you right now. I’ll try to find it somewhere else. Thank you very much though.

Then I would recommend “The everlasting man” by GK Chesterton. I find he gives a lot of logical reasons to believe in Christianity (and Catholicism).

I’ll try to get my hands on it, thanks.

If 13 of your friends, one by one, come up to you during lunch and recount to you that an accident has taken place in the school parking lot, and each of your 13 friends recount different (and even contradictory) details about the accident, do you therefore assume that all 13 of your friends spontaneously and independently, all in the same moment, suddenly decide to invent a story about an accident in the parking lot?

Or is it more reasonable to think that an accident actually occurred, and that some of your friends are mistaken about certain details? Especially if no one is coming forward and saying, “No, there wasn’t an accident - everything is fine.”

I would say that 13 witnesses talking about the martyrdom of St. Matthew, it is reasonable to assume that St. Matthew was, in fact, martyred, and that some of the reporters were mistaken about certain details.

This is not a matter of one person saying he was stabbed with a knife, while another says it was a sword. They are not different in a handful of minor details, they are different in major details, such as how and where he was martyred. So, to answer your question, I would not believe that all thirteen of my friends were telling the truth if one of them said a man was burned to death in New York, the other said the same man was stoned to death in Los Angeles, and another said that the same man was beheaded in Austin. I would assume that at least some of them were lying, which would give me good reason to believe that I was dealing with a group of dishonest people. You are correct that minor details being different are not a big deal, but major details being different are a concern. Would you believe that all of my friends were telling the truth in the example that I gave?

 

[jmcrae]

That’s all right. I’m in the process of moving, actually, so I wouldn’t even know what address to give you right now. I’ll try to find it somewhere else. Thank you very much though.

I’ll try to get my hands on it, thanks.

This is not a matter of one person saying he was stabbed with a knife, while another says it was a sword. They are not different in a handful of minor details, they are different in major details, such as how and where he was martyred. So, to answer your question, I would not believe that all thirteen of my friends were telling the truth if one of them said a man was burned to death in New York, the other said the same man was stoned to death in Los Angeles, and another said that the same man was beheaded in Austin. I would assume that at least some of them were lying, which would give me good reason to believe that I was dealing with a group of dishonest people. You are correct that minor details being different are not a big deal, but major details being different are a concern. Would you believe that all of my friends were telling the truth in the example that I gave?

What I would think was that something terrible had happened to the man. I would be certain that the man had died by violence, and that someone was disseminating false reports to draw attention away from the guilty parties and to confuse the police.

I would know that some of the reports were deliberately falsified, but I would be equally certain that the man was dead, and that he did not die in his sleep of old age.

 

[Call_Me_V]

To me, this seems like the clearest evidence that the teachings are true - the fact that applying them brings good results.

That’s pretty major stuff. The medical profession is still trying to find drugs and therapies that achieve similar results - so far, there is no kind of drug or therapy that can cure both depression and addiction, at the same time - certainly not in the space of less than a year. In fact, you could really say that you yourself have experienced a miracle.

I would disagree. A friend of mine had many similar positive experiences as a result converting from atheism to Buddhism. I don’t think that you want me to convert to Buddhism as a result of these positive effects. A belief can have many positive effects without being true. And its not the usefulness of Catholicism I’m interested in, it’s the truth of Catholicism that interests me.

What I would think was that something terrible had happened to the man. I would be certain that the man had died by violence, and that someone was disseminating false reports to draw attention away from the guilty parties and to confuse the police.

I would know that some of the reports were deliberately falsified, but I would be equally certain that the man was dead, and that he did not die in his sleep of old age.

That’s certainly a possibility, but I don’t there’s good reason to conclude that. If the Church could could invent 12 stories out of thin air, I don’t doubt its ability to produce 13. At best, 12 of the stories are total B.S., and I’m going to need a good reason to believe that one of them is actually true. I certainly am not going to make any major life decisions based on a story told by those with a talent for inventing false stories. Every ideology invents stories about members of the sect heroically sacrificing themselves in order to inspire its adherents. Considering how many false martyrdom stories the early Church managed to circulate, I simply can’t take such stories seriously. Does that make sense?

V

 

[jmcrae]

I would disagree. A friend of mine had many similar positive experiences as a result converting from atheism to Buddhism.

The move from atheism to Buddhism is a step in the right direction, I think.

From Catholic to Buddhist would not be, though - you’re right about that.

That’s certainly a possibility, but I don’t there’s good reason to conclude that. If the Church could could invent 12 stories out of thin air, I don’t doubt its ability to produce 13.

Are there any stories of St. Matthew living to old age?

Because, you know, if he actually did, then someone would have told that story, too.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s all right. I’m in the process of moving, actually, so I wouldn’t even know what address to give you right now. I’ll try to find it somewhere else. Thank you very much though.

offer still stands when you move…I am a book person

 

[Call_Me_V]

Are there any stories of St. Matthew living to old age?

Because, you know, if he actually did, then someone would have told that story, too.

Well, the Christian Hippolytus said, “And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia.”. The phrase “fell asleep” seems to me to indicate death by old age, but I could be wrong, that could just be a result of translation. Anyways, he certainly doesn’t seem to indicate martyrdom. I still don’t think that we should conclude Matthew was martyred based on stories told by the early Church when the Church was excellent at inventing wild stories.

Anyways, I do believe that some of the early Christians did die for being Christian, Peter, for example. I don’t see why that should be evidence for the truth of what they preached. Allow me to explain. Peter was most likely killed during the persecutions by Emperor Nero in Rome. A violent fire had broken out in Rome, and Nero used the church in Rome as a convenient scapegoat. He promptly began rounding up and killing Christians, and Peter appears to have been one of those victims. However, it would not have mattered whether or not Peter denied his beliefs or stuck to his story. 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, because the only reason he wanted to kill Peter was to fulfill the bloodlust of the angry Romans. He didn’t care what Peter believed. So while Peter was killed for being Christian, that does not mean we should believe his story any more than we otherwise would.

Allow me to give one more example. Imagine I see an attractive woman. I lie to my friends and claim to have slept with her in order to impress them. Her husband hears the story, believes it, and kills me in an alley out back. Does the fact that I “died for a lie” mean that we should assume my story was true? No. I was not given the chance to live if I recanted the story, I was simply killed for having told it in the first place. Similarly, Peter was killed for having been Christian, not for refusing to recant his Christianity. There’s a distinction to be made there, I think.

As an aside, from what I know of Nero’s persecution, most of the Christians that were tortured did break under torture, though I know nothing about Peter specifically.

V

 

[Cbailey2]

Hi Call Me V,

I can’t tell you exactly what will re-ignite your faith, save that your head and your heart need not be divided on where to call home. Pope JP II compared faith and reason to “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” From my own experience, the unity of those two, where faith does not require turning off the brain, is a major reason why I’m Catholic.

I can tell you that the path you are currently pursuing - the reliability of the witness - may not be the most fruitful path in deciding which theological pillow you should lay your head upon. Given debates over things that happened less than 100 years ago and of which we have photographic evidence (e.g., the assassination of JFK), you’re really not going to get anywhere concrete interrogating the accounts of people who have been dead for over 1,000 years. You may find personal understanding or a personal reason to believe but it may not convince a jury of your peers. If you want reasons to believe, you’ll find them (and vice versa).

I will quibble with the depiction of the early Church “inventing” stories to gain adherents. Neither of us can objectively speak to another person’s motives, but it’s pretty convincing to me that many (but not all) of those spreading these “stories” in the early Church had the ability to recount their testimonies under pain of death and opted instead for death. They certainly believed their own words to be true. I can’t think of many people who are willing to die for something they know to be untrue.

Regardless, the point of my response is this:

I returned to the Church of my upbringing after a six year sojourn through various philosophies and belief systems. Ultimately, it was the realization that the answer to all of life’s problems was love - not a watered down pop version - but real love - the kind that dies on a cross for others, the kind that confronts the world instead of letting it destroy itself - that brought me back to the Church. (this is an incredibly brief summation and I swear I’m not a rose-colored glasses idealist…I’m well aware of how horrible this world can be and how complicated its problems are).

Christianity is the only religion that preaches that “God is love,” that our entire reason for existing is a) to know and love God and b) to share God’s love with each other.

From there, I realized that, if the message was so right where so many others were wrong, and if the messenger said that he was the Son of God, I had no reason to distrust him on the things I couldn’t validate (when he was batting 1.000 on the things I could validate).

Anyways, I could go on…but I’ll spare you that for now. Feel free to contest the claim that Christianity is the only religion to believe that God is love.

 

[Cbailey2]

He promptly began rounding up and killing Christians, and Peter appears to have been one of those victims. However, it would not have mattered whether or not Peter denied his beliefs or stuck to his story. 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, because the only reason he wanted to kill Peter was to fulfill the bloodlust of the angry Romans. He didn’t care what Peter believed. So while Peter was killed for being Christian, that does not mean we should believe his story any more than we otherwise would.
V

First, that’s speculation. You’ve applied a specific narrative to a set of facts and, within your narrative, it makes sense. But it’s speculative: you have no proof that Nero would or wouldn’t have executed Peter if he had or hadn’t recounted. Your argument hinges on attributing to Nero calculations he may or may not have had. He could very well have calculated that having Peter recant and speak out against Christians would better serve his politics. My point is that neither of us has the slightest conception of what Nero “would” (as you say) have done.

I can’t speak to the specific case of Peter, but I can tell you that many executions were carried out specifically because the individual refused to recant their Christian affiliation and beliefs. Their refusal to recant was the reason they were executed. Rome was trying to tamp down on the growth of the cult and, because they didn’t just want to kill Roman citizens, they offered Christians the ability to recant to save their lives.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Thanks for your post.

Hi Call Me V,

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

I can tell you that the path you are currently pursuing - the reliability of the witness - may not be the most fruitful path in deciding which theological pillow you should lay your head upon. Given debates over things that happened less than 100 years ago and of which we have photographic evidence (e.g., the assassination of JFK), you’re really not going to get anywhere concrete interrogating the accounts of people who have been dead for over 1,000 years. You may find personal understanding or a personal reason to believe but it may not convince a jury of your peers. If you want reasons to believe, you’ll find them (and vice versa).

Oh, I don’t care if I can convince a jury of my peers. I’m an atheist in a family (well, honestly, a whole social circle) of Catholics, so I’m used to believing for my own reasons and not caring what others think of my beliefs.

Your right about the evidence, but that was my point all along, that we can’t really base our spiritual beliefs on the flimsy evidence that most apologists present (mainly because the arguments they present could just as easily be used to prove dozens of other religions, though they often don’t realize it).

As for wanting reasons to believe, I always do my best to look objectively at the facts without them being filtered based on what I want to believe. Believe it or not, I actually do want to believe (life as an atheist is dreary. And like I said, most of the people I know are Catholic.), I just try not to let that influence my interpretation of the facts.

I will quibble with the depiction of the early Church “inventing” stories to gain adherents. Neither of us can objectively speak to another person’s motives, but it’s pretty convincing to me that many (but not all) of those spreading these “stories” in the early Church had the ability to recount their testimonies under pain of death and opted instead for death. They certainly believed their own words to be true. I can’t think of many people who are willing to die for something they know to be untrue.

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.

I returned to the Church of my upbringing after a six year sojourn through various philosophies and belief systems. Ultimately, it was the realization that the answer to all of life’s problems was love - not a watered down pop version - but real love - the kind that dies on a cross for others, the kind that confronts the world instead of letting it destroy itself - that brought me back to the Church. (this is an incredibly brief summation and I swear I’m not a rose-colored glasses idealist…I’m well aware of how horrible this world can be and how complicated its problems are).

Christianity is the only religion that preaches that “God is love,” that our entire reason for existing is a) to know and love God and b) to share God’s love with each other.

From there, I realized that, if the message was so right where so many others were wrong, and if the messenger said that he was the Son of God, I had no reason to distrust him on the things I couldn’t validate (when he was batting 1.000 on the things I could validate).

Anyways, I could go on…but I’ll spare you that for now. Feel free to contest the claim that Christianity is the only religion to believe that God is love.

Well, as far as I know, Christianity is the only religion to preach that God is love, though my knowledge of other religions is limited.

I agree with your endorsement of love. Not to get too deep, but if it weren’t for love, my life would have taken a lot more wrong turns then it has, and I value that more than anything in the world, and I’ll leave it at that. 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.

 

[Call_Me_V]

First, that’s speculation. You’ve applied a specific narrative to a set of facts and, within your narrative, it makes sense. But it’s speculative: you have no proof that Nero would or wouldn’t have executed Peter if he had or hadn’t recounted. Your argument hinges on attributing to Nero calculations he may or may not have had. He could very well have calculated that having Peter recant and speak out against Christians would better serve his politics. My point is that neither of us has the slightest conception of what Nero “would” (as you say) have done.

I can’t speak to the specific case of Peter, but I can tell you that many executions were carried out specifically because the individual refused to recant their Christian affiliation and beliefs. Their refusal to recant was the reason they were executed. Rome was trying to tamp down on the growth of the cult and, because they didn’t just want to kill Roman citizens, they offered Christians the ability to recant to save their lives.

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.

Thanks,
V

 

[Biggie]

I certainly believe that Jesus existed. The question I’m asking is what reason is there to believe he was the Messiah, Son of God, etc?

I used to be a very devout Catholic. I prayed quite a lot, though I don’t anymore, no. Believe it or not, I do enjoy the Gospels. Jesus’ teachings improved my life drastically when I truly began to follow them, and live them out in my life. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Jesus’ teachings, and a renewed devotion to him, helped me to conquer a bout with depression and a porn addiction. I still read the Gospels sometimes, so yes, I still enjoy them.

He claimed to be the Son of God and it was for this reason he was executed. If you were familiar enough with his teachings to have them bear fruit in your life, shouldn’t his own profession bear some weight with you?

 

[Call_Me_V]

He claimed to be the Son of God and it was for this reason he was executed. If you were familiar enough with his teachings to have them bear fruit in your life, shouldn’t his own profession bear some weight with you?

A lot of people have crazy beliefs about themselves. Alexander the Great, for example, was such an ego maniac, he probably believed himself when he claimed to be a God. Jesus could have genuinely believed he was the Son of God, and simply been incorrect. Having a high opinion of one’s self was a pretty common theme in Judaism at the time, most of Jewish males with too much testosterone thought of themselves as the mighty Messiah, destined to defeat Rome. Jesus could have simply been mistaken about his role in the universe. As to the effects of his teachings, I would repeat what I said earlier that many false beliefs have positive benefits, the fact that Christianity has positive benefits does not mean that it’s true.

 

[Biggie]

A lot of people have crazy beliefs about themselves. Alexander the Great, for example, was such an ego maniac, he probably believed himself when he claimed to be a God. Jesus could have genuinely believed he was the Son of God, and simply been incorrect. Having a high opinion of one’s self was a pretty common theme in Judaism at the time, most of Jewish males with too much testosterone thought of themselves as the mighty Messiah, destined to defeat Rome. Jesus could have simply been mistaken about his role in the universe. As to the effects of his teachings, I would repeat what I said earlier that many false beliefs have positive benefits, the fact that Christianity has positive benefits does not mean that it’s true.

Alexander, of course, is a case apart from Jesus, in as much as his status was based on his ability to wield power. He was not, as well, Jewish, and of course within the Jewish culture from the very beginning (Genesis), it would have been unthinkable for a man to proclaim he is God, punishable by death. So no, I reject your assertion that the statements made by Jesus were at all common within his culture or the entire history of the Jewish people. It strains credibility to believe that an individual so deluded, whose very words forfeited his life could have found any credibility in his own time, much less subsequent countless generations, to have mastered a following willing as he to perish for his supposed delusion.

I think any fair reading of the gospel at least indicates that Jesus words were measured, masterful particularly when his words were sought to trap him by his enemies. These are not the earmarks of delusion.

How convenient is your logic: if Christianity brings people misery, it cannot be true; if Christianity has no effect on people, it cannot be true; if Christianity brings people happiness, it cannot be true.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Alexander, of course, is a case apart from Jesus, in as much as his status was based on his ability to wield power. He was not, as well, Jewish, and of course within the Jewish culture from the very beginning (Genesis), it would have been unthinkable for a man to proclaim he is God, punishable by death. So no, I reject your assertion that the statements made by Jesus were at all common within his culture or the entire history of the Jewish people. It strains credibility to believe that an individual so deluded, whose very words forfeited his life could have found any credibility in his own time, much less subsequent countless generations, to have mastered a following willing as he to perish for his supposed delusion.

I didn’t mean to imply that Alexander was Jewish. I also was not trying to say that the claim that one was God was a common claim, just that people formed opinions about their own place in the Universe for less than logical reasons, the example being that many Jews thought they were the Messiah.

I still think that Jesus could’ve genuinely believed He was a God. It was discouraged in his culture, but I think that lots of people develop weird beliefs for all kinds of reasons. That’s assuming that the statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are accurate. Christian apologist William Lance Craig acknowledged that they could have been legendary, attributed to Jesus later, after his death (Craig himself does not believe this of course, but he was simply acknowledging that this was one flaw in the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord trilemna).

I think any fair reading of the gospel at least indicates that Jesus words were measured, masterful particularly when his words were sought to trap him by his enemies. These are not the earmarks of delusion.

You seem to think that if someone has one crazy belief, then they must be stark, raving, foaming at the mouth, completely crazy. One can have a really crazy belief or two, such as the belief that one is God, without being totally rabidly insane. Other than those one or two crazy beliefs, they can be very normal, and even wise. Hitler was obviously insane, but he was still able to be a brilliant politician, public speaker, manipulator, and military strategist (I’m NOT trying to imply that Jesus was anything like Hitler, just so no one accuses me of that).

How convenient is your logic: if Christianity brings people misery, it cannot be true;

Are you talking to me? I don’t recall saying this at all. Some people have argued this, but I strongly disagree with that position, so I find it hard to believe I was one of them. Are you sure that I was the one who said this? And could you show me where I said this?

if Christianity has no effect on people, it cannot be true;

Again, I don’t know where you’re getting this… It wasn’t me who said this. Were you talking to me?

if Christianity brings people happiness, it cannot be true.

I said that Christianity bringing people happiness does not imply that it is true, I certainly never said that the fact that Christianity brings people happiness implies that it cannot be true! Even I am not that stupid. I again have to ask where you’re getting this from?
If you’re going to be condescending,

How convenient is your logic:

Then could you at least tell me where I said these things that you’re accusing me of?

V

 

[Biggie]

If you’re going to be condescending,

Then could you at least tell me where I said these things that you’re accusing me of?

V

If a person wishes to be invincibly unconvinced, he certainly can be. If success, failure and nullity are evidence of nothing, then what can be proven? I am not being condescending, merely appreciating irony.

I think the accomplishment of Christ in establishing his church is so unlikely as to be nearly inconceivable when the scope of history is properly understood. (i.e. his origins in a backwater of a dark corner of the vast Roman empire, his status as an itinerant carpenter, his ignominious end in a blasphemer’s execution and burial in an unmarked, borrowed grave) That does not prove he is who he says he is, but it certainly lends credibility. I think the fact that he gave his own life in support of his claims, told others their lives would be required of them for believing him, the fact that they gave their lives willingly does not prove he is who he says he is, but it lends it credibility. I think that the testimony and thoughts of a multitude of great philosophers and thinkers over two thousand years, all of whom willing to stake their lives on a belief in him does not prove he is who he says he is, but it lends it credibility.

But then even as he said, “An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

 

[Call_Me_V]

If a person wishes to be invincibly unconvinced, he certainly can be. If success, failure and nullity are evidence of nothing, then what can be proven? I am not being condescending, merely appreciating irony.

You still never showed me where I aid any of the things that you attributed to me when you said,

How convenient is your logic: if Christianity brings people misery, it cannot be true; if Christianity has no effect on people, it cannot be true; if Christianity brings people happiness, it cannot be true.

I did not say ANY of these things. I’m going to have to assume you were trying to set up a strawman unless you can show me where I said the thing that you attributed to me, or admit that I never actually said them.

I think the accomplishment of Christ in establishing his church is so unlikely as to be nearly inconceivable when the scope of history is properly understood. (i.e. his origins in a backwater of a dark corner of the vast Roman empire, his status as an itinerant carpenter, his ignominious end in a blasphemer’s execution and burial in an unmarked, borrowed grave)

His church spread very successfully(though not as quick as Mormonism did), but what does that show?

I think the fact that he gave his own life in support of his claims, told others their lives would be required of them for believing him, the fact that they gave their lives willingly does not prove he is who he says he is, but it lends it credibility.

Many people have given their lives for all kinds of movements. Communists, for example, were one of the groups best able to resist torture during the Holocaust, and willingly gave their lives for their movement. And yet, Communism is an economic model, that makes claims about the world that should be tested on their own merits, rather than being judged by the devotion of its adherents. Similarly, Christianity makes specific claims about the world, and those claims should be judged on their own merits, regardless of the devotion of Christianity’s adherents (which is impressive, but not more so than many other religions and and ideologies).

I think that the testimony and thoughts of a multitude of great philosophers and thinkers over two thousand years, all of whom willing to stake their lives on a belief in him does not prove he is who he says he is, but it lends it credibility.

This is called an argument from authority, and is widely recognized as a textbook logical fallacy. It goes something like “Lots of smart people were Christian, therefore Christianity is true”. What matters is not how many people believe in Christianity, nor their intellect, but their reasons for being Christian. If they had good solid reasons for what they believe, that is what’s important. Otherwise, appealing to philosophers and thinkers is just a textbook logical fallacy.

But then even as he said, “An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

I’m well aware that the Christian Bible says I’m evil for not believing. Surely youunderstand that every religion says that non believers are evil. Why should I believe that I’m evil for not believing in Christianity, but I’m completely blameless for not believing in Islam, when the Quran assures me that I’m evil for not believing in it?

V

 

[Biggie]

I’m well aware that the Christian Bible says I’m evil for not believing. Surely youunderstand that every religion says that non believers are evil. Why should I believe that I’m evil for not believing in Christianity, but I’m completely blameless for not believing in Islam, when the Quran assures me that I’m evil for not believing in it?

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.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

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

To this day this Church he had gathered around him …is still proclaiming him. And joy is being found. Others are hearing the ‘come and see’ and encountering the same Risen one …in the Gospels…in the prayer…in the sacraments…in joy.

The follow him and they know.

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)

seek…pray…read the Catechism…come and see…

He is our hope. He is the risen Lord

It is him propose to you…*Jesus of Nazareth *

(he is the reason to be Catholic of course…)

 

[Marlowann]

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.